Difference between revisions of "Talk:CCD"
(propose moving some to "sensor") |
(Bayer CFA moved to Sensor) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I expect that at the time when this was written, CMOS sensors were a minor fraction of the sensors used. Today, they dominate the quality camera market; and I'd like to propose that some of the content here (like the Bayer filter description) be moved to [[sensor]]—where it can be presented in a way that's agnostic towards the underlying technology. This would also cover us in case some new thing comes along like [http://www.invisageinc.com/page.aspx?cont=QuantumFilm%20Technology Quantum film] and eclipses CCD and CMOS.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 06:44, 26 February 2011 (PST) | I expect that at the time when this was written, CMOS sensors were a minor fraction of the sensors used. Today, they dominate the quality camera market; and I'd like to propose that some of the content here (like the Bayer filter description) be moved to [[sensor]]—where it can be presented in a way that's agnostic towards the underlying technology. This would also cover us in case some new thing comes along like [http://www.invisageinc.com/page.aspx?cont=QuantumFilm%20Technology Quantum film] and eclipses CCD and CMOS.--[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 06:44, 26 February 2011 (PST) | ||
| + | :After considering for a couple of weeks I've gone ahead and moved the Bayer Filter information to [[sensor]] --[[User:Voxphoto|Vox]] 08:16, 9 March 2011 (PST) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:16, 9 March 2011
I expect that at the time when this was written, CMOS sensors were a minor fraction of the sensors used. Today, they dominate the quality camera market; and I'd like to propose that some of the content here (like the Bayer filter description) be moved to sensor—where it can be presented in a way that's agnostic towards the underlying technology. This would also cover us in case some new thing comes along like Quantum film and eclipses CCD and CMOS.--Vox 06:44, 26 February 2011 (PST)
