multipliers of 1.5 to 1.6.
BTW I will comment on your calculations - isnt 2/3 = 16mm?
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 07 December 2001 00:24
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
On 6 Dec 2001 at 17:54, Rob Brigham wrote
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Brigham
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
OK lets be pedantic:
I dont comment on your calculations, but we were not talking about a
2/3 CCD. we were
]
Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
Surely you would be better off with a full frame CCD which had the same
density as a smaller one (therefore higher pixel count cos its bigger),
and cropping the final image. This would be far better than having non
standard focal length multiplers as we have
On 6 Dec 2001 at 17:54, Rob Brigham wrote:
Which is why I said:
'a full frame CCD which had the same density as a smaller one (therefore
higher pixel count cos its bigger)'
Full frame with same density as 5.25 2/3 size CCD would give 7.875MP.
Not trying to be pedantic but a 2/3 CCD has
Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely you would be better off with a full frame CCD which had the same
density as a smaller one (therefore higher pixel count cos its bigger),
and cropping the final image. This would be far better than having non
standard focal length multiplers as we have
5 matches
Mail list logo
