| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2006 05:47:09 PM · #1 |
i thought it sounded pretty nuts
and a little bit creepy
CLICK HERE |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:51:28 PM · #2 |
This raises an interesting question-
How much of a limit do glass quality and sensor noise place on effective resolution? Wouldn't a super-high resolution image require higher quality glass and lower noise? Otherwise it seems like all you're doing is creating redundant data.
Anyone know? |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:55:49 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 06:16:15 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 09:06:28 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
This raises an interesting question-
How much of a limit do glass quality and sensor noise place on effective resolution? Wouldn't a super-high resolution image require higher quality glass and lower noise? Otherwise it seems like all you're doing is creating redundant data.
Anyone know? |
Isn't that like buying L-lens for a 6MP camera? |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 09:23:52 PM · #6 |
I know it's not a consumer camera, but the 48-inch Samuel Oschin telescope on Palomar Mountain has a 160MP camera. You can see it here... //www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/sot.html.
- Mike |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 09:30:35 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mike1953:
I know it's not a consumer camera, but the 48-inch Samuel Oschin telescope on Palomar Mountain has a 160MP camera. You can see it here... //www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/sot.html.
- Mike |
Your link has a problem, but I was able to get to this this description of the 112-sensor array they're using. It probably has a pretty long focal length, eh? : )
Message edited by author 2006-09-26 21:30:54. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 05:33:30 PM EDT.
