Frank,
Memory has increased at a rate of about 2 every 1.5
years. There is good reason to believe that this will
not change a lot during the next few years to come.
Even with new technologies being developed (if it
succeeds and can be used for imagers) it takes years
to get it ready for production. Technologie is
developing really fast but one can also overestimate
it.
Well, if you have a 4"x6" or even 8"x10" imager then
you definitely don't have super small lenses anymore
as you have predicted.
I agree that sensitivity can be increased a bit.
Nevertheless, you cannot ignor the law of physics. You
just do need a certain amount of light (even with
ideal sensitivity) the get a good enough exposure.
Also I do not see any new technique on the horizon
(certainly not one that could take an idea to
production within 5 years) that would allow no noise.
And noise is everywhere, not only in the imager
itself.
With the sensitivity (+exposure) and the noise give
the SNR is given as well. So my opinion about the
above also applies to the SNR.
Anyway, it is my strong opinion that we won't have
anything close to 1 GPixel in 5 years of less. You
have your strong opinion and so I will leave it at
this.
Robert
--- Frank Nichols <frank@theNichols.net> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I understand your hesitancy, however, you make
> several assumptions that I
> didnt.
>
> 1. SNR remains at todays levels.
> 2. Sensitivity remains at todays levels.
> 3. The array would be small - why not a 4" x 6" with
> a 10x increase in
> density? that would require about 1.5GPixels (If I
> didn't slip a decimal
> point.) Or even an 8x10?
>
> In RAM/CPU technology - a simliar technology - the
> increase over the years
> has not just occurred in dimensions, but in
> performance (speed), power
> requirements, etc.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
