In reality, the SRW-9000 is superior in every respect. “Other things being equal,” it should be three stops more light sensitive. So is bigger always better? In our example of the two Sony cameras, the old BVP-5 photosite has nine times the area of the SRW-9000 photosite. That’s how digital still cameras can keep upping the megapixel count without paying a penalty in low-light performance. The net effect is that sensors are getting better and better. These are carefully guarded trade secrets among the semiconductor engineers. There’s a reason you don’t read much about this in camera spec sheets. There’s another, more obscure thread of innovation: improvement in the quantum efficiency of the photosites themselves. A supernatural plot weaving in multiple dates with each character. Over 250 pixel puzzles to solve: your superpowers make puzzles a part of the narrative. Join and date the Puzzle League: a group of 4 superheroes based on crossword, sudoku, chess and jigsaw puzzles. And Sony has brought comparable innovation to CMOS sensors, including Exmor™ R back illumination technology. Dating sim meets puzzle game in this heartfelt superhero adventure. These refinements have been labeled the Hyper HAD (1990), Power HAD (1998), and Power HAD FX (2000) CCDs. The lenses capture light that would otherwise be lost in the margins. But Sony has gotten progressively smarter at affixing microlenses in front of each photosensor. Both CCD and CMOS sensors devote a portion of the surface area to housekeeping functions, lowering fill factor. Power HAD™ technology improved the lens coverage, boosting light gathering further still.įor example, there’s the issue of fill factor, the percentage of sensor surface area that is actually photosensitive. Compared to previous technology, microlenses increased sensitivity and lowered noise. Sony Hyper HAD™ technology introduced on-chip microlenses, shown in the photomicrograph at left. When you add up generation after generation of such improvements, the differences can be huge. But sensitivity and noise are both fair game for all sorts of incremental, micron-scale improvements. Determined by the lens aperture and light wavelength, diffraction has the perverse effect of introducing more blur as designers attempt to increase the resolution of small-format sensors.ĭiffraction issues are a physical constraint beyond the control of even Sony’s smartest sensor designers. The smaller a photosite is, the more likely it is to incur diffraction blurring. After voltage conversion, you get a lower-voltage signal with which to stand out from the noise floor. Fewer photons captured mean fewer photons are converted into electrons. A smaller area in which to catch incoming photons of light means fewer photons and reduced performance in low light. The hit in quality can come in three guises: In the time-tested weasel, “when all things are equal” smaller photosites deliver higher resolution-at the cost of lower pixel quality. Let’s look at just one aspect, the fundamental tradeoff between the size of individual photosites and their quality. Where will it all end? Will a 4K image sensor eventually be engraved on the head of a pin? When you go small, what do you give up? If you can’t break the laws of physics, how badly can you bend them? Mark Schubin wrote a classic magazine article on what he called the “format factor,” examining the practical and technical implications of changing sensor size. Today, you can put a pair of HD camcorders in your pocket and still have room for keys. In the 1980s, when dinosaurs walked the earth, high definition cameras cost more than suburban family houses and weighed more than anyone wanted to shoulder. If a user joins and sees the forums flooded with users calling each other out, along with other related disrespectful behavior, they may not want to stick around or participate in the many positives the forums community has to offer.There’s no question which photosensor is bigger. This means that some users would end up receiving more punishment despite having the same punishment history.įinally, public shaming is disallowed to try and create a more welcoming atmosphere on the forums. Public shaming will lead to some users trying to take punishments into their own hands though and harassing those that they believe to be rule breakers. The punishment system is designed with a very specific hierarchy of punishments based on severity and account history. Secondly, disallowing public shaming allows us to better standardize punishments and minimize vigilante justice. This would force us to dig through the forums to find reports that could have instead been collected into one place through the report commands. If we allowed users to publicly shame, many would choose to do so instead of opening a report through the appropriate channel ( /report while in game). The first of these reasons is to help with increasing the efficiency of punishing those who violate the rules. Our rule surrounding public shaming exists for three major reasons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |