March 01, 2015, 02:30:24 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 333
1036
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 11:04:26 PM »
Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....

So we're going to draw conclusions from an entirely different format???

The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor  ::)

The 5D III does not clip to black at all...it uses a 2048 bias offset.

1037
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:13:57 PM »
a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.

Of course a foveon sensor needs an AA filter (unless it's like say maybe 60MP+ APS-C or something).

Wikipedia disagrees  ;D

I was under the impression that the Foveon sensors shipped without AA filters, though I wouldn't swear to it.

Foveon sensors do ship without AA filters. They also do not suffer from color moire. However, they still NEED AA filters, because they do suffer from moire in monochrome.

1038
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:12:22 PM »

Let me ask, what do you think of this IQ:

In practice...I've never really experienced the supposed "waxy, extremely softening effect of the 7D's AA filter." Only at particularly high ISO settings, where the 7D does not perform well for numerous reasons, have I ever experienced a loss in color fidelity and sharpness that I really did not like.


Those are such tiny jpegs, JR. Would you mind posting the RAW file to determine out-of-camera IQ?

Also, it looks like flash may have been used. These would present completely different conditions.

The 7D is certainly capable of getting nice shots when you fill the frame and light is perfect.  My problem was the lower keeper rate when compared to the numerous other Canon DSLR's I've used and/or owned.

I never use flash. I own a flash, but the last time I pulled it out of my closet was probably two years ago. And you cannot make the argument that finding and using good light is a bad thing, or unfair. I find and use good light REGARDLESS of which camera I'm using, regardless of how big it's sensor frame is. That's a part of being a good bird and wildlife photographer...to chase good light. This is my photography. This is how my photography looks. And all of those photos were taken with the 7D. I believe the examples speak for themselves...an AA filter is not a bad or highly detrimental thing that must be done away with. It has never negatively affected my work.

But your backtracking now. Your switching the problem your complaining about. Now it's the lower keeper rate, instead of the supposed waxy appearance. :P I will happily agree that the 7D had AF problems. It had inconsistent lock-on rates, and had an inherent jitter. But that is an entirely different argument, and has nothing to do with the supposed "waxy" appearance that the 7D, based on your otherwise unqualified statements, simply has...period. (It only sometimes gets waxy at really high ISO...however I think LTRLI has a better explanation for it...split green CFA.)

I don't want to share RAWs for some of my better works, these are photos I'm working on selling these days, however my entire point is that out of camera IQ isn't the end-all-be-all here. I've been explicitly making the argument that regardless of what impact an AA filter might have, it doesn't matter in the end. Apply a little sharpening...and bam, any softness attributed to the AA filter is simply gone.

1039
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:06:23 PM »
   
   65 AF points “All Cross-type”. Dual cross on the center point.

I like the 19 point system over the 45 point system.  Easier to actually identify a tracking point AND it makes you work.  I like cameras that reward you putting some work in.
Can't tell if this is serious or not. Both because the 19pts are contained within the 65pts (so you can opt not to use the extra 46), and because by that logic, you should really just want one focus point. Or a film camera...

Just seems odd to want all the video specs that don't really belong on a traditional DSLR (but would be great to have), yet scoff at the one reasonable spec

1. Yes entirely serious.

2. No. 19 larger points filling the centre third of the frame is not the same thing as 45 or 65 pints filling the same area with some points ignored.  In you model you would have larger gaps between the af points where things like say, adjacent point tracking weren't happening.  One of the great things with the EOS 7D was the ability to select one AF point, but for the camera also to have cognisnece of the adjacent 4.  Just in case the subject was faster, or the camera smarter than the user.

3. "By that logic.." you lost me.  That is the vocabulary of the flamer.  "I don't understand what you said, so I'll apply my misunderstood logic to try and make you look ridiculous."  It's a false dichotomy. 

By my logic, I only want one AF point at any one time.  Sometimes that is the centre point. For say a steam train pummelling right down the lens at me. Sometimes it is on an upper left third cross section or upper right third cross section, for say portraiture.  Sometimes it is on a lower third, when I'm composing a nice skyscape at sunset against a still firth of clyde.

I won't attempt to understand your logic.  I use manual AF point selection a lot of the time.  I find 19 enough.
Shock horror, I sometime use MF.  But I never ever ever use auto AF point select.

