Since it does not seem to be generally realized quantum foam is the
current version of the unified field theory (any one remember ether?). I
recently read a SF where the starship was powered by tapping the charge
gradient of the quantum foam. Hence the battery comment. No, I do not
think the au
At 01:12 AM 19/09/2006, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > For those of you who insist that quantum mechanics apply at the real
> > world level, please send me a quart of quantum foam, I want to use it as
> > a battery. Reading too much SF lately .
>
>That would
You are missing the fact that the holes in this case is not in
molecules but in crystals having energy gaps corresponding to certain
energy levels, so they can move around a bit and get excited by both
phonons (e.g, thermal) and photons. Now, lets all jump into
reciprocal space to look at
Oh, lets make it more interesting. A hole is actually a molecule with
one or more missing electrons, hence holes, that can be picked up,
usually from an adjacent molecule. That explains all those moving holes
I had so much trouble understanding back when transistors came out. And
to finish off
Quoting Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 19/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks, Toralf, I have skimmed that and bookmarked to read more closely.
>>
>> Getting a bit of an Ah-Ha from that skim, apparently folks are talking
>> about electrons and holes as if they are
>
> From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> For those of you who insist that quantum mechanics apply at the real
> world level, please send me a quart of quantum foam, I want to use it as
> a battery. Reading too much SF lately .
That would be a couple of bottles of Bud. Battery acid by any n
On 19/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, Toralf, I have skimmed that and bookmarked to read more closely.
>
> Getting a bit of an Ah-Ha from that skim, apparently folks are talking
> about electrons and holes as if they are the same thing. They definately
> are not. A hole is a sp
Thanks, Toralf, I have skimmed that and bookmarked to read more closely.
Getting a bit of an Ah-Ha from that skim, apparently folks are talking
about electrons and holes as if they are the same thing. They definately
are not. A hole is a space that can accept an electron, and if we are
talking
und
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:41 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it
> means?
>
> Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
> >> I think the actual sensors do have the 14-16 bits you mention - [
> ... ]
> >
> So you are saying a 22 bit ADC is overkill. Wonder if Pentax knows that?
>
The marketing people probably don't know, or care; they only know they
can quote a higher number than the competitors.
The engineers probably deliberately chose to have extra bits, so as to
avoid problems with accum
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
>> I think the actual sensors do have the 14-16 bits you mention - [ ... ]
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes, actually I was talking about usable bits, taking the noise into
> account, thus giving 14-16bits of usable data.
>
> This is so at least with the good quality astron
> I think the actual sensors do have the 14-16 bits you mention - which
> literally means that the max charge is up to some 65000 electrons.
> However, they also have a readout noise of at least 10 electrons,
> which
> is equivalent to 3 or 4 bits. This essentially means that you are left
> with a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of graywolf
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:37 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it
> means?
>
> Lets bac
On 17/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you are saying a 22 bit ADC is overkill. Wonder if Pentax knows that?
> BTW, Rob's explanation was clearer, but still not documented for my
> curiosity.
A theoretically perfect 22 bit ADC should be able to resolve 4,194,304
voltage levels betwe
So you are saying a 22 bit ADC is overkill. Wonder if Pentax knows that?
BTW, Rob's explanation was clearer, but still not documented for my
curiosity.
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 05:45:09PM -0400, graywolf wrote:
> Can you provide a reference on that? A quick goggle search* finds
> nothing the contradicts my explanation. Your comment may be accurate on
> the quantum level but I do not think we can quite apply it to current
> image sensors, but wou
On 17/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you provide a reference on that? A quick goggle search* finds
> nothing the contradicts my explanation. Your comment may be accurate on
> the quantum level but I do not think we can quite apply it to current
> image sensors, but would be intere
Can you provide a reference on that? A quick goggle search* finds
nothing the contradicts my explanation. Your comment may be accurate on
the quantum level but I do not think we can quite apply it to current
image sensors, but would be interested in seeing something about where
you are getting
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 02:47:56PM -0400, graywolf wrote:
> Still trying to turn things around. The sensor is simply a photocell.
> The brighter the light hitting it the higher the voltage output.
> Visualize analog as curves, digital as steps. Don't get them crossed in
> your mind if you want t
Still trying to turn things around. The sensor is simply a photocell.
The brighter the light hitting it the higher the voltage output.
Visualize analog as curves, digital as steps. Don't get them crossed in
your mind if you want to understand what is going on. All the talk about
sensors like th
graywolf wrote on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:39:11 -0700
> Lets back up a bit here. You have a sensor that has an analog out put.
> You send that output to an analog to digital converter. The converter
> produces an 8, or 10, or 12, or in this case 22 bit digital
> representation of the analog signal. Th
>> It's been mentioned about two point six zillion times by now that you
>> probably don't, though. The sensor itself doesn't have a lot more than
>> 12-bits worth of latitude, so producing more bits in the A/D doesn't
>> help a lot.
>>
>
> I disagree with that a little. It's still the same s
Lets back up a bit here. You have a sensor that has an analog out put.
You send that output to an analog to digital converter. The converter
produces an 8, or 10, or 12, or in this case 22 bit digital
representation of the analog signal. Then that digital representation is
processed digitally.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Hans Imglueck
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:30 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it
> means?
>
> Hi,
> -Original Message-
> It's been mentioned about two point six zillion times by now that you
> probably don't, though. The sensor itself doesn't have a lot more than
> 12-bits worth of latitude, so producing more bits in the A/D doesn't
> help a lot.
I disagree with that a little. It's sti
> Hi,
>
> Wanted to add:
> Maybe the raw files contain the 22 bit data. If so, you can set the ISO
> to anything you wish in the post prosessing (and as many times as you
> wish).
>
May guess is this:
The signal is converted into 22 bits without a variable gain stage (like
you say). The ISO
Hi,
but the camera has to choose the exposure time for the shot and
therefore everything is fixed after the exposure. Setting an ISO in
a digital camera is just another word for under- or overexposure. So
I think what you discribe is just not possible - but a nice imagination!
Best regards, Hans.
27 matches
Mail list logo