ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Topic: RE: Newish Digital Tech


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Topic: RE: Newish Digital Tech
  • From: "" <ferko@attglobal.net>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:26:59 -0500
  • References: <md5:60C511FEC28926BDE150E463FC0063C3>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

In reading the several responses about the FOVEON chip, might it not be
helpful to identify if the respondents refer to this chip's potential
implementation in film scanners (essentially a LINE-SCAN application) vs
digital cameras (typically an AREA-Array application).

The issue of the algorithms for organizing the Bayer pattern image into
"the image" delivered by the camera, the interference patters, etc. --
vs. the simplification and attendant improvement in speed promised by
the FOVEON is on its face very attractive (and one that keeps me on the
sidelines in my decision on my first hi-res digital camera purchase --
to add to my film camera, a Zeiss Contarex SLR).  And let us keep in
mind that this chip technology is likely to evolve from its current
nominal design/performance level, in the near term.

One of the interesting questions that comes to mind with the FOVEON and
it 3 layered (G-B-R) arrangement -- is the relative "fill-factor"
compared to a typical Bayer pattern RGB chip.  Fill factor is the
proportion of the pixel area that is actually capturing light, with 100%
being the upper limit -- and not achievable in practical
implementations.

My point is that the higher the fill factor the better the chip is at
capturing light (e.g. higher bit depth), and with less noise; however
the rest of the electronics associated with each pixel shares the
real-eastate of that pixel -- and I suspect that this becomes more acute
with the smaller sized imager chips.  The FOVEON is described as a
1/1.8" chip which to me translates to just a bit larger than the 1/2"
chip (4.8mm x 6.4mm).  To be sure, this chip size is larger than might
be in most consumer level cameras (1/3" or a "whopping" 1/4"  -- 2.7x3.6
and 3.6x4.8mm respectively.), yet is MUCH smaller than the 24x36mm
format that most us use in film.

>From the perspective of my above observations, the FOVEON might not
deliver any significant improvements to film scanners unless among its
other attributes it has a superior fill-factor.

Just a user and curious observer of these gadgets...

Frank K-F

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.