Hi, Keith, > > > > If light *has* to strike the sensor at an oblique angle, it would logically > > follow that the chip has a blind spot at the center. So this cannot be > > right, Bob. > > I think you knew what he meant, Jostein. You're just funnin' him, right? > <g> > The single photon occupying the lens' axis is dead on, 90 degrees to the > plane of the sensor, and by definition, all other ray paths out to the > edge of the sensor must necessarily be at increasingly larger angles...
Are you sure you understood what he wrote? Both you and I know that there's necessarily more than one photon hitting the sensor at a right angle. It's kinda obvious since any aperture opening has a physical area larger than a photon. The point was, Bob forfeited that the light _had_ to strike at an oblique angle. I just wanted to point out that particular breach of logic. Could be interesting to calibrate our notion of the term "oblique angle", btw...:-) > > IMO, it's pretty obvious that a microlens has an acceptable angle of view. > > Within which, the light will trigger the right response in the sensor. > > Beyond which, the light will behave in a way that will cause problems. Such > > as chromatic aberration, or that the neighbouring responds to light it > > should not respond to. > > Don't you suppose the lens/sensor manufacturer would be perfectly able > to figure that out? And provide for it? And haven't they done so, Keith? Releasing all those digital-optimised wide angle lenses. Sorry to have insulted your intelligence, mate. Jostein
