Re: K10D Resolving power
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] The bumblebee flight issue is really not that anyone ever proved that they *can't* fly, just that they can't determine the exact mechanism of *how* they fly: Bees not only move their wings to fly, they constantly change the angle of attack of the wing and, most problematic, the *shape* of the wing. The number of possible permutations of all these variables just makes it impossible for even the most powerful supercomputer to work with all the data. Amazing how blind chance/serendipitous mutations made all that happen. And we still can't figure it out. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Digital Image Studio a écrit : 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. This leaves us with the bigger sensors way, then. Provided that the manufacturers can resist the temptation to produce more pixels instead of bigger pixels, which I doubt, given marketing rules nowadays. Patrice -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
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. That's absurd logic. What you're saying is essentially that Rob must be wrong now because someone else was wrong in the past, about something else entirely. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: Do you expect that cars will do double 355 in the quarter in 50 years? Friction's a bitch. That was 335. Probably not. NHRA, the organization that controls drag racing in the US and generally establishes a baseline for the rest of the world, imposed limits on displacement, gearing and other variables to keep speeds down around 330 mph. Elapsed times will continue to improve. Eventually they'll probably get to the four-second mark. I think the record is around 4.45 seconds now. I doubt that we'll ever see three seconds flat with a piston engined car, but I'm making no guarantees:-). Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
That's an absurd response. I didn't say Rob MUST be wrong now. I said he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based only on the technology as it was understood at the time. On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Toralf Lund 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. That's absurd logic. What you're saying is essentially that Rob must be wrong now because someone else was wrong in the past, about something else entirely. - Toralf -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
My impression is that all this is a good thing. :) Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presuming that the K10D actually has 22bits in the A-D, what it's useful for is minimizing roundoff error in transformations. It presents an advantage to tonal gradation accuracy for that reason, with less tendency to clipping and shifting. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
That's an absurd response. I didn't say Rob MUST be wrong now. I said he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based only on the technology as it was understood at the time. I think you implied more that just could. Also, what you are referring to seems to be a very general remark about the development of technology, whereas Rob is talking about limitations imposed by the laws of physics. That's not the same thing at all. But of course he *could* be wrong. Even the whole concept of quantum mechanics is still just a theory when you get down to it (I mean, who here has ever observed a single photon?) The point is just that the incorrectness of conclusions drawn in a remotely related field in the past, has no influence whatsoever on the validity of conclusions drawn now - and asserting that people have been wrong before adds very little to the discussion. If you were to evaluate and compare the reasoning behind the conclusions, on the other hand, you might get somewhere. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
On 9/9/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I mean, who here has ever observed a single photon?) I might have. But I was stoned at the time so I could have been mistaken. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Dave, They usually run in pairs, or gangs of four or eight. You may have seen two that were very close together. I once saw three, but it was late, and it looked like two were helping one out of a bar and hailing a photon taxi (which is quite a sight!) Shel [Original Message] From: David Savage On 9/9/06, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I mean, who here has ever observed a single photon?) I might have. But I was stoned at the time so I could have been mistaken. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Yes. G On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:57 AM, Jack Davis wrote: My impression is that all this is a good thing. :) Presuming that the K10D actually has 22bits in the A-D, what it's useful for is minimizing roundoff error in transformations. It presents an advantage to tonal gradation accuracy for that reason, with less tendency to clipping and shifting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based only on the technology as it was understood at the time. Possible sensor, not practical, at least not for a while. Take a MUCH improved Fovion type sensor so each pixel sensor gets all protons, not just R or G or B. Stick all the electronics on the back so the sensor wells occupy close to 100% of the surface of the chip. Improve the electronics to the point where you can count each photon with practically no noise. Highly improbable, but not impossible. Should give some increase in sensitivity and latitude. Powell -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
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
Re: K10D Resolving power
No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the answers, but we do not really understand the question. With more knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it can not be done. It is axiomatic that The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. It is very easy to get to thinking we know everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do. Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Toralf Lund 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. That's absurd logic. What you're saying is essentially that Rob must be wrong now because someone else was wrong in the past, about something else entirely. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/09/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I think a more valid comparison was if someone said that they could double the available energy in a fixed volume of regulation fuel In other words to get another stop of sensitivity the sensor has to be twice as sensitive to the finite volume of photons exciting it for a given area. Very hard to do as there is no practical way to amplify the light hitting the sensor sites beyond what is already implemented via micro-lenses and sensors can't be made twice as efficient as they are already over 50% efficient. So is the limitation the number of photons available, or the amount of photons that actually get captured and detected? I.e. if the sensor can hold 65K photons, were there many more than this many that it could have captured? 65K photons sounds like a measly amount in terms of such a small particle. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
