ginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Brigham
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
OK lets be pedantic:
I dont comment on your calculations, but we were not talking about a
2/3" CCD
focal
multipliers of 1.5 to 1.6.
BTW I will comment on your calculations - isnt 2/3" = 16mm?
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 07 December 2001 00:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
>
>
> O
On 6 Dec 2001 at 17:54, Rob Brigham wrote:
> Which is why I said:
>
> 'a full frame CCD which had the same density as a smaller one (therefore
> higher pixel count cos its bigger)'
>
> Full frame with same density as 5.25 2/3 size CCD would give 7.875MP.
Not trying to be pedantic but a 2/3" CC
]
Subject: RE: Bit of a correction...
Surely you would be better off with a full frame CCD which had the same
density as a smaller one (therefore higher pixel count cos its bigger),
and cropping the final image. This would be far better than having non
standard focal length multiplers as we have
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Surely you would be better off with a full frame CCD which had the same
>density as a smaller one (therefore higher pixel count cos its bigger),
>and cropping the final image. This would be far better than having non
>standard focal length multiplers as
5 matches
Mail list logo
