Just Looking
Veteran Member
Choice? Yes, I know that three sensors stacked under one surface area is more than one. What's your point?
No, that definition of pitch doesn't work for a multilayer design. Where did you get it? Or did you make it up?
j
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Pixel Pitch Universally Defined
- Thread starter mgates
- Start date
j
Just Looking
Veteran Member
Only in your mind. If you would abandon your made-up definition, the apparent contradiction would go away. The X3 design doesn't give you 3X the silicon, but by using three layers it triples the number of pixels of a given pitch that will fit in an area.
j
Just Looking
Veteran Member
No, wrong definition.
That's not what they said the reason is. The reason is that sensor gets to use all the photons, instead of throwing away 2/3 of them in absorptive filters that don't detect what they absorb.
And they're not more densely packed; they're stacked.
j
Just Looking
Veteran Member
Have you given us a citation to support YOUR definition? I'd be interested in knowing if someone has this alternate view of what pixel pitch is, if anyone other than you...
j
Foveon should be successful. The SD14 will not help them for the reasons listed. Mostly the mount.
No one can buy this system. It is too expensive to buy everything when all you need is a body. No professional one wants more of everything. We all want less of everything. Sigma doesn't understand photography from a business angle. At all.
It cannot counter other equipment. Sigma high ISO is not competitive in any number of ways. High ISO is important to a camera's success. It is nice to be able to hold a long soom in a dim room. Other dSLRs are there.
Good enough for those who don't need anything more. Maybe. Is that a recipe for future Sigma cameras?
What improvement? As you all say. It is a mystery. Unless it suits you?
Just Looking
Veteran Member
Then admit it isn't the same pitch as three sensors each with silicon surface. Sigma won't.
Yes it works for Foveon. You don't like the answer because it explains high noise levels. Maybe you don't think three sensors sharing one patch of silicon is any different than one?
What definition do you want to use that works with all types of single and multiple sensor cameras?
I'll gladly use the definition you made up. But apply it consistently. You insist on ignoring the distance to the next closest sensor. And the next one. You skip to the next similar color. Do the same for all.
Not using your definition measuring center to center of each sensor. Unless you ignore 2/3rds of the sensors. I don't. More importantly noise doesn't.
Any defintion that creates more silicon than is present is as wrong as it is noisy.
Sigma said they derive have noise advantange specifically because the SD14 has a very large 7.8 pixel pitch. That is wrong. Three pixels share 7.8^2 silicon surface.
A strange remark. Given the SD10 has even larger pixels and is very noisy at high ISO.
Foveon's design would have a real 7.8 pitch in 3CCD form. They can't have it both ways. They are two sensors of silicon short of a full deck.
Laurence wrote
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
Yer gittin purty dern close to Texas there padnuh
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
ole thofte wrote:
maybe I've developed an extra ear
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
maybe I've developed an extra ear
My wife, who is an educator, swears she can hear a whispered '*****' from fifty feet at the back of a noisy classroomof some sort through my work?
Ole
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
In other words you refuse to measure the distance between centers. The result is an answer you do not want.
0
0
9.1
0
0
9.1
0
0
9.1
...
miketuthill
Senior Member
Are you feeling ok?
when my stock split three-for-one. The price got cut in three. But they didn't give me anymore shares.
"Our pixels are 7.8 microns, and so are larger than most - which makes them more sensitive and less noisy."
So obviously wrong.
Your joke unexpectedly decided this debate.Whatever
By the way - it is a very freightening experience for a photon to
be captured by a pixel. And to escape the first bluish pixel and
also the next greenish pixel and then finaly be cought by the
reddish - thats an unspeakable horror.
The photons do not avoid various filters. All the photons hit silicon. Longer wavelengths pentrate farther. Therefore sensors from different channels cannot underly each other. They can share a centroid. Therefore total silicon must be conserved two dimensionally.
My definition wins.
In case you didn't notice. The funny joke above decided this debate by accident. Here is the final word.
Photons hit Foveon silicon. Some wavelengths pentrate farther. Sensors from different channels are placed at different depths to exploit this phenomenon. Therefore sensors cannot underlap but they can share a centroid. This proves silicon surface is conserved.
For Laurence that means that each 7.8 micron of square of silicon gets divided into three horizontally distinct parts. 14M horizontally distinct parts.
Absolute proof that the SD14 has a 4.5 pixel pitch.
Photons hit Foveon silicon. Some wavelengths pentrate farther. Sensors from different channels are placed at different depths to exploit this phenomenon. Therefore sensors cannot underlap but they can share a centroid. This proves silicon surface is conserved.
For Laurence that means that each 7.8 micron of square of silicon gets divided into three horizontally distinct parts. 14M horizontally distinct parts.
Absolute proof that the SD14 has a 4.5 pixel pitch.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum