>From: "Robert Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BTW, are you saying that MF lenses are more suitable because their
> resolution is way lower then top off the line 35mm lenses?
Sort of...
If you look at the image of a point, you see a series of a central
peak, and a set of rings of decreasing magnitude. These are called
Airy Rings. Once you have 2-3 pixels across that cener peak, you have
things as good as they will ever get. But by going to smaller pixels,
you are also reducing the volume, and thus the electron capacity of
the pixels. The lower this is, the less the brigtness range you can
handle.
This is already a weak point of most digital imaging systems. CCDs are
routinly run with liquid N2 cooling in astronomy and other
applications, or with Peltier effect coolers. Can't see this catching
on with the P&S set somehow :)
On the other side of the size issue, there are two things. First is
the bigger the device, the lower the yield and higher the cost. The
current reticle size limit for IC steppers is currently about 32mm, so
the full frame 35 MM Kodak unit already breaks that barrier. (The
Kodak unit btw uses a sensor made for them by Fiil in Belgium. It is
not a Kodak one.) If you can turn out large CCDs for a reasonable
cost, then driving well sizze down is not a good idea, and in fact
doing a matching exercise of lens resolution and well size would be a
really nice thing to have happen. A design that does a good job and
breaks out of the SLR mould will also be a big win.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
