Le 23 sept. 15 à 14:54, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
Both are subject to Schott noise. What you considered a "twisted
(slightly)" presentation had no effect on me at all. I think I
understand his use of "image sensor" as something that retains the
image on its surface as does film. That implies, of course, that
there are other forms of chemical based "image sensor" other than
film. I don't know of any
Light sensitive (glass) plates are another instance
http://tinyurl.com/pj7j79j
Ph
but it doesn't bother me that I don't.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/23/2015 1:16 AM, ChrisB wrote:
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.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
NO ARCHIVE
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|