Thanks, Mark. That is one of those answers you just have to happen to know. Logic doesn't help without the history lesson! That's a good site. Explains it clearly.
Now tell me something else... All other things being equal, suppose you have 3 camera bodies with 2, 3 and 4 megapixel CCD sensors. All three on the same sensor real estate. All 1/2.7 CCDs, for instance. Would the 2.0 Mpixel image contain less potential artifacts or other problems, since the pixels are further apart? And, if the software arithmetic is (algorithms are) equally good, might you end up with almost as good an image as with the 4.0? If you had to chose between a 4.0 and 5.0 Mpixel CCD, all of the same type (1/1.8, for instance) would you expect them to perform equally, or might there be an edge for the less packed CCD? I only ask because I read somewhere about the more you pack a given sized sensor, the more the chances are for degraded image. In other words, the more pixels per area, the greater the potential for image problems. Might be all hogwash...I don't know. kwith whaley * * * * Mark Roberts wrote: > > Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Speaking of which, could someone please tell me about why CCD sensor > >sizes are shown as a fraction. > >For instance, 1/2.7 inch. > >This is, of course, reducible to 0.3704". Roughly. > >Which represents what? The area of the chip? 0.3704 square inches? Or, > >inches square? > >Why make a fraction out of it, whatever "it" is? > > The designations to which you are referring are based on a standard for > vidicon tubes, the original electronic image sensors. > There's an explanation here: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