So in answer to your poser.  Yeah, sometimes I only want one AF point.  (Quite how you make the uber patronising leap to film use I don't comprehend) But I would like a choice of AF points to use.

Sometimes when I'm tracking a moving subject, I find 45 tiny af points just too many.  I got on great with the EOS 7D system is all.  I'm sorry that provokes so much ire. 

Maybe you should use a compact in green square mode if you want to surrender all control to your camera?

Interested in how you made the leap that I should use film.  Please explain.

It's actually been clearly demonstrated on many occasions, with AF systems from multiple manufacturers now, that a high density reticulated AF system is far better for tracking than a system with widely distributed AF points like the 7D. Canon, Nikon, Sony, and a few other manufacturers all have high density reticulated (net-like) AF systems now. Canon's 61pt system in particular, with so many cross-type points, has proven to be remarkably effective at locking onto and tracking fast and erratically moving subjects.

There is nothing wrong with having more points. The new AF systems support the same thing the 7D did, with allowing nearby points to "assist". It's called AF Expansion mode, where you select one, then allow the surrounding four or eight points to assist. You can also use zone mode, which unlike all points mode, allows you to chose on of a couple sizes of restricted, selectable zones for tracking.

Owning both a 7D and 5D III myself, there is absolutely no question which AF system is superior...the 61pt reticulated system kicks the crap out of the 19pt system. You can still use a single point if you wish, and in the case of focusing on slow moving subject such as a perched or standing bird or posing wildlife, that's exactly what you want. When it comes to subjects in motion...nothing beats having more AF points in higher density, especially if they are ALL cross-type.

1040
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:55:15 PM »
What if they just did a non-Bayer pixel arrangement, like Fuji?  Isn't that supposed to let you ditch the AA filter?

LOL. We had a very extensive debate about that not too long ago. The 6x6 pixel interpolation of the Fuji results in soft detail, and it obliterates a lot of fine detail. Technically speaking, if you oversampled enough, you could indeed interpolate more pixels together...but you would really have to be significantly oversampling. The problem with Fuji's sensor is it does not oversample the lenses at all in most cases, or enough in the best  cases (those cases being when you are either at a very narrow aperture, or just have a crappy lens.)

Oversampling is a pretty specific use case. No one has really done that these days...not at any wider aperture...you would have to be at f/22 at least on most lenses these days before you really just barely begin to oversample with any existing APS-C sensors...and you would need to be around f/32 or so before FF sensors begin to oversample.

1041
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:45:07 PM »
The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

You weren't using the right ACR settings...or were using DPP. (Seriously.)

That said, I agree with you on RAW sharpness and taking more post processing. I wouldn't miss an AA filter.

I use Lightroom. Trust me when I say I had several 7D's, and all of them performed this way regardless of settings.  My 70D is much, much better.

I'm not sure what the exact cause was. I believe it was a result of several factors, perhaps a  "sot focus" combined with a buttery AA filter.  My keeper rate, with several 7D's was considerably less than any other Canon DSLR I have owned, and across the same set of lenses.  I shoot mostly nature, and the 7D just hated organic colors.

Let me ask, what do you think of this IQ:




Is that waxy and horrible and hateful? Because that's a 7D. So is this:



And this:



And all of these:







In practice...I've never really experienced the supposed "waxy, extremely softening effect of the 7D's AA filter." Only at particularly high ISO settings, where the 7D does not perform well for numerous reasons, have I ever experienced a loss in color fidelity and sharpness that I really did not like.

1042
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 05:13:24 PM »

As for photographers, if you think the removal of an AA filter is better than oversampling, then yes, I absolutely DO BLAME YOU for forcing a ludicrous trend on camera manufacturers. :P

So rather than removing obstacles to improve detail and simplifying, you want to convolute the process?



Quote
Your an idiot if you think a lower resolution sensor without an AA filter is ever, even remotely, going to be better than downsampling an oversampled image that doesn't NEED an AA filter (because by oversampling, you ARE anti-aliasing!)

As for sharpening soft images...are you refuting the claim that you can restore detail by sharpening? Seriously?! I've proven this case so many times before, do I really, truly, need to prove it again?

In my response, I claimed that soft images can be sharpened.  But the problem with soft images is they are much less malleable than sharp, clean images out of camera.

The better the sensor, the less post processing you have to do.

