Perry Pellechia wrote: > I agree with you Paul. We tend to limit our expectations based on > what we have seen before. It is usually better to just sit back and > watch where the technology leads us to.
I don't think there was ever much progress made by letting the technology do the leading, whatever that means. This particular instance seems to encompass the worst of all worlds. Multiple (it doesn't say how many but I get the impression of many) moveable mirrors, one pixel and an exposure time of, at the moment, 15 minutes, that they expect to get down to "a few seconds". What happens if your single pixel goes "hot"? > > > On 10/6/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Interesting. And it demonstrates that digital technology is far from >>its zenith. Something to think about when you hear the whines about >>how low noise and high resolution are impossible without large sensors. >>Paul >>On Oct 6, 2006, at 9:31 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote: >> >> >>>When a single pixel may be all you need: >>> >>>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0003FA95- >>>AAB6-1526-AAB683414B7F0000&ref=rss >>>or/ >>>http://tinyurl.com/kezzp >>> >>>I hope you find this interesting too. >>> >>>Perry. >>>-- >>><----------------------------------------------------> >>>Perry Pellechia >>> >>>Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry >>><----------------------------------------------------> >>> >>>-- >>>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 >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