On 10/09/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So is the limitation the number of photons available, or the amount of photons that actually get captured and detected? I.e. if the sensor can hold 65K photons, were there many more than this many that it could have captured? 65K photons sounds like a measly amount in terms of such a small particle. See the following tables: http://www.britastro.org/vss/ccdtable.html -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the answers, but we do not really understand the question. No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying that. The argument implied is something like: 1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about technology. 2. A PhD in the 50s made a prediction about technology. 3. That PhD's prediction turned out to be ridiculous. 4. Rob Studdert's prediction is therefore ridiculous. Which is a logical fallacy. 4. may well turn out to be true, of course, but it does not follow from 1-3. Merely saying that people shouldn't be drawing firm conclusions about technology because it changes fast, is something else entirely, and something I would never have commented on. What I don't approve of, is that every time someone says that something may not be doable, somebody else brings up an example of something else that was said to be impossible, but is now consider the order of the day, so as to ridicule the original argument or the person making it. Or at least, I sometimes feel inclined to point out that their examples don't really prove anything. Also (not that this proves anything, either), I think you can find just as many examples of someone saying a long time ago that something was impossible or improbable, when it is still considered as such today. Or of people making completely unrealistic predictions about what technology would bring. One example that springs to mind now is an interview from 1950 with a Swedish scientist (I don't remember of what denomination), that was shown on TV a few years ago. This person was asked what he thought his country would look like in 50 years, i.e. in 2000 - to which he responded that he firmly believed everyone would be living in little module homes that might be transported around with a helicopter, and placed wherever you wanted to spend your time the next few days of weeks... With more knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it can not be done. It is axiomatic that The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. It is very easy to get to thinking we know everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do. Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. Ah, yes, except Rob also argued that the current material can already register over 50% of the photons available, so there is not much to go on. You could also increase the max for the total amount registered (i.e. the full-well capacity of the sensor), but there is also a limit to how far you might go in utilising that, since you must also have a practical exposure setup. And the laws of physic probably also put some clear limits (independent of type of material) on the charges you can hold. But be that as it may. I think it is also worth noticing that Rob has never made statements like there will be no camera able to resolve 22 bits. He is always a lot more specific than that, and talk about sensors of a certain size or material, and also, I think, imply that he is referring to a physical/optical setup similar to the one of current SLRs etc. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
I remember reading that the bubble bee example was done at a party on a napkin and the next day the person who showed that bees cannot fly came back and said that he forgot to include something in the calculation. Message: 1 Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:46:30 -0400 From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: K10D Resolving power To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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? -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Ivan Shukster wrote: I remember reading that the bubble bee example was done at a party on a napkin and the next day the person who showed that bees cannot fly came back and said that he forgot to include something in the calculation. The bumblebee flight issue is really not that anyone ever proved that they *can't* fly, just that they can't determine the exact mechanism of *how* they fly: Bees not only move their wings to fly, they constantly change the angle of attack of the wing and, most problematic, the *shape* of the wing. The number of possible permutations of all these variables just makes it impossible for even the most powerful supercomputer to work with all the data. As the story passed from one person to another it morphed into the pithy but inaccurate notion that scientists have proven that bumblebees can't fly. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
You're suggesting I presented this is a logical argument rather than an observation. That in itsellf is absurd. I didn't draw any such conclusions. I didn't say that either prediction is or was ridiculous. Read my post again. Apparently, your understanding is very limited. Paul On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the answers, but we do not really understand the question. No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying that. The argument implied is something like: 1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about technology. 2. A PhD in the 50s made a prediction about technology. 3. That PhD's prediction turned out to be ridiculous. 4. Rob Studdert's prediction is therefore ridiculous. Which is a logical fallacy. 