http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/ultimateSensor.pdf
As for the minimum pixel size Rob, yes the pixel logically should be larger than the wavelength of the light that it has to capture. However, if we are talking wavelengths of light, we are measuring in nanometers. This is millionth's of a meter...as you know, and some light wavelengths are as tiny as 400 nanometers (i.e. violet) - that's 400 millionths of a meter. If a pixel size was in the order of say 100 nanometers (improbable, but possible) then we could certainly pack a few of 'em onto a 35mm sized DSLR sensor.
All I am saying is never say never...and I certainly don't consider myself foolish by thinking (dreaming?)about what the future may hold despite BR's opinion to the contrary.
Cheers
Shaun
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Feb 2003 at 1:41, Peter Alling wrote:
When you look at giga pixels in a reasonable sized sensor you're running into fundamental
physical constraints. In other words you can't pack the photons tight enough for a hand held
device.
It's more fundamental than that, there is an obvious minimum size of a sensor pixel and that is that it has to be larger than the wave-length of the light that it is designed to capture, regardless of technological advances.
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
.
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658.
www.heritageservices.com.au/
Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
