Re: [photo-3d] Pixels Pixels

[Gabriel Jacob <3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Dottle writes:
>Film has suspended silver halide crystals in random orientation,
>  some sandwiched together, many overlaps, crystals rotated in different
>directions etc. This is why film mfgrs have been able to reduce the
>grain ( size of the halides) while maintaining sharpness etc. A digital
>camera requires less pixels ( equate pixels to the halide crystals for
>this example) because the pixels are not random but are specifically
>aligned together for efficiency.

In Fuji's latest digital camera, they have managed to "play" with the
traditional pixel orientation and come up with a novel octagonal
orientation. They claim their Super CCD increases resolution, offers
higher sensitivity, broader dynamic range, improved S/N, and better
color saturation. With this more efficient design in pixel orientation,
they claim their 2.4M pixel CCD will perform like a 4.3M pixel CCD
camera. Personally I'd take their claims with a grain of Ag salt!
Point is though, that they are working on improving CCD sensors
similar to film grain orientation and size.

>So to produce a digital camera to house a quality 10Mp
>chip....the camera will have to be larger than the average SLR, or the
>chip quality will suffer.
>Mfgrs are so fearful of the size restriction, they must admit they are
>not willing to go in this direction. The future of film, at least for
>now, looks awefully bright! :-)

I don't know about that, I remember reading recently (sorry I don't
have the reference with me) that camera manufacture's were
pushing to get the total sensor array size enlarged in digital
cameras.

Gabriel