4. may well turn out to be true, of course, but it does not follow from 1-3. Merely saying that people shouldn't be drawing firm conclusions about technology because it changes fast, is something else entirely, and something I would never have commented on. What I don't approve of, is that every time someone says that something may not be doable, somebody else brings up an example of something else that was said to be impossible, but is now consider the order of the day, so as to ridicule the original argument or the person making it. Or at least, I sometimes feel inclined to point out that their examples don't really prove anything. Also (not that this proves anything, either), I think you can find just as many examples of someone saying a long time ago that something was impossible or improbable, when it is still considered as such today. Or of people making completely unrealistic predictions about what technology would bring. One example that springs to mind now is an interview from 1950 with a Swedish scientist (I don't remember of what denomination), that was shown on TV a few years ago. This person was asked what he thought his country would look like in 50 years, i.e. in 2000 - to which he responded that he firmly believed everyone would be living in little module homes that might be transported around with a helicopter, and placed wherever you wanted to spend your time the next few days of weeks... With more knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it can not be done. It is axiomatic that The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. It is very easy to get to thinking we know everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do. Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. Ah, yes, except Rob also argued that the current material can already register over 50% of the photons available, so there is not much to go on. You could also increase the max for the total amount registered (i.e. the full-well capacity of the sensor), but there is also a limit to how far you might go in utilising that, since you must also have a practical exposure setup. And the laws of physic probably also put some clear limits (independent of type of material) on the charges you can hold. But be that as it may. I think it is also worth noticing that Rob has never made statements like there will be no camera able to resolve 22 bits. He is always a lot more specific than that, and talk about sensors of a certain size or material, and also, I think, imply that he is referring to a physical/optical setup similar to the one of current SLRs etc. - Toralf -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
He is using debating team rules for a mailing list conversation. When anyone with any sense should know, We don't go by no rules, Man GRIN. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Paul Stenquist wrote: You're suggesting I presented this is a logical argument rather than an observation. That in itsellf is absurd. I didn't draw any such conclusions. I didn't say that either prediction is or was ridiculous. Read my post again. Apparently, your understanding is very limited. Paul On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the answers, but we do not really understand the question. No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying that. The argument implied is something like: 1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about technology. 2. A PhD in the 50s made a prediction about technology. 3. That PhD's prediction turned out to be ridiculous. 4. Rob Studdert's prediction is therefore ridiculous. Which is a logical fallacy. 4. may well turn out to be true, of course, but it does not follow from 1-3. Merely saying that people shouldn't be drawing firm conclusions about technology because it changes fast, is something else entirely, and something I would never have commented on. What I don't approve of, is that every time someone says that something may not be doable, somebody else brings up an example of something else that was said to be impossible, but is now consider the order of the day, so as to ridicule the original argument or the person making it. Or at least, I sometimes feel inclined to point out that their examples don't really prove anything. Also (not that this proves anything, either), I think you can find just as many examples of someone saying a long time ago that something was impossible or improbable, when it is still considered as such today. Or of people making completely unrealistic predictions about what technology would bring. One example that springs to mind now is an interview from 1950 with a Swedish scientist (I don't remember of what denomination), that was shown on TV a few years ago. This person was asked what he thought his country would look like in 50 years, i.e. in 2000 - to which he responded that he firmly believed everyone would be living in little module homes that might be transported around with a helicopter, and placed wherever you wanted to spend your time the next few days of weeks... With more knowledge we can often see a way around a problem, rather than why it can not be done. It is axiomatic that The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. It is very easy to get to thinking we know everything, but it has been proven over and over that there is many times as many things we do not understand than there are things we do. Does that mean Rob is wrong? No, not necessarily; based on current understanding he is correct. But we do not know if current understanding is completely correct or not. Tomorrow someone could come up with some new material that can absorb many times as many photons as the current wafer material does. So, both viewpoints are valid, today. Ah, yes, except Rob also argued that the current material can already register over 50% of the photons available, so there is not much to go on. You could also increase the max for the total amount registered (i.e. the full-well capacity of the sensor), but there is also a limit to how far you might go in utilising that, since you must also have a practical exposure setup. And the laws of physic probably also put some clear limits (independent of type of material) on the charges you can hold. But be that as it may. I think it is also worth noticing that Rob has never made statements like there will be no camera able to resolve 22 bits. He is always a lot more specific than that, and talk about sensors of a certain size or material, and also, I think, imply that he is referring to a physical/optical setup similar to the one of current SLRs etc. - Toralf -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
