Steve: I think I misread one of your earlier emails before I wrote one of my earlier emails. Yes, all the other technical stuff matters (not just photons statistics) when comparing two cameras, which is usually the practical question at hand.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: > on 2014-08-06 7:47 Bryan Jacoby wrote > >> I'm sorry, I don't see how using a different word changes anything. >> Averaging together more noisy measurements vs. fewer less noisy >> measurements can indeed lead to the same result. > > > and it could lead to a better or worse results when there are so many > variables controlling the noise in the source > > i think it's important to consider that as photosites get smaller, the > overhead of signalling, isolation and on-chip optics may not decline > linearly; newer sensor designs may (try to) compensate for this (as the K3 > sensor is newer than K5), but sensors are not composed of perfectly abutting > square pixels, so it's not a pure signal processing equation; the practical > design (and the economics of sensor fabrication) mean real world tests are a > better bet than theory > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
