----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip) > I do have questions, is there a theoretical limit to pixel > count/image depth/capture rate using known physics? > (snip) Sometime about 1988-90 I was discussing digital resolution with the SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) guru at the museum where I worked. At that time he lusted after an "oscillating CCD" to replace the older technology vidicon-style tube at the top end of the museum's SEM. The theory behind the oscillating CCD was that it made separate image captures at several different points during its oscillation, which were then integrated into a single image. This way the resolution was multiplied by the number of capture points during the oscillation, so I assume that its resolution was limited only by the ultimate manufacturing accuracy of the assembly. This was at a time when CCD resolution was quite poor so it might not be practical with today's sensors, after cost to benefit is calculated. As a matter of interest, the sensor wasn't used to generate an image file, instead the image was sent to a very high resolution monochrome monitor set into a tub on the control console. A camera (box with a lens and a film carrier, no shutter) was locked into the tub and exposure was a matter of the number of scans that the monitor was lit up for. Format / film was 6cm x7cm on Kodak Tech Pan developed in Technidol, and 4in x 5in Polaroid. Regards, Anthony Farr - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
