Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-19 Thread graywolf
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread David Savage
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread DagT
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread graywolf
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread David J Brooks
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread mike wilson
> > 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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread Digital Image Studio
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread graywolf
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

RE: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen
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 - [ > ... ] > >

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread Toralf Lund
> 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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-18 Thread Toralf Lund
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

RE: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-17 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> 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

RE: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-17 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> -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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread Digital Image Studio
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread graywolf
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"

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread John Francis
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread Digital Image Studio
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread graywolf
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread John Francis
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-16 Thread graywolf
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread Jim King
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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread Toralf Lund
>> 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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread graywolf
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.

RE: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> -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,

RE: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread Antti-Pekka Virjonen
> -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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-15 Thread Toralf Lund
> 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

Re: It is ingenious! Was: Does this mean what I think it means?

2006-09-14 Thread Hans Imglueck
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.