> "At the extremely high end, the KAF-16801CE CCD features 16.6 million
> pixels
> in a 4080´4080-pixel array. By using relatively large, 9´9-µm pixels, the
> device delivers greater light-capturing ability, dynamic range, and SNR
> than
> possible with the commonly used smaller pixels. As a resul
e and sooner than I dared hope!
Now, when it gets to be affordable, I'll buy one!
Guy Clark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real
iginal Message-
> From: Murphy, Bob H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:28 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
>
>
> I don't think the image sensor is the problem.
on 1/31/01 7:45 AM, Clark Guy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, Berry!
>
> D'Ohhh!!! You are quite right... That's what I get for posting at the end
> of a long day!
>
> Sorry about the confusion! Since we are actually 8X closer to that 30Mpixel
> goal mentioned earlier than I calculated,
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I guess I call any light sensor
: array a CCD from habit...I'll watch out for that.
Rather like us all all vacuam cleaners Hoovers,its sort of generic !!
Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley,
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Cost of these backs? Cost to store images?
: Space taken up with storage media?, etc
###
£4500 buys you a Lightphase studio kit comprising scan back,2 lowerpro
lights and an IR filter.
3
vs resolution
ratio in yesterday's posts, so I am suitably chastised! (good thing I'm not
designing bridges!!!)
Guy Clark
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future of
Michael
Out of interest, how much did the digital back cost?
--
Regards
Richard
//
| @ @ --->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
C _) )
--- '
__ /
> The Canon D30 is NOT a CCD array camera.
> It has a CMOS chip.
If I used the CCD relating to the D30, I know better, and it was an
oversight. Sorry, you are right, it is a CMOS sensor array. Though, that is
not relevant to the points I was making... I guess I call any light sensor
array a CC
-
From: Berry Ives [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
on 1/30/01 2:32 PM, Clark Guy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, Michael!
>
> Uhh... 35Mb file
Re: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real
> value?)
>
> The Canon D30 is NOT a CCD array camera.
> It has a CMOS chip.
>
> Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk
> For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
Clark,
I can honestly say that my scan back,still subjects only, produces far
superior digital images to those made from trannies on either my
flatbed or my drum scanner.
1. There is NO noise anywhere , either in deep shadow or highlights.
2.The capture software is essentiality scanning software
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 5:28 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
I don't think the image sensor is the problem.
I'm talking about a die that is the same size as the current one used in the
Canon D30, namely 22
The Canon D30 is NOT a CCD array camera.
It has a CMOS chip.
Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk
For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clark Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For
> : professional photography, there will be specialized digital camera
> backs
> : that can do perhaps as much as 25Mpixels or better using scanning
> : technologies.
on 1/30/01 2:32 PM, Clark Guy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, Michael!
>
> Uhh... 35Mb file at 24bits per pixel corresponds to what... 1.45 million
> pixels. That's just 8 bit color.
>
Haven't you confused bits with bytes? 24 bits is 3 bytes. 35 MB--not 35
Mb--would give you 35 MB/3B = 11
x27;s easy to get less wires out of a larger package.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Murphy, Bob H
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:28 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Future of Photography
x27;t this be doe today?
--Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Clark Guy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real
> value?)
>
> HI, Bob!
>
> Th
egabytes at 24
bits/pixel)
I'm not convinced that my balls need cleaning...
Guy Clark
did I really say that??? :-)
-Original Message-
From: Michael Wilkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future of Photo
30, 2001 11:24 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
I'm not too sure about the pixel and array size statement. The CCD's in
current 3.3Mpixel CCD cameras like the Olympus 3030 have a diagonal
dimension about a third that of
> Clark Guy writes ...
> > I believe that digital cameras will continue to get better
> > and better, but ...
> > ...
> > because we are already approaching the limit of how small a
> > single pixel can be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength
> > of light, and we are approaching this limit eve
> Given Moore's Law
I'd like to give my rant on this... It is NOT a law damn it! It is an
assertion. One that MANY people in the industry made before, and about the
same time Moore did. He did not come up with this. It is like saying Bill
Gates invented software.
Sorry ;-)
- Original Message -
From: "Clark Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For
: professional photography, there will be specialized digital camera
backs
: that can do perhaps as much as 25Mpixels or better using scanning
: technologies. ~~~
~
Clark Guy writes ...
> I believe that digital cameras will continue to get better
> and better, but ...
> ...
> because we are already approaching the limit of how small a
> single pixel can be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength
> of light, and we are approaching this limit even now. ...
e next 6 to 10 years.
--Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Clark Guy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)
>
> HI, everyone!
>
> I guess
HI, everyone!
I guess I'll weigh in with my opinion on the future of photography...
In ten years
I believe that digital cameras will continue to get better and better, but
the rate of improvement will be less and less as time goes by. Unless there
is a dramatic change in the methods of man
26 matches
Mail list logo
