Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't see why we can't compare them? It's the images that they produce and the proof is what we see. As has been observed in a variety of other messages there's all sorts of image processing magic being done behind the scenes anyway. So it's really a sensor/firmware/software combination that yields the final images we BEGIN to work with on our computers. Someone decried this in a post over the weekend, as I recall, and I'll just observe that if the engineers who made the Hubble or Mars Rover, or Cassini or even the spy satellites, are happy being able to feel their images are reliable, then I'm going to have faith that what is written to my camera's memory is faithful. Certainly I've never seen anything that screams to me that "oh my god - there's a balloon in this picture and there wasn't one there when I took the picture." (GRIN) Ultimately I think our camera sensors will be biological - we just are better right now at physics than we are at biology. I'm thinking of a camera which has the characteristics of an eagle's eye, for example, or even a human eye. Our silicon sensors aren't a match for the biological eyes at this point and eyes of very similiar geometry have been created over vastly different evolutionary paths. Maybe someday our descendents will be arguing whether their squid-based sensors are better than raptor based sensors! Adam On Apr 12, 2005 12:03 PM, George Lottermoser <imagist@imagist.cnc.net> wrote: > > Can we really compare CCD and Cmos sensors? I ask in all sincerity. It > seems that each approach has pos and neg attributes. Do I understand > correctly that the CCD has a color and sharpness advantage where the > Cmos has a noise suppression and file size advantage (given the same > size sensor)? Anyone know? > > Fond regards, > G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist