Quantum efficiently has nothing to do with it. Red is at the low end or the visible frequency spectrum. Normally the higher the frequency the wider the bandwidth of filters at that frequency, unless you use a local frequency reference to down convert the signal. Why is this not the case for red light which is a lower frequency than blue light? Different materials for CCD's have different frequency reposes. I guess I don't understand why "red" produces more energy output. The energy of a photon is Planks constant X it frequency. A photon of blue has more energy than a photon of red. Different scanners use different light sources. I am still at a loss - not that I am disputing it - with your statement. I just don't understand. Truman Austin Franklin wrote: >Hi Truman, > > > >>Why do you say red has " the highest energy of the three." I would >>expect that would depend on the spectrum of the light source and the >>bandwidth of the filters. Please elaborate. >> >> > >The light source is a white light, and has all colors, it is filtered with >"a" color filter, and only light of the color of that filter reaches that >sensor. Red just simply has the highest energy of the three, as far as the >CCD "sees" it. It has to do with the quantum efficiency of the CCD (how the >CCD reacts to different spectrums of light). Red typically has up to an %80 >quantum efficiency. Blue and green only top out at about 60% right at their >peak sensitivity. Red stays quite high for almost the full width of its >sensitivity. Also, the spectral width of red is very very high, from 575nm >to 850+ nm. Blue is 375nm - 550nm and green 450nm - 625nm. > >Bring a color image into PS and thumb through the channels (CTL 1, 2 or 3 >for RGB, and CTL ~ for all), and you'll see that red is easily the fuzziest, >blue and green are very image dependant as to which is better... > >Regards, > >Austin > > > > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > >Please follow these basic guidelines: >- Include your full name with your message. >- Include the address of your website, if you have one. >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." >- Complete your Yahoo profile. >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Why is ND B&W scan better -- was Digital, film, scanning comparisons
2003-05-22 by Truman Prevatt
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.