[HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Jim Brick <jim@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 07:45:48 -0700
Pixels cannot be made any smaller than they currently are being made.
The smaller the pixel, the more noise. five square microns is about
the limit for a quality photograph. P&S cameras have smaller pixels
in order to pack in the consumer hyped 'magapixels'. But as you know,
P&S cameras are noisy at higher ISOs. The best sensors have from
seven to nine square microns per pixel. Each pixel requires a
capacitance (electron bucket) in order to capture the electrons that
the light intensity has allowed through the photo diode junction. The
smaller the pixel, the smaller the electron bucket. The smaller the
bucket, the less dynamic range the pixel has. This is why ALL
professional level digital cameras and backs typically use pixels
around nine microns square. This gives them large enough electron
buckets to capture an extended dynamic range which has the side
effect of greatly reducing noise, which has the side effect of
allowing superb photographs to be taken at ISO 1600 and higher.
ALL of the visualized increase in digital camera image quality has
been provided by software/firmware engineers. Just look at what
Genuine Fractals can do. You don't need a 39mp digital back to
produce 30x40 prints. A good DSLR, properly used, and the resulting
file pumped up via CS3 or Genuine Fractals, will give you a result
that looks as good as the o/p of a H3D. Of course H3D O/P could be
pumped up to mural size. But it's all 'software', NOT hardware. To
increase the megapixel output, think interpolation.
The five to nine micron pixel size is a wall that probably will not
be torn down with current technology. Just as optical microscopes hit
the wall decades ago, a new technology had to be invented, the SEM,
in order to be able to look at smaller stuff. The same with digital
sensors. A new technology will have to be invented in order for an
image sensor to ever approach the physical data capabilities of film.
With millions of software engineers working on image data, the need
may never come. Just look at what software produces with MRI data.
Creating an image out of random oscillating atoms.
:-)
Jim
PS... they make sensors with one square micron pixels. They basically
are graphic devices. Black or white. Nothing in between.
At 11:49 PM 8/21/2007 -0700, Richard Schiff wrote:
In theory, as technology gets better and better it should be
possible to get the resolving power of an 8X10 into a 24X36 inch
detector... the problem is that optical science has a long way to go
to get optics to match the detectors....
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
- Follow-Ups:
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Barry Kleider
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Sauerwald Mark
- References:
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Bernard
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Richard Schiff
Other related posts:
- » [HUG] Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- » [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Barry Kleider
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Sauerwald Mark
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Bernard
- [HUG] Re: Digi-Blads Beware!
- From: Richard Schiff