Leonard wrote:
I too think that was a red herring. I suspect that Phillips wants more for
the 6MP CCD than Pemtax is willing to pay. When you can buy a 5MP camera for
less that $2KUS, you aren't going to sell many 6MP cameras for $7KUS.
If Phillips drops the price on the 6MP CCD, I wouldn't
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:41:47 -0500, Peifer, William [OCDUS] wrote:
Maybe someone that knows more about chip fab can
comment on this. Anyway, although each individual pixel may very well be
looking through an optic with small numerical aperture, it's only
looking a very short distance (microns?
- Original Message -
From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
I'm curious where this whole idea of CCD sensors requiring (or
preferring) perpendicular rays originated. I'm pretty convinced that
it
must have originated because somewhere along the line, something got
Jan van Wijk wrote:
I probably need to dig into the real construction of CCD's, but this
description of how the 'pixels' read light intensity from a real
'focal plane' in front of them contradicts my own interpretation!
I really don't think it works that way, I think the CCD 'pixels' are
]
Subject: Re: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
When the MZ-D got canned it was reported (and commented on in PDML) that
the full format imaging chip was experiencing problems with its off-axis
image capture, caused by the physical construction of the pixels
overlayed
Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if Kyocera is still going to use this CCD for their Contax digital?
Has anyone ever confirmed that this *is* the CCD Contax was planning on using?
Everyone seems to be taking it for granted and I must admit I don't know what
other CCD they might
of a wave
of sodium light.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peifer, William
[OCDUS]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:42 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible
Kent Gittings wrote:
[Lots of stuff on CCD imaging Quotes and comments interspersed below]
Hi Kent,
Just a few notes, interspersed with quotes from your earlier message
The common type of CCD/CMOS array currently being used is
front illuminated. That means the part that illuminates
On 28 Oct 2001, at 9:11, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
What do you think? Have you heard about this before?
Sure have, just about the time when the first CD audio players came on the
market some audio components were deemed digital ready :-) I would like to
see some technical side to the argument
, October 28, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
On 28 Oct 2001, at 9:11, Jaume Lahuerta wrote:
What do you think? Have you heard about this before?
Sure have, just about the time when the first CD audio players came on the
market some audio
On 28 Oct 2001, at 15:40, aimcompute wrote:
Hi Rob,
What is an FL range?
Hi Tom,
FL = Focal Length :-)
The term digital lens is rather a bit of a misnomer in my opinion. A lens is
a lens is a lens. What counts is whether the chosen lens is suitable for the
application.
Agreed
One
Rod (correctly) wrote:
Sure have, just about the time when the first CD audio players came on the
market some audio components were deemed digital ready :-) I would like to
see some technical side to the argument given that lens coatings are there
not for the sake of matching a lens to any film
12 matches
Mail list logo