I'm not sure there is any actual evidence for that. And again, I'd point you to all the artifacts that occur with sensors that lack an AA filter entirely. You could spend DAYS trying to correct moire or extensive aliasing in an image, and still never get rid of it. As for a sensor with an AA filter...run it through a light sharpening filter and your done. Maybe that's 5 seconds of additional processing...ooh, that's just so much time. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that you still have to spend time sharpening an image without an AA filter...you just use less sharpening. So there really isn't any major difference in processing time period.

Now, regarding oversampling. You seem to be misunderstanding that. A sensor that oversamples lenses, at their best resolution, say f/2.8 as a round-about high quality aperture for lenses the likes of the Otus. You still wouldn't have an AA filter. However, you wouldn't NEED an AA filter, because your anti-aliasing by oversampling. You do understands what that means, right? A sensor that is capable of oversampling is going to be of MUCH higher resolution than any sensor that isn't oversampling and lacks and AA filter.

So...where, exactly, is your lower resolution AA-less sensor actually getting higher IQ than a high resolution oversampled sensor? The higher resolution sensor, even it it may look "soft" at 100% pixel peeping, is STILL resolving FAR more detail than the lower resolution sensor that lacks an AA filter. You want a sharper image? Well, if your 2x oversampled, downsample by a factor of two (reduce it to 1/4 area). If your 3x oversampled, downsample by a factor of three (reduce it to 1/9th area.) The oversampled image will be sharper, out of camera, without any sharpening or noise reduction, than the lower resolution image that did not have an AA filter.

When it comes down to sensors at today's resolutions, I'll take the one with an AA filter over one without an AA filter any day. It might take me an extra five seconds to dial in a slightly stronger amount of sharpening than one without an AA filter, but at least I won't have to spend an extra day trying to get rid of aliasing and moire. :P

1043
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:53:20 PM »

I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).


You're kidding right? Do you know how much hype there was in the video world over the original 7D? It was huge! The APS-C sensor is nearly super35mm in size, the same size as motion picture 35mm film. It matches cinema lenses well, unlike full frame cameras.

There isn't a ton of hype about the 7DmkII in the video world, only because most people have given up on Canon outside of Magic Lantern hacks. But the hope is still that Canon will release the 7DmkII to match or at least come cose to the GH4 in video specs.

You misunderstood my point. Cinema LENSES usually have wide apertures. They are rated in T-stops, which is often wider than f/2.8. Most Canon DSLR lenses, unless your spending thousands of dollars, don't come remotely close to the quality of a cinema lens, and don't have the nice wide max apertures. So with a 7D II and "almost super 35mm size" sensor, your still not going to get that cinematic look. You certainly won't come anywhere close to the kind of beautiful cinematic quality and boke that you can get from any video-capable FF DSLR.

From what you've said, people in the video community were looking to the 7D II for the same reasons still photographers were looking to it...just to see what Canon would do, not because it would necessarily offer the right kind of IQ for their needs. It's a milestone marker for Canon...did they move 500 miles down the road yet, or did they only move five miles?

From the looks of it, on both fronts, video and still, Canon hasn't moved much more than five miles down the road...and they are still puttering along.

1044
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:45:28 PM »
Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images. People just plain and simply don't understand resolution. I want OVERSAMPLING, not soft images. An oversampled image is only a problem if you pixel peep. However, nicely oversampled image (say 2-3x the diffraction spot size) is never going to need any upsampling for printing large. You don't have "sharp" detail when upsampling ANYWAY, so I'd much rather start out with an image that has as much detail as possible, even if it looks "soft" at 100%...it's going to be less soft than a lower resolution image that's been upsampled to the same size.

Going in the other direction, you can always downsample an oversampled image and gain sharpness. An image oversampled 2x relative to an image that was not oversampled at all (1x) will look better when downsampled to 1/4 it's original size to match the 1x image. Additionally, the oversampled image won't have any aliasing of any kind whatsoever, where as the image sampled at 1x WILL most definitely have aliasing and possibly moire.

Removal of an AA filter also means that signal frequencies that match the sensor frequency, and those just above and just below, the frequencies that get aliased most, just end up becoming noise. But it's a harsh, sharp noise, so it's very obvious.

There are no real benefits to removal of AA filters. With the right kind of scene, say a landscape packed with non-patterned information, MIGHT benefit from it. However there are plenty of very undesirable things that absolutely do occur with the removal of AA filters...proven things, most of which have no real solution for correcting in post. I'm advocating against Canon following the uneducated trend of niche companies like Nikon and photographers who don't know what they are talking about, and forcing the introduction of a crap ton of artifacts and aliasing into our images that were perfectly fine before.

another thing people forget is that "sharpeness" does not equal "more details".

