|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 5th, 2003, 03:56 PM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
why 2/3 inch chips are'nt that big
Have the use of a DXC-D35P for a week and looking in the manual (page 98) its says
"imaging area 8.8 x 6.6 mm (2/3 inch)" now 2/3 inch is approx 17mm in the real world so how does all this tie up? I read somewhere that Super 16 was about 35 % bigger than 2/3 chip which is obviously correct so where does the 2/3 inch figure apply ? it seems a LOT smaller than I was led to believe
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
December 5th, 2003, 04:09 PM
|
#2 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
|
I think they measure it diagonally (like computer monitors). It still doesn't add up... maybe they take into account all three CCDs??? (but that doesn't add up either...)
"imaging area 8.8 x 6.6 mm (2/3 inch)" gives 11mm diagonal. 6.6mmX3 = 19.8mm |
|
|
|
|
December 5th, 2003, 04:33 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 804
|
See here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp
|
|
|
|
|
December 5th, 2003, 04:45 PM
|
#4 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
thx Dre,
so know we know :) its crazy that a 2/3 is less than twice 1/3 DYT?
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
