h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
CCDs in videocamera's are rather unintelligent. They register light and pass that information on. With a higher density of pixels on a CCD the sensitivity to light even decreases because the individual pixels don't know that their neighbours catch their share of the light.
Compare the specs between
the Sony 900 and newer 950 in the review below.
If the pixels can talk with each other the light sensitivity increases and 'flare' problems are dealt with. There are flare problems with the CCD in the 950 because the smaller pixels (more than in the 900) become saturated faster. Or something, I am not an expert.
It would be great for live-morphing also if the pixels on a CCD can think.
(?) Sony 950 review
http://www.camcorde...amcorder_review.htm
mentioning the older 900 is more sensitive to light [rrr, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
I have always understood the flare problem to be related to IR and not visible light saturation. But, hey, I could easily be misunderstanding it. |
|
| |
[That review link won't load for me.] |
|
| |
CCD pixels can't talk by design - CMOS on the other hand can have them talk, and does have them talk in many applications, for the very reasons you mentioned, and more. |
|
| |
Having communicating pixels would aid many machine vision problems, making the silicon sensor more like a retina.
Probably baked, IIRC by a Mitsubishi sensor around ten or twelve years back. |
|
| |