Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Full-Frame Transfer CCD as opposed to Interlaced

Subject: [OM] Re: Full-Frame Transfer CCD as opposed to Interlaced
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:29:53 -0400
I'm sure Olympus will be forced to stay with full-frame transfer.  Since 
they're working with a smaller area to begin with they already have 
worse noise problems than the competition.  Moving to interline transfer 
would just make matters worse.

But who knows.  The 4/3 sensor is small in the full-frame league but it 
would be a monster in the interline league.  If they decided that they 
really couldn't compete on noise with the likes of a 35mm size Canon 
CMOS sensor maybe they'd decide to simply change the market.  An 
interline sensor of 4/3 size would be a unique animal except for the 
Sony DSC-R1 which has an APS size CMOS interline sensor and lacks only 
interchangeable lenses to be a really interesting camera.

As the owner of an A1 I can attest that live view is a thing that's hard 
to get out of your head once you get used to it.  But the A1 only has a 
2/3 size sensor and is almost unusable above ISO 200 and isn't 
particulary quiet there either.

Chuck Norcutt



Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:

> Hello Fellow Olympoids,
>  
> One thing I miss in all discussions at the moment which was quite an
> issue when the E-1 was originally introduced is the Full-Frame Transfer
> CCD (of same size and mpix). With this technology each pixel can be
> bigger than on an Interlaced CCD, because the electric conductors are
> behind the light-sensitive layer and not between the rows of pixels. 
>  
> Is this technology continued in the newer bodies (E-300, 330 and 500)?
> Will it be continued in the bodies that we may expect soon?
> Or is this technology abandoned after the E-1?
>  
> I believe that this difference in design could make a difference (to
> some degree) for the noise issues with the E-1. The individual pixels
> could be bigger than on another CCD with the interlaced technology. I
> don't know how much the difference in pixel size effectively is, but it
> should be possible to make a 4/3 CCD with less noise than the E-1 shows.
>  
> Any opinions? Khen?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Wiliam
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz