There is a lot of that kind of stuff. It is like back when they said memory chips could not get any denser because they were approaching the optical limit imaging them. Then some bright guys thought, "who says we have to image them with visible light", and now they use ultraviolet.
Then there is the classic "bumble bees can not fly" from aerodynamics. Then they discovered that the fur broke up the laminar flow and that they certainly could, in theory as well as in fact. Here is an interesting speculation. Each ray of light (or photon, they are just different states of the same thing) coming through the lens carries the complete holographic image. Now if a way to capture that without mosaicing and demosaicing the image could be found, your sensitivity would be equal to the number of pixels (each pixel containing the whole image) rather than the sensitivity of the individual pixels. Feasible, even possible? Who knows? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Paul Stenquist wrote: > I know you have said that. And of course the qualifier is "given the > technology as Rob understands it." It reminds me of the Cal Tech > mathematics PhD who said in the early fifties that a car couldn't > possibly exceed 150 mph from a standing start in a quarter mile. > What's the record now? 335 or so. > Paul > On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:15 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > >> On 09/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> There's no such thing as can't in an emerging technology. Anything is >>> possible. In fact, vastly improved sensors are likely. Perhaps quite >>> soon. >> This is where understanding a little of the underlying physics can >> bring one back down to earth. Unless we can find a way to multiply the >> number of photons that hit the sensor then things aren't going to get >> miraculously better regardless of the sensor tech. >> >> >> -- >> Rob Studdert >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