True. I'd strongly argue that you get much more detail with an image oversampled 2-3x, than with an image that does not have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get within 98-99% of the detail of an image that was taken without an AA filter by sharpening an image that did have an AA filter. I'd argue that you can get 99-100% of the real detail of an image taken without an AA filter by using proper deconvolution algorithms with an image that DID have an AA filter.

The convolution caused by an AA filter is highly predictable and uniform across the frame, so it's easily correctable. Aliasing, moire, and other artifacts that occur due to the LACK of an AA filter are near impossible or literally impossible to correct in post, even with the most advanced tools on the market today.

1045
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:42:05 PM »
LOL, I'm not advocating soft images.


It sure sounded like it.  ;)  You blamed waxy AA filters on end users, and then brushed the waxy filters off by saying you can sharpen soft images.

What in the world are you talking about?

1046
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:38:31 PM »
DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.

If they're both under the same microlens (which is how DPAF works), you wouldn't get any more detail that way.

Totally agree. There is no benefit to splitting the photodiode underneath the same microlens and color filter.

Well, except fot the phase information, which is the whole point of them doing it.

Right. However from what I understand about Canon's DPAF design, the photodiodes MUST be under the microlens for it to work properly.

1047
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:36:13 PM »
i know.... but what has QE to do with sensor size when the G10 has a reported QE of 57% ?

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G10.html

or the G15 with QE 59%

It doesn't have anything to do with sensor size. Canon's smaller sensors are manufactured on their newer fabs, which do use a 180nm process and apparently better materials. It's the larger sensors that are still manufactured at their older fabs.

1048
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:34:56 PM »
DPAF in the 70D has two photosites for each pixel. I'm really surprised that no one has suggested that "fine detail" is a selectable mode that reads each photosite separately to produce a 40mp image.

If they're both under the same microlens (which is how DPAF works), you wouldn't get any more detail that way.

Totally agree. There is no benefit to splitting the photodiode underneath the same microlens and color filter.

1049
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:34:22 PM »
Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

LOL, I'm not advocating soft images. People just plain and simply don't understand resolution. I want OVERSAMPLING, not soft images. An oversampled image is only a problem if you pixel peep. However, nicely oversampled image (say 2-3x the diffraction spot size) is never going to need any upsampling for printing large. You don't have "sharp" detail when upsampling ANYWAY, so I'd much rather start out with an image that has as much detail as possible, even if it looks "soft" at 100%...it's going to be less soft than a lower resolution image that's been upsampled to the same size.

Going in the other direction, you can always downsample an oversampled image and gain sharpness. An image oversampled 2x relative to an image that was not oversampled at all (1x) will look better when downsampled to 1/4 it's original size to match the 1x image. Additionally, the oversampled image won't have any aliasing of any kind whatsoever, where as the image sampled at 1x WILL most definitely have aliasing and possibly moire.

Removal of an AA filter also means that signal frequencies that match the sensor frequency, and those just above and just below, the frequencies that get aliased most, just end up becoming noise. But it's a harsh, sharp noise, so it's very obvious.

There are no real benefits to removal of AA filters. With the right kind of scene, say a landscape packed with non-patterned information, MIGHT benefit from it. However there are plenty of very undesirable things that absolutely do occur with the removal of AA filters...proven things, most of which have no real solution for correcting in post. I'm advocating against Canon following the uneducated trend of niche companies like Nikon and photographers who don't know what they are talking about, and forcing the introduction of a crap ton of artifacts and aliasing into our images that were perfectly fine before.

1050
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:26:21 PM »
Regarding the sensor...very disappointing. Sounds like a re-purposed 70D sensor with a DPAF improvement. I was REALLY, REALLY hoping Canon would really show something impressive on the sensor front with the 7D II. If the camera really does hit the streets with a 20mp sensor, I fully expect it to have the same DR limitations as all of Canon's previous sensors. Extremely disappointing.  :'( Guess we'll have to wait for the 5D IV to see if Canon can actually step up their sensor IQ game or not...which is just...so far down the road...Bleh.

