Thanks, Chuck. Now he has lost me: I noticed a couple of other idiosyncrasies
of language and ignored them, but to call film an “image sensor” as if there
were some physical similarity between film and a chip and I lose interest.
I’m co-author on another science paper at the moment; I know the basis of the
claims being made and I can see how words are being twisted (slightly) to make
the claims sound more important. I now feel that this passage is using
unnecessarily complicated terminology to present a more impressive-looking
discussion and outcome. There might be some substance to the subjects which we
have been discussing, but I have lost faith in the presentation and therefore
some of that substance.
It might not be complete bolleaux (pidgin French for bollocks) but it has the
smell and feel . . .
Chris
> On 22 Sep 15, at 22:19, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Film vs digital. I wouldn't have known that if he hadn't clarified what he
> meant with: "... image-based sensors rely on photo-sensitive chemical
> reactions."
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 9/22/2015 2:33 PM, ChrisB wrote:
>> Thanks, Chuck. I did study physics, but I must have missed the
>> lessons on digital sensors;-)
>>
>> But what is the difference between digital and image sensors, in this
>> context?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 15:06, Chuck
>>>> Norcutt<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you not study physics? Does this paper help?
>>>> <http://people.csail.mit.edu/hasinoff/pubs/hasinoff-photon-2012-preprint.pdf>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> From the first page of the paper: Image sensors measure scene
>>>> irradiance by*counting* the number of discrete photons incident
>>>> on the sensor over a given time interval. In digital sensors, the
>>>> photoelectric eff ect is used to convert photons into electrons,
>>>> whereas image-based sensors rely on photo-sensitive chemical
>>>> reactions. In both cases, the independence of random individual
>>>> photon arrivals leads to photon noise, a signal- dependent form
>>>> of uncertainty that is a property of the underlying signal
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> My emphasis on*counting* Chuck Norcutt
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|