Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















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

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

[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range question



That would be 35mm if I did the math right. I'm guessing more than 5
years and less than 10. When my old 35mm developed a shutter timing
problem which I deemed not worth the money to fix (about a year or so
ago), I looked at the DSLR market and decided I just wouldn't be happy
with the results, so I bought another film SLR and figured I'd run that
one for another decade. With DSLR, you really have to shoot a lot of
film and need to have the results quickly to make them worth your while.
I'm only doing about 30 rolls a year.

The serious photographers I know are keeping their DSLR for about 18
months to 2 years. I'm sure there are professional photographer who buy
a new body every year. Though I've sold images, I don't make money from
my hobby, so I can't write off the DSLRs like the pros do.

The problem with image sensors is they really don't take advantage of
semiconductor process improvements like digital electronics. If you
shrink the cell, the noise goes up. About the only thing that would help
imaging would be to increase the yield of larger chips. In VLSI, the
trend is to keep the die size about the same, but go for higher density,
though the increase in wafer size helps imaging [The processing costs
don't go up all that much as the wafer size is increased.] . Once VLSI
hits the scaling wall (so to speak), they will work on the ability to
make larger die. Basically what happens is the larger the die, the more
likely you are to get a defect. The effect is at least cubic and perhaps
exponential. The wafer fab people have charts based on real life
processing that relate yield versus die size. I don't know if there is a
formula, but the cubic effect is such that if you made the active area
of the die twice as big, the yield would go down by a factor of eight.


Lotus M50 wrote:

>So, is that "full frame" 35mm or  full frame 645?   25 mp full frame
>35mm size is a tall order.  How long do you expect to have to wait for
>such a thing?
>
>
>lists@lazygranch.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>For me, the color mask has to go. Some sort of Foveon like technology is
>>needed. I'd like to see the pixel spacing held to 6um  and full frame,
>>so we are talking 6000x4333, or roughly 25Mpixel.
>>
>>
>>Brad Davis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 25/3/05 17:33, "Berry Ives" <yvesberia@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Still waiting for the right DSLR for me...
>>>>
>>>>Berry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What will make a DSLR the "one" for you?
>>>
>>>Just curious.
>>>
>>>Brad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.