It was simply that by 1930's aeronautical engineering calculations the lift/drag ratio of a bumblebee was far too high. With a bit more knowledge it was understood that the estimated drag was too high. No one realized that the fuzzies reduced drag that much back then. The powder on a butterfly's wing serves the same purpose. So why do we not have fuzzy airplanes? We tend to like to fly a lot faster than bumblebees do, and the effect becomes moot at those speeds. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Mark Roberts wrote: Ivan Shukster wrote: I remember reading that the bubble bee example was done at a party on a napkin and the next day the person who showed that bees cannot fly came back and said that he forgot to include something in the calculation. The bumblebee flight issue is really not that anyone ever proved that they *can't* fly, just that they can't determine the exact mechanism of *how* they fly: Bees not only move their wings to fly, they constantly change the angle of attack of the wing and, most problematic, the *shape* of the wing. The number of possible permutations of all these variables just makes it impossible for even the most powerful supercomputer to work with all the data. As the story passed from one person to another it morphed into the pithy but inaccurate notion that scientists have proven that bumblebees can't fly. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/09/06, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So is the limitation the number of photons available, or the amount of photons that actually get captured and detected? I.e. if the sensor can hold 65K photons, were there many more than this many that it could have captured? 65K photons sounds like a measly amount in terms of such a small particle. The 65K photons/photosite holding part I understand completely. What troubles me is that figure (x2 for the 50% efficiency) for the actual number of photons landing on that spot in the chip. It just seems like a mind boggling small number compared to the usual numbers we talk about when dealing with atoms and such (remember 6.023e23 Avogadros #). I guess maybe its due to the photosite being so small and the time being so short (shutter speed)? See the following tables: http://www.britastro.org/vss/ccdtable.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
K10D Resolving power
A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Thanks! Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Thanks! Jack It's likely to give better resolution with regards to colour, but not to detail (which is predicated on sensor resolution and lens resolution). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
This is why I ask for a review. Glad I did! Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Jack Davis wrote: This is why I ask for a review. Glad I did! More bits doesn't lower noise or increase dynamic range (unless you're talking about s/n electrically- which isn't applicable here). As Rob pointed out, full well capacity of these sensors is 65k electrons, so anything more than 16-bits is overkill- unless you can count half an electron. :-) Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
Thanks, Ryan. My understanding is growing. Jack --- Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: This is why I ask for a review. Glad I did! More bits doesn't lower noise or increase dynamic range (unless you're talking about s/n electrically- which isn't applicable here). As Rob pointed out, full well capacity of these sensors is 65k electrons, so anything more than 16-bits is overkill- unless you can count half an electron. :-) Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Jack Davis wrote: Thanks, Ryan. My understanding is growing. Jack Yeah- it's an interesting spot we're in right now. We'd all like more dynamic range, but the sensor technology (CCD/NMOS and CMOS) really can't be crafted to respond like the photochemical reactions can in film. I'm sure this will be figured out eventually, but it's been this way for a long time- interesting time to be alive, that's for sure. Whatever the next sensor technology is, I wonder if more dynamic range will mean more film look. -R --- Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: This is why I ask for a review. Glad I did! More bits doesn't lower noise or increase dynamic range (unless you're talking about s/n electrically- which isn't applicable here). As Rob pointed out, full well capacity of these sensors is 65k electrons, so anything more than 16-bits is overkill- unless you can count half an electron. :-) Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
Presuming that the K10D actually has 22bits in the A-D, what it's useful for is minimizing roundoff error in transformations. It presents an advantage to tonal gradation accuracy for that reason, with less tendency to clipping and shifting. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D Resolving power
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. Paul On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:15 PM, ryan brooks wrote: On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Jack Davis wrote: Thanks, Ryan. My understanding is growing. Jack Yeah- it's an interesting spot we're in right now. We'd all like more dynamic range, but the sensor technology (CCD/NMOS and CMOS) really can't be crafted to respond like the photochemical reactions can in film. I'm sure this will be figured out eventually, but it's been this way for a long time- interesting time to be alive, that's for sure. Whatever the next sensor technology is, I wonder if more dynamic range will mean more film look. -R --- Ryan Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: This is why I ask for a review. Glad I did! More bits doesn't lower noise or increase dynamic range (unless you're talking about s/n electrically- which isn't applicable here). As Rob pointed out, full well capacity of these sensors is 65k electrons, so anything more than 16-bits is overkill- unless you can count half an electron. :-) Jack --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: A quick review. Is there any significance to the noted press release claim that the K10D contains a newly developed high performance A/D converter which allows the highest resolving power (22 bits, or 4.2m gradations) among all existing digital cameras Do we agree that it's extreme overkill (considering sensor pixel count) and only hollow hype to grab the shopper? Not at all. Better D-A conversion is unrelated to pixel count. It affects with *every* pixel, potentially yielding lower noise and better dynamic range, so it would be a big advantage even with a low-res sensor. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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
Re: K10D Resolving power
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
Re: K10D Resolving power
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
Re: K10D Resolving power
On 09/09/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I think a more valid comparison was if someone said that they could double the available energy in a fixed volume of regulation fuel In other words to get another stop of sensitivity the sensor has to be twice as sensitive to the finite volume of photons exciting it for a given area. Very hard to do as there is no practical way to amplify the light hitting the sensor sites beyond what is already implemented via micro-lenses and sensors can't be made twice as efficient as they are already over 50% efficient. Do you expect that cars will do double 355 in the quarter in 50 years? Friction's a bitch. -- 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
