Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Anthony Atkielski typed: > There is no need to make the pixels smaller than 5 um or so >(that's 250 lp/mm already). Bizarre way of doing arithmetic you have there, Anthony. 'Specially for an engineer. 5 um pixels give at best 200 lines per mm. And at best *100* lime pairs per mm. On top of that you're looking at interpolation for color, degrading the real resolution (in color) by another 2-fold or so. 50 lp/mm. And real consumer-grade CCDs *don't* have 5 um pixels at this time - more like 7-13 um. Whoops. We are down to 35-40 lp/mm. Maybe 50-60 per mm if the system is completely optimal. But as an engineer *you* know what it costs to get that last 20%. So instead of 250 lp/mm we are talking about - at best - 50-60 lp/mm with a smaller detector than 24x36 mm, and hence fewer pixels. Yawn. > What is really needed is to make the CCDs larger with the > _same_ pixel size, so that they can match the size of a > 24x36 film negative, and thereby use the same lenses. Golly. What an insight. That's what I'd just written. Like, Duh. Of course *you* know how to build, inexpensive, defect-free, low-noise, gigantic CCD arrays. Right? Or are you just talking out your nether orifice? - -Alexey