Oversized CCD chips

Barry Green · July 25th, 2004, 11:10 PM

I'm not saying the math is unimportant, just not necessary to draw the appropriate conclusion.

By using a field-of-view chart, and Canon's published 35mm equivalency statistics, it appears to me that the XL2 is delivering a 4:3 FOV consistent with 1/4" cameras.

Luis Caffesse · July 26th, 2004, 08:00 AM

"I'm not saying the math is unimportant

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth there Barry.

You are right, the math is not necessary to draw the appropriate conclusion.
The differences we are discussing are so miniscule at this point,
that I would image they make no 'real world' difference.

-Luis

Don Berube · July 26th, 2004, 08:09 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "The differences we are discussing are so miniscule at this point,
that I would image they make no 'real world' difference.

-Luis -->>>

Exactly! Let's remember that the final production models haven't even been released yet.

- don

Robert J. Wolff · July 26th, 2004, 08:49 PM

Without the ability to determine the T/depth of comfusion vs. the M/depth of confusion, the cone of visibility by the field/(chip), (any size), cannot be determined.* T, meaning True. M, meaning Mathemathical.

Or, to put it more bluntly: Put both the XL-1s & the XL-2 together and look at the results.

Every thing else is mere conjecture.

*Chemical Rubber Company: Standard Mathematical Tables, 1959; pp.308

July 26th, 2004, 08:09 AM	#48
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "The differences we are discussing are so miniscule at this point, that I would image they make no 'real world' difference. -Luis -->>> Exactly! Let's remember that the final production models haven't even been released yet. - don __________________ DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org and also http://fcpugnetwork.org

July 26th, 2004, 08:49 PM	#49
Robert J. Wolff Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Adirondacks of New York Posts: 210	Without the ability to determine the T/depth of comfusion vs. the M/depth of confusion, the cone of visibility by the field/(chip), (any size), cannot be determined.* T, meaning True. M, meaning Mathemathical. Or, to put it more bluntly: Put both the XL-1s & the XL-2 together and look at the results. Every thing else is mere conjecture. *Chemical Rubber Company: Standard Mathematical Tables, 1959; pp.308 __________________ Himself

July 25th, 2004, 11:10 PM	#46
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I'm not saying the math is unimportant, just not necessary to draw the appropriate conclusion. By using a field-of-view chart, and Canon's published 35mm equivalency statistics, it appears to me that the XL2 is delivering a 4:3 FOV consistent with 1/4" cameras.

July 26th, 2004, 08:00 AM	#47
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"I'm not saying the math is unimportant Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth there Barry. You are right, the math is not necessary to draw the appropriate conclusion. The differences we are discussing are so miniscule at this point, that I would image they make no 'real world' difference. -Luis