Virus.Org  IT Security News and Information Portal. We offer the latest IT security news, updates, product reviews, books, and articles for all you IT security professionals out there. Enter and get the best IT security information on the Internet.

 

. Welcome to the Virus.Org Mailing List Archive  
.
.


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


Re: Warning of major NHS IT overspend
.

  • To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Subject: Re: Warning of major NHS IT overspend
  • From: Brian Gladman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:46:44 +0000
  • In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
 
Brian Beesley wrote:

[snip]
The manufacturers of digital compact cameras are rapidly running into this dilemma. They are now trying to get up to 8 Mpels out of a very small sensor, about 1/25th of the area of a 35mm frame; every one of these cameras has serious problems with imaging noise, forcing them to reduce the sensitivity or use aggressive noise filtering which has other serious effects on the image quality. If you really must buy a digital compact I'd strongly suggest

[snip]
High end digital compact cameras do not have such small sensors. The one I use has a 16mm square sensor with 8 Mpixels. This works out at about 1/3 the area of a 35mm frame and provides a resolution of about 170 pixels/mm.

I suspect that this is a significantly higher than the resolution of the (mostly zoom) lenses that are typically fitted on such cameras. Hence I suspect you are right to suggest that we don't need more than about 5 Mpixels unless we can offer much better lenses.

   Brian Gladman



 
.
.
 
Copyright (c) Virus.Org 1997-2006.
All Trademarks Acknowledged.
Please view our Terms and Conditions and our Privacy Policy.