1. Sensors Are Outrunning the Data Path
Not long ago, most image sensors were modest in resolution and speed. That’s no longer the case. Thanks to rapid advances in CMOS technology, sensors now produce staggering amounts of data — so much, in fact, that the challenge isn’t just capturing the image anymore, but moving the data from sensor to computer without hiccups.
Take Gpixel’s GSPRINT5514BSI as an example. It delivers a 14-megapixel resolution (4,608 × 3,072) with 5.5 μm pixels in APS-C format. Depending on the mode, it can reach up to 670 frames per second at 10-bit, 350 fps at 12-bit, or 80 fps when running dual 12-bit HDR. The result is a raw throughput that approaches 95 gigabits per second. On top of that, the sensor achieves 86% quantum efficiency at 510 nm, has a 30 ke⁻ full well capacity, and reaches nearly 80 dB dynamic range in HDR mode.
At those speeds, the bottleneck isn’t the sensor anymore. It’s the data pipe. And that’s where the conversation shifts from pixels to interfaces.
2. How Camera Makers Are Adapting
Tucsen has been quick to recognize this shift. Its latest flagship cameras — the Leo 5514 Pro, the Leo 3243 Pro, and the Gemini 8K TDI — are all designed to push enormous amounts of data. The Leo 5514 Pro streams 14 MP at up to 670 fps. The Leo 3243 Pro handles 32 MP at 100 fps. And the Gemini 8K TDI runs an 8208-pixel line at a blazing 1 MHz rate.
Instead of turning to 100-gigabit Ethernet, Tucsen went with 100-gigabit CoaXPress-over-Fiber (CoF). At first glance that might seem surprising — after all, Ethernet has the reputation of being plug-and-play, and at lower speeds (1–10 Gb) it’s often the obvious choice. But at 100 Gb, Ethernet is no longer a simple cable swap; it requires dedicated cards, careful tuning, and often a lot of engineering overhead.
CoF, by contrast, is designed from the ground up for imaging. It guarantees that frames don’t get dropped, that timing stays precise, and that fiber cables can run long distances without EMI issues. Just as important, CoF supports hardware-level synchronization across multiple cameras, which is critical in fields like semiconductor inspection, scientific imaging, and VR/3D capture.
Tucsen hasn’t abandoned Ethernet entirely, but for these high-end models, it made the strategic choice to focus on CoF first.
3. CoF vs. 100 Gb Ethernet — Why They Feel So Different
On paper, CoF and 100 Gb Ethernet both promise 100 gigabits per second. In practice, they behave very differently once you plug in a real camera.
The first big difference is in how they handle data delivery. CoF is deterministic — it was purpose-built to stream camera data in order, with no loss, and with predictable latency. That’s exactly what you need when a sensor like the GSPRINT5514 is pumping out nearly 95 Gb/s continuously. Ethernet, on the other hand, is a best-effort system. Under heavy load, packets can be dropped, delayed, or arrive out of order. TCP can recover lost data but adds latency, while UDP keeps latency low but risks losing frames entirely. In an inspection or scientific application, even one missed frame can ruin a dataset.
The second difference is protocol overhead. CoF keeps framing minimal so almost the entire link is available for image data. Ethernet, by contrast, spends significant bandwidth on headers and network behavior. Engineers can squeeze more out of it with jumbo frames or RDMA, but it takes work. When your sensor is already consuming ~94.8 Gb/s, overhead is the last thing you want.
Then there’s the question of cabling. CoF runs over fiber that can stretch for hundreds of meters with no EMI issues. Ethernet can also use fiber, but only with additional transceiver modules and often through network switches, which adds cost and sometimes jitter.
Synchronization is another dividing line. CoF gives you hardware trigger lines, genlock, and timestamps accurate to sub-microseconds. Ethernet relies on the IEEE 1588 PTP protocol. While PTP can be excellent in the right setup, it depends on the whole network being properly configured — and even then, it rarely matches the precision of hardware triggers.
Power delivery also tips in CoF’s favor. Hybrid implementations, or PoCXP (Power over CoaXPress), can deliver higher power budgets to support cooled, high-performance cameras. Standard Ethernet’s PoE, by contrast, usually tops out at around 30 watts, which is often insufficient for demanding sensors.
Finally, think about what happens on the host computer. CoF uses frame grabbers that push data directly into memory via DMA, keeping CPU usage low and leaving resources available for real-time processing. Ethernet, even with fancy NICs and bypass techniques, tends to burn CPU cycles handling packets at 100 Gb/s.
Put all of this together, and you see why CoF feels seamless in imaging while Ethernet feels like an integration project. CoF is already standardized in the imaging world, with mature frame grabbers, SDKs, and vendor support. Ethernet is universal, but making it truly “camera-grade” at 100 Gb requires careful system design that shifts the burden to the integrator.
4. The Bottom Line
Yes, both CoF and 100 Gb Ethernet advertise the same line rate. But only CoF delivers that bandwidth in a deterministic, lossless, camera-optimized way. For high-speed sensors like the GSPRINT5514, or for Tucsen’s own Leo 5514 Pro, Leo 3243 Pro, and Gemini 8K TDI, the choice is clear. CoF ensures that no frames are lost, synchronization is guaranteed, and integration stays straightforward.