He does say 3 smaller sensors and mentions that as the reason for the
dust shaker window. So three would have to fit into the space of one
along with some sort of prism light splitter. 3- 2/3 sensors? The
noise level in a 4/3 sensor is much lower than a 2/3 and I doubt that
averaging would help much considering the lower light levels and the
smaller pixel sites.
One interesting thing that Nikon did with the Coolpixes was to use a
CMY filter instead of RGB. They are less dense and allow more light
to the sensor reducing noise. I think they gave it up starting with
the 8400/8800 series probably because the digicam market was just so
competitive that it was too expensive to do a custom filter and
cheaper to just take the one Sony provided.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:42 PM, Andrew Dacey wrote:
>
> On 12/20/05, Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If the problem with the 4/3 sensor is noise because of small sensor
>> size how is that solved by using even smaller sensors? The resolution
>> of the three sensors are not additive. All they do is to provide more
>> accurate color.
>
> Not sure how the size of the sensor changes (from the info the guy
> mentioned) but I suspect he's suggesting that you'd take 3 shots of
> the same scene at the same time, 1 for each sensor. Since noise is
> random, you can then average the 3 shots and the noise should be
> reduced (much like using multi-sampling in scanning).
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|