Note, no device made of something denser than air can capture 100% of the
photons. Pure physics says so. So then it becomes an issue of how you spin
the numbers. Essentially the efficiency of the capture device has to do
with its 'speed' in photographic terms.
I would contend that the noise most distracting in digicams, sources from
the support and amplification electronics - and the quantum tunneling within
the devices themselves, which makes the 'efficiency' arguement somewhat
moot.
BTW, my earlier explanation is based on reading the patents and discussing
them with someone who has a physics degree - mine is in electronics so my
quantum theory isn't as strong as his
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Harris" <TylerH@tetratec.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Newish Digital Tech
Sorry, lost track of who wrote this:
<<<Although the Foveon chip measures "all the red", each individual site
measuring red measures _the same amount of red_ as any individual site
measuring red in a Bayer sensor.>>>
Austin Franklin wrote:
<<<There must be some decrease in transmission... All the Bayer sensors
measure %100 of the light that particular sensor is filtered for, where
the Foveon gets decreased light to the inner two sensing areas.>>>
This last sentence in particular bothered me. I did a quick search to
find the efficiency of Bayer filters and stumbled upon the following
page <>.
About half way down the page there is a nice colorful graph of "Typical
transmission spectral profiles of the common dyes utilized in the
construction of Bayer filters." According to this particular graph, red
is the most efficient @~38%, then green @~30%, and finally blue @~23%.
Note also, there is considerable wavelength overlap between the three
filters.
Perhaps the Foveon could be more efficient than a Bayer filtered CCD? I
know little about how light penetrates into silicon or whatever it is,
but since red light (long wave / low energy) penetrates further than
blue (short/high) (opposite of the ocean analogy someone gave) it seems
that the wavelength, not energy, is the critical factor. Which, to me,
raises the possibility that little or no red light, for example, may be
absorbed by the blue sensing layer.
Anyone know how this really works?
Tyler Harris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
