CCD and CMOS

Most camera makers refer to their light sensing chips as CCDs (Charge
Coupled Device) while Canon refer to their CMOS sensor (Complementary Metal
Oxide Silicon). As far as I'm aware, they're not mutually exclusive; CCDs
being made up of thousands (ok, millions now) of photodiodes, and CMOS being
one technology for building microelectronic circuits.

Is Canon trying to confuse us? Am I confused (yes)? Is there anything
different about Canon's chips? Isn't CMOS static sensitive?
Grim

Is Canon trying to confuse us? Am I confused (yes)? Is there anything
different about Canon's chips? Isn't CMOS static sensitive?

Not 100% sure on the difference but CCD are certainly A more expensive and B
far higher in quality of image.

I think the quality may have something to do with the number of lines
produced in the picture iirc cmos is 380 and CCD 420. somthing like that.

Damian

--
Damian Burrin
UKRA 1159 Level 2 RSO
EARS 1115
http://www.ukrocketry.com
http://www.larf-rocketry.co.uk

email
email
email
"Grimble Gromble" wrote in message
...
Most camera makers refer to their light sensing chips as CCDs (Charge
Coupled Device) while Canon refer to their CMOS sensor (Complementary
Metal Oxide Silicon). As far as I'm aware, they're not mutually exclusive;
CCDs being made up of thousands (ok, millions now) of photodiodes, and
CMOS being one technology for building microelectronic circuits.

Is Canon trying to confuse us? Am I confused (yes)? Is there anything
different about Canon's chips? Isn't CMOS static sensitive?
Grim

"Damian Burrin" wrote
I think the quality may have something to do with the number of lines produced in the picture iirc cmos is 380 and CCD 420.
somthing like that.

No, they are entirely different technologies, and it's nothing to do
with the number of lines or of pixels.

This article describes some of the differences:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm

Here's another article:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1157572,00.asp

Interestingly, Canon are claiming they use CMOS sensors in their high-end
cameras:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/cmos/


Quite why I did all that googling rather than someone else is a source of
some confusion to me.



Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

The following links may help

http://www.digitalout.com/back%20edi.../feature3.html

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/cmos/

Regards
Steve



"Grimble Gromble" wrote:

Most camera makers refer to their light sensing chips as CCDs (Charge
Coupled Device) while Canon refer to their CMOS sensor (Complementary Metal
Oxide Silicon). As far as I'm aware, they're not mutually exclusive; CCDs
being made up of thousands (ok, millions now) of photodiodes, and CMOS being
one technology for building microelectronic circuits.

Is Canon trying to confuse us? Am I confused (yes)? Is there anything
different about Canon's chips? Isn't CMOS static sensitive?
Grim

"Fleetie" wrote in message
news
"Damian Burrin" wrote
I think the quality may have something to do with the number of lines
produced in the picture iirc cmos is 380 and CCD 420. somthing like that.

No, they are entirely different technologies, and it's nothing to do
with the number of lines or of pixels.

This article describes some of the differences:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm

Here's another article:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1157572,00.asp

Interestingly, Canon are claiming they use CMOS sensors in their high-end
cameras:

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/cmos/

Tremendous stuff. Thanks. Thanks also to Robin and Steve for their links and
Oswald for his comments. Now all I have to do is find a thinking cap, don
it, and digest pointed to information.

Quite why I did all that googling rather than someone else is a source of
some confusion to me.

Because you're a considerate person and it is much appreciated. I've noticed
some comments before about people failing to utilise Google (first). We're
not all lazy. I seem to obtain several billion hits whenever I do a search,
and nothing on the first dozen or so pages seems relevant. Maybe it's just
me. One ray of hope lies in the fact that I've just found the Google site
(not searching for 'google', but 'search engine') and that appears to have
an advanced search that looks more promising. Presumably, these are things
that 'everybody' knows?
Grim

"Grimble Gromble" wrote
Tremendous stuff. Thanks. Thanks also to Robin and Steve for their links and Oswald for his comments. Now all I have to do is
find a thinking cap, don it, and digest pointed to information.

Quite why I did all that googling rather than someone else is a source of
some confusion to me.

Because you're a considerate person and it is much appreciated. I've noticed some comments before about people failing to
utilise Google (first). We're not all lazy.

I know. I do the same myself. Sometimes you just can't be fagged, right?
You just want someone to tell you without wading through possibly-unreliable
websites. Not a crime.

Actually I was doing some experimentation with Google yesterday. I wanted to
know whether kinda "cross-product" searches would work. For example, suppose
I knew someone's name sounded like "Tom Wolf", but wasn't sure of the
spelling of either name. Satisfyingly, the following search expression seemed
to work:

"(tom|thomas|thom) (wolf|woolf|wolfe)"

Note the enclosing quotes that stipulate that the words must occur together
and in that order. It did seem to return stuff like "Thomas Wolfe" and
"Tom Wolfe" and so on.

On the flipside, Google's "calculator" doesn't know what atan2() is.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

JRS: In article , dated Fri, 31
Dec 2004 15:29:49, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, Fleetie
posted :

On the flipside, Google's "calculator" doesn't know what atan2() is.


If it has Arctan, you can get atan2 by the method of

function AT2(byval Y, X)
if Y0 then
AT2 = 2.0 * Arctan( Y / ( X + Sqr(X*X+Y*Y) ) )
else
if X0 then AT2 = Pi else AT2 = 0.0
end if
end function

See URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/vb-maths.htm#AT2 and
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pas-math.htm#TrigFuncs

Alternatively, take a copy of
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-quick.htm
and calculate in javascript.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/ JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm jscr maths, dates, sources.
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.