Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Hmm?? (Score 1) 118

by lastomega7 (#34438452) Attached to: Canon's Image Verification System Cracked
Nikon cameras do. There's an option to turn it on in the menus, but it's off by default. It even verifies the image in-camera, showing a symbol during image review if the image is authentic. And at this point it's looking a lot more useful than the Canon version, but who knows if some less attention-grabbing person/group has broken it?

Comment: Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution (Score 1) 192

by lastomega7 (#31577420) Attached to: Quantum Film Might Replace CMOS Sensors
A pixel (currently) comprises a large surface with which to capture light. The way higher end cameras are going, there seems to be a fork between higher resolution (e.g. Nikon d3x or Canon 1ds-mkiii) and higher sensitivity (Nikon d3s or Canon 1d-mkiv). So yes, you can trade off pixel density for sensitivity, but in the end the per-area sensitivity would be the same.

The discrepancy here is did they figure out a way to make the sensitivity increase or just up the pixel density? It looks like (if you RTFA) they did make it a lot more sensitive, but who knows how much area the individual pixels will have to take up. The articles present the information as if both the resolution and sensitivity quantum leaps. Pun intended.

"Right now I feel that I've got my feet on the ground as far as my head is concerned." -- Baseball pitcher Bo Belinsky

Working...