Re: Vs: Vs: Comparing digital to film

[Ryan K. Brooks]

Alin Flaider wrote:

  I'm afraid there's no hard evidence as of 100% fill factor. This is
  rather a target figure for all manufacturers and it only takes a bit
  of wishful thinking to jump to conclusions. The sad fact is that the
  active part of the pixels only gets around 30% of the light.
  Microlenses, traps for stray photoelectrons and other solutions to
  circumvent this only artificially increase the fill factor, adding
  noise as well. The overall result needs to be heavily processed in
  order to present the beautiful, uniformly lit, grainless surfaces
  that people take as a digital attribute.

No hard evidence? A data sheet is as good as the evidence is gonna get. Maybe it's 99.5%- doesn't matter.

In the astro world, our noise levels can be as low as a few electrons - so if these chips were losing light on the front end, we'd know it in our exposures.

R