>> >> http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images/80_downloads/pb_ndx2240.us.pdf#search=%22pb_ndx2240.us.pdf%22 >> >> > It doesn't explain how the job is done, though. Actually, after thinking about this for a while longer, it occurred to me that per-pixel gain and offset may be all there is to it. Such adjustments can of course cancel out certain variations in the pixel values that may be though of as "noise" (although I don't think it really is noise from a signal-processing perspective), and thus also improve the effective dynamic range somewhat.
I still think that using terms like "Dynamic Range Expansion" and talking about noise-less pictures at high ISO is hyping up the technology, though. By the same token, it seems unlikely that this would make such a great difference that the 67 is rendered obsolete. (In this context we must also take into account the fact that the setup may well have had a worse noise performance than the 6MP cameras before this circuit was added.) And I don't understand why they call this an analog image processor, either, since the block diagram indicates is done after an ADC stage... On the other hand, if this was what Aaron was talking about I think I'd agree with him that it's a no-brainer feature. In fact, I've used line-scan cameras that have such a setup earlier. I circuit like this obviously costs something, though, so it's probably not that nobody have thought about it earlier. I'm assuming here that the DSLRs don't already do proper dark and light calibration, though; I must admit I haven't really studied them hardware close enough to be 100% sure. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
