[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 09/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I know you have said that. And of course the qualifier is "given the >>technology as Rob understands it." It reminds me of the Cal Tech >>mathematics PhD who said in the early fifties that a car couldn't >>possibly exceed 150 mph from a standing start in a quarter mile. >>What's the record now? 335 or so. > > > I think a more valid comparison was if someone said that they could > double the available energy in a fixed volume of regulation fuel In > other words to get another stop of sensitivity the sensor has to be > twice as sensitive to the finite volume of photons exciting it for a > given area. Very hard to do as there is no practical way to amplify > the light hitting the sensor sites beyond what is already implemented > via micro-lenses and sensors can't be made twice as efficient as they > are already over 50% efficient. >
So is the limitation the number of photons available, or the amount of photons that actually get captured and detected? I.e. if the sensor can hold 65K photons, were there many more than this many that it could have captured? 65K photons sounds like a measly amount in terms of such a small particle. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