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

+1

it sorta almost leads one to believe that Japanese Canon Fangirls post here where they were claiming that Canon feels they have Canon users trapped enough that it won't matter if the bodies they push out can't keep up as per sensors and even other features at times (still not a hint that they are actually moving any DSLR sensors to new fabs and the panny gets 4k and yet the super new 7D2 which was promised to have revolutionary video and this and that is still 1080p)

and yeah the AA filter-less stuff I am not a big fan of, maybe when we get to 180MP FF or 60MP APS-C or something.

Yeah, we really need sensors to significantly oversample the lens before we can legitimately start dropping AA filters. Otherwise we just end up WITH aliasing, and that's never good.

I was not really interested in the 7D II being a big video DSLR anyway...I don't really know that anyone truly was, you just don't get that cinematic look with a smaller sensor...not without having very wide apertures anyway (like a lot of expensive cinema lenses do).

The thing that I think Canon really needed to nail, and which increasingly appears as they will not, is producing a truly new sensor with a fundamentally new design on a smaller fabrication process size. It just isn't happening. If this thing is still a 500nm transistor part...I mean...WOW. That technology is about fifteen years old!! What is Canon doing? It's one thing to be conservative, but now it's just getting ludicrous...

I have always wondered about this, and you may be the guy to answer. Intel's next series of chips is what, 14nm process? I understand that Intel is purely in the microprocessor business, and Canon has to do a lot more than just optimize processes for sensors, but is there any practical reason why sensor transistors are / should be / need to be on such a different scale? Or is it just a matter of business and not wanting to make the necessary investment to keep shrinking? The fact that intel shrinks every other year has just made me wonder... because clearly there's an advantage to a smaller process.

cost.
no one creates large sensors using the latest technology - the A7R / D810E sensor for instance is on 180nm.  which is speculated to the be the same as the 70D sensor. D700, D4, etc were even on larger than that (350nm to 250nm)

the toshiba sensor uses 65nm and sony was looking at and just starting to use 90nm for it's APS-C sensors, but unless you're talking the smart phone / compact sensors - there's just no benefit to the smaller geometries over the cost of production with the pixel granularity where it is.

canon's current line of lithography systems can produce chips under 90nm - far exceeding even really what is required by sensors - so it's not as if canon can't if they feel they have to.  also to add to that, canon now has the equipment to product down to under 10nm geometries.

To be honest, people are humping on this as the core reason - not really.  and most of them don't have a freaking clue, but all of a sudden turn into electronic and chip designers (not to mention camera designers too).  canon certainly has a problem "downlevel" from the pixel - but their QE from their current 70D isn't that much off than the D5100's QE and even cutting the pixels in half they improved the QE by 10% over the 7D sensor level spec.

Your partly right, but your largely missing the point. A 500nm transistor is actually HUGE by todays standards. Think about it, that is half a micron. For a pixel that is surrounded by half-micron transistors, that is a FULL micron off all side of the pixel. A 4µm pixel is then only capable of, at most, a 3µm photodiode. The full size of the pixel itself is 1.78x larger in area than the photodiode. However, if you move to a 180nm process, your losing less than half a micron in total. That means the photodiode can be 3.6µm in size. The pixel is only 1.2x larger in area than the photodiode. Your photodiode area has increased by a factor of 1.5x, which reduces noise by 1.2x. That is significant. It's a stop gained in noise performance.

However, the REAL point about moving to a smaller transistor size is the ability to put more logic on the sensor die. At 500nm, Canon would have to make the sensor die itself quite a lot larger in order to move all the ADC logic onto the sensor itself, and make it column-parallel. At 180nm or better 90nm, they could move the ADCs on-die and need less than half, maybe less than one quarter, of the die space that would be necessary to do that with a 500nm process. Yield would remain high, so the cost of moving ADC onto the sensor would be much lower in the long run. THAT is the real point of moving to a smaller process. To allow more logic to be placed on the sensor die itself. The biggest gain there would be allowing full blown, high performance CP-ADC (and, maybe, also employ some of the other patents Canon has, such as dual scale ADC, power decoupling, etc.)

There is also a significantly greater per-pixel transistor requirement for stacked pixel designs. Canon recently released a patent for a five-layer sensor design. I honestly don't know how they would pull that off with a 500nm process. Not without a very low fill factor which would push noise levels sky high. However, with a 90nm fabrication process, creating a five layer sensor would be much, much easier, without running into serious problems with noise.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 333