Got <140 bit DR Image?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by BradGuth, Jan 28, 2009.

  1. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    I wouldn't want to hold my breathe if I were you :)
    But I do expect we will get to true 16 bit capture before too long, at which
    point most people will be more than happy.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 29, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    Thats 6 dB per bit which is simple mathematics, nothing more.
    Would need at least 2 in that case.
    You are aware of the concept of market demand?
    *IF* you think there is sufficient demand for the above, it may even happen.
    But maybe not in our lifetime :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 29, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    Multiple scans are only necessary for sensor limitations, not A/D
    limitations. If the imager *can* provide 140dB DNR in one pass, then no
    extra scans are necessary to capture more than 16bits of data.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 29, 2009
    #23
  4. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    And as you've suggested, a pair of 16 bit captures could also take
    full advantage of the 140 db worth of DR, or even up to 192 db should
    a given cmos imager offer as much. In other words, at 192 db of
    dynamic range (similar to the best human eye), black would likely
    never be recorded as entirely black, and any direct look at the sun
    would never white-out or much less bloom or bleed over any other
    pixels.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Jan 29, 2009
    #24
  5. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    No, I said extra scans are unnecessary *if* your sensor provides 140dB in
    one scan. Simply use 2 or more A/D's.
    The best human eye cannot manage that range in one pass either. It can only
    do so by adjusting the pupil diameter. But then the problem of the eyes
    color accuracy at extreme sensitivities goes to hell in any case.

    Just as it is now possible to record audio with more accuracy than human
    hearing, it should be possible to record images with more accuracy than
    human vision in the foreseeable future, IMO. The only thing missing at the
    moment is suitable sensors AFAICT. Possibly not even that :)

    Of course you do realise such an image can never be printed with even the
    slightest accuracy?

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 29, 2009
    #25
  6. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    That's even better, because 12 bit ADCs are relatively dirt cheap, and
    16 bit can't be all that much worse off. Fast terabyte media storage
    could get a little spendy.
    I agree, the 140 db of the cmos imager would always far outperform the
    human eye, not to mention at < ten thousand fold faster response.
    Image accuracy is always the eye candy that's in the eye of the
    beholder. I've called it observationology, and it's entirely
    subjective as well as in need of deductively interpreting no matter
    how good or bad the image technology is. If you can't deductively
    think and thus interpret for yourself, you're kind of screwed into
    accepting whatever others (your peers) have to say. Unlike most, I
    still like to think for myself, and I never saw one stinking image of
    anything looking WMD worthy, but then I'm not as smart as our SEC and
    Madoff either.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Jan 29, 2009
    #26
  7. BradGuth

    Vance Guest

    Do you actually pictures?
     
    Vance, Jan 31, 2009
    #27
  8. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    I do not have such pictures. However, pictures of Sirius C should
    have become a snap, that is unless there's nothing of any .06 solar
    mass that's causing such a pronounced pattern of Sirius A/B
    interactions.

    Possibly it's a micro black hole, although I'd kind of doubt it. It's
    more likely a brown or possibly red dwarf.

    There are 200 DB cmos imagers, and with either dual 16 bit ADCs or
    simply selectively double scanning via one such 16 bit ADC should more
    than do the trick of extracting whatever Sirius C has to offer. Even
    at 12 DB per ADC bit wouldn't be out of the question, although
    multiple ADCs seems rather doable.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Jan 31, 2009
    #28
  9. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    That has been said about many things, although better imaging
    capability is likely to far outperform our wildest expectations, and a
    whole lot sooner than we might think. Such as a 200 DB cmos imager
    using 2.5-µm pixels could happen within another year or so.

    At any rate, even a 100 DB cmos imager using a 16 bit ADC and
    sufficient bandpass filters should be capable of pulling Sirius C our
    from all the Sirius A/B noise. Quite possibly Sirius C is either a
    brown dwarf of < 0.06 solar mass, or it's some kind of massive planet.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Jan 31, 2009
    #29
  10. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    Why are you doing this kind of Usenet/newsgroup damage control?

    Aren't these clowns of the brown-nosed status quo capable of defending
    their own actions?

    Is our John O'Flaherty simply not familiar with optics, image sensors
    and the kinds of fully processed end results?

    And, don't birds of a feather usually flock together?

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Jan 31, 2009
    #30
  11. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    No argument that imaging will rapidly improve, the problem is that I don't
    think you realise what you are asking for if applied to general photography.
    But will average people readilly accept a liquid helium cooled camera? :)

    OK, just don't get highly specialised scientific fields with mega budgets
    mixed up with general photography. Sure there is some spin off, but there
    are also absolute physical limitations to be considered.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 1, 2009
    #31
  12. BradGuth

    J. Clarke Guest

    The silly part of this is that with all the super-whizzbang
    technology, there's still going to be a tree growing out of Aunt
    Maudie's head as she's caught in mid sneeze.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 1, 2009
    #32
  13. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    I would, as would anyone looking for brown dwarfs.
    Trust me, sufficient DR of cmos imagers exist as is, and it isn't even
    all that spendy.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Feb 1, 2009
    #33
  14. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    Just as I said, highly specialised fields only. Lets not confuse it with
    general photography however.
    I suggest you find out what is actually necessary to produce a 200dB range
    of output from such a sensor!
    I can't see it happening anytime soon. Multiple scan is the accepted
    practical method of obtaining such a range.
    But do let us know when you actually purchase an imager with a single pass
    200dB range :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 1, 2009
    #34
  15. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    200 db image sensors are already off the shelf, and using a dual 16
    bit ADC doesn't seem so terribly spendy or complex. Even liquid
    helium or more likely stacked thermoelectric Peltier cooling isn't all
    that insurmountable for extending the cmos or ccd peak sensitivity
    into the near IR range.

    Camera firmware and/or software already offers up to 256 scans per
    image.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Feb 3, 2009
    #35
  16. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    I said "single pass", as you have been saying all along.
    If you don't really mean single pass, then you in fact agree "multiple scan
    is the accepted practical method of obtaining such a range." and we can stop
    all the arguing.

    Do calculate the necessary voltages for a 200dB analog signal, even when
    operating close to absolute zero and thus theoretical noise limits, let
    alone what you can achieve with a simple Peltier cooler!
    Exactly, so stop confusing the issue with spurious claims. With 256 scans
    the whole issue of ADC's you brought up is irrelevant. Each scan is less
    than 16 bits anyway. Problem solved, just do it! :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 4, 2009
    #36
  17. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    A sufficiently narrow bandpass optical filter would exclude the vast
    bulk of other stellar illumination, plus firmware and later software
    processing should be capable of either identifying and/or excluding
    all but Sirius C.

    I didn't say it would be exactly cheap or easy. Just a good 10000x
    optical lens or set of mirrors would be in of itself spendy.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Feb 4, 2009
    #37
  18. BradGuth

    BradGuth Guest

    Good to hear that I'm not half as crazy as I've frequently been
    informed.

    ~ BG
     
    BradGuth, Feb 4, 2009
    #38
  19. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    And that's all your claims are unfortunately.
    Once again you have NO idea what you are saying, so why do you bother?
    The practical limits of our universe don't seem to apply to yours, nor do
    normally accepted definitions it seems.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 5, 2009
    #39
  20. BradGuth

    Mr.T Guest

    Oops, my apologies for confusing you with BG. I do hope those *stupid*
    figures weren't serious however.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 5, 2009
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.