Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/03/16

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor
From: red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:59:36 -0700
References: <CAF8hL-FgDxr2rLsVNhfRpHULJwdjP9pfTF83m4D9kRUhzO4v9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAE3QcF7QnuCE=BLDs_+QJUzVfcJW443zMKEe3UVUqQycnrdXUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8hL-E4V3KzDLceBve5i7WNnbbLzv4wgh=LMnfj-NutsRDDRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE3QcF6_SwEUchMNK1wR3qVwMULji8JHb0y7Fu6Gm2Erqox4ew@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8hL-HwrK3Tzk=b5j+L0opqnJ3QX_qfok0Jh3CMNEFdJLS_wg@mail.gmail.com>

This is about 100% correct.... but do not underestimate the ease with which
it is done.... it still requires a complete chip design, although not ground
breaking nor innovating.

It is about 0% difficult to re-arrange pixel arrays without innovation.
However, the same amount of effort must go into the test and
characterization.

A good comparison is wet printing 2 negatives from the same roll.... they
can print almost 100% the same... with some minor tweaks....

Frank Filippone
Red735i at earthlink.net


I was just referring that to rearrange a particular sensor technology, i.e.
the S2 sensor and put it in a different dimensions does not require "too
much" work. It's a matter of rearranging the pixels and hooking the support
circuitry in different places. My guess is that sensors are implemented as
grids, e.g. may be a "pack" of X*Y pixels and the readout circuitry for the
pack. So it should be a matter of rearranging the packs.




In reply to: Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] S2 vs. 645D sensor)