----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Was it in answer to this paragraph from Mark Erickson, quoted > immediately below?
No, I was responding to Bob Blakely's response to Mark E. :-) It was his wording that triggered my little silly joke: <quote> > This has to be baloney. > Light *has* to strike the sensor at an oblique > angle or an image will not be formed! </quote> > I don't like Mark E's words "...adjacent to the sensor..." because I > don't think that's what he meant. In HIS definition, the words "the > sensor" would imply those pixels immediately on the centerline of the > CCD. > I don't understand what he had in mind when he said "adjacent to the sensor." > The whole darned CCD IS the "sensor!" All the way out to the edges of > the working pixel field. I thought he meant adjacent pixel... > * * * > >From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> It should be fairly clear from the figure at the bottom that light > >> striking the CCD perpendicular to the array gets focused on the > >> sensor. What is not shown is that light striking at an oblique > >> angle will get focused adjacent to the sensor, not on it. > * * * [...] > But, if we can keep the heat out of the arguments, we'll be okay. :-) Yup. cheers, Jostein
