That all supposes that we are really talking about sensors with a 16 bit dynamic range and not some avertising holky polky. You could record 16 bits from a 12 bit sensor but the last 4 bits would just be useless noise.
Anyway, the difference that I think you are asking about is simply the dynamic range of the sensor in question.
--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
