My point is that the inter-pixel gap is 0 in optical terms, not that pixels are 0 size, pixels are some number of microns.
The 14/32mb argument is a different one, IMHO. And in my experience with the 1Ds, there's no way it's pulling in less information than scanned 35mm film. This argument is the subjective one.
R
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
OK - but why do cameras interpolate between pixels?
There is no 100 % in real world and pixels are bigger than sub-optical (we are not talking about electron microscopy here but capturing visible light.
Maybe no information is lost BETWEEN pixels but the pixel size causes information loss - 14 Mb digital, 32 Mb film. All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti-----
L�hett�j�: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 21:02
Aihe: Re: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film
No, not really. The huge majority of area on a ccd is sensitive to incoming light, even moreso with modern cmos. Just because the diode junction is sometimes small doesn't mean it doesn't "see" everything thru the microlens.
e.g. The DCS-14n chip uses the entire p-junction base (or back if you prefer) of the semiconductor to detect light, and therefore claims a 100% fill factor. I assume this is even without the microlenses, but even the crappiest interline chip gets 70% these days. (which would be a tiny chip anyway, with small sites, hence small distances)
Here's someone else that agrees with me:
http://www.binbooks.com/books/photo/i/l/541E6AF912&orig=1
The 1Ds also claims a 100% fill factor. And 100% of 8.8 microns doesn't leave a lot of "dead space".
dpreview has a dated discussion of this, but any google search can show you the newer chips have 100% coverage:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm
So if we agree that anything much less than 400nm (.4microns) is below visible, then a (big pixeled) 8 micron image sensor with 95% or more fill factor has a suboptical distance between it's 'eyes'.
I'd argue that this gap is small enough not to matter since it's built to a far better tolerance than the camera lenses anyway. Someone care to compare this numerically to the boundaries between film grain of an E6 emulsion?
This is getting like the misinformation about edge fall off because the wells are too deep that we had last year. Where's that argument now? I still stand behind my yield statement.
"Oh no, the sky is falling, and the camera is making up information between pixels".
R
Raimo Korhonen wrote:
Suboptical distance? You must be kidding ;-) This kind of distances occur in microscopy, not in digital cameras. Why do you think the cameras interpolate across the gaps? All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti-----
L�hett�j�: Ryan K. Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P�iv�: 27. tammikuuta 2003 19:11
Aihe: Re: Vs: Comparing digital to film
Raimo Korhonen wrote:Nah - pixels have a threshold like film. And between one pixel and another pixel there is a gap, like film, only larger. Digital loses fine detail but this seems not to be important.That gap is a suboptical distance- no information is "lost" between pixels.
