Your point is well made. Also, the larger pixels are more sensitiv (higher ISO) and less sensitive to noise (better image). Between those and your comments about lens resolution a 24x36 would be far better than a smaller chip with the same overall pixel count. A 6MP full frame sensor is pretty much the same as what is being used in medium format digital backs right now.
Ciao, Graywolf ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: Re: Re: Foveon Fotos > T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > Let me warn you, the print from a Canon D30 Mike Johnson sent into > > the Challenge, the one that made me ask if I should use such prints > > to rate the printers, was so good it made my eyes blink. > > Let that be a lesson to the pixel counters; there's a lot more to image > quality than just the number of pixels a camera records. People who think > the Foveon (or the Philips or the Fuji or whatever) won't equal 35mm film > because it doesn't capture enough pixels are missing this. Of course those > who say it'll be *better* are probably missing it too. The proof or lack > thereof will be in the prints. > > I'm really curious about these particular new sensors but the one I'm most > interested in is actually the oldest: the Philips. A full-frame chip gives > you more than the advantage of being able to use wide angle lenses. It gives > you the full resolution of your lenses. Consider two CCDs, both producing > 6 megapixels, but one being full-frame and the other being smaller. A 35mm > frame has a diagonal dimension of 43mm. If you use a CCD with a diagonal > of, say, 28mm, you gat a "focal length multiplier" factor of about 1.5 with > the smaller chip. Now say your lens has a resolution of a nice round figure > like 50 lpm. That works out to 1400 lines across the frame of the small > sensor. A full-frame sensor, however, with *the same lens* would get 2100 > lines across the full frame. In other words, the smaller CCD not only multiplies > your focal length by 1.5, it *divides* the effective resolution of your > lens by 1.5. The pixel giveth and the pixel taketh away. > > This assumes all things being equal, of course, and all other things are > never equal. There are plenty of other ways to screw up a chip, so rather > than predict great things from the Philips CCD, I'm going to sit back and > wait to see how things shake out. Like I said, I'm really curious to see > images from this latest batch of sensors. > > > -- > Mark Roberts > www.robertstech.com > - > 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 . - 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 .
