keith cooper wrote:
I'd like to see the engineering types weigh in here. I've read that dynamic range is a function of the size of the photosites or wells. As I understand the problem, CMOS chips require additional electronics at each wellsite , which dictates the spacing of the sites as well as limiting the area of each site. If you keep cramming more wellsites onto the same size chip, and if bigger really is better in terms of dynamic range, there would seem to be a trade off in order.
there is no trumpeting of more dynamic range...
I've seen discussions about whether this was a limit of Canon's CMOS sensor process or a limitation of the processing capability of the DIGIC II processor. CCD MF backs do manage better at the moment, but I suspect that before long we will see 14-15 bit per channel rather than the current ~12 from a DSLR.
It seems to me that the increased dynamic range has always been the main differentiating factor between CCDs and CMOS chips. I've always thought it was the reason why the tonality of CCD captures seemed richer, with smoother transitions than CMOS captures. Subtle, but noticeable when editing. Kind of like comparing LF transparencies to slides.
There used to be a website with much information on the differences in these two technologies. Many white papers to peruse. I seem to have lost my bookmark. Anyone know where to look?
-- Jeff Smith
Smith/Walker Design and Photography
P. O. Box 58630 Seattle, WA 98138 ph: 253-872-2111 fx: 253-872-21400
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
