On Monday, January 28, 2002 at 13:11, Kerry Frohling
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] one good thing..." saying:
> >From: William Sommerwerck <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> <snip>
> >A word about lens compatibility. The cells in a CCD sensor sit slightly
> >below the conductive paths that surround them. This means that, the
> >more-acute the angle of light striking the sensor, the greater the
> >shadowing effect of the paths, further exaggerating the normal edge falloff
> >that occurs with wide-angle lenses.
> <snip>
>
> This is part of the equation, the other (probably more significant) part of
> the equation is micolenses. These are small "bubble" lenses over each
> pixel, that focus incident light onto the active area of the pixel, which
> generally is a small fraction (>25%) of the total pixel area. The angle of
> acceptance of these lenses is generally <10?. Since silver-based films had
> no anlge of acceptance requirements, no care was taken to control this
> parameter.
Why can't the bubble lenses be pointed toward the lens rather than being
perpendicular?
Or mirror the walls of each CCD well so it bounces down to the bottom?
Or even make the CCD spherical so each CCD well points toward the lens?
(Yeah, the lenses would have to channel the lite from the middle of the
sphere and be redesigned.)
Tom
------------------------ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ottawa-photo-clubs
tOM A. Trottier, ICQ:57647974 http://abacurial.com
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
+1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115 N45.412 W75.714
"The moment one gives close attention to anything,
even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious,
awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself --
Henry Miller, 1891-1980
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|