Hi John ... Couldn't forget that linear stuff since I never knew it <vbg>
Don't really understand the 2D thing. Are there two rows of pixels, one below the other? Nah, that can't be it? So how come the 'blad can have a 16-bit sensor, and some DSLR cameras 14-bit? Is it a matter of space (which is what I'm inferring from your remarks)? I heard talk of a Nikon D3 with a 16-bit sensor, BTW ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 10/23/2004 12:42:22 PM > Subject: Re: istD bit depth > > Shel Belinkoff mused: > > > > The istD has a bit depth of 12. I seem to recall some DSLR with a bit > > depth of 14 ... maybe. The specs on the new Hasselblad claim a bit depth > > of 16. Why is it that so many DSLR cameras are using a bit depth of 12? > > Is there a physical or design reason? Cost? My little Nikon scanner has a > > bit depth of 16 ... why not a DSLR? > > > > Shel > > Don't forget that your scanner only has a single row of sensors, not a > two-dimensional array, and that it only has to work at a single speed. > > Of the two, the fact that it's only a linear sensor is more important. > You can put the extra processing elements, etc., alongside the sensor > without having to worry too much how much room they take up. In a 2D > sensor you're trying to put another row of pixels there.
