«

Mxsmanic <> writes:

> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog electronic
> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical world
> will always be an analog device.

I suspect that's definitional with you.

For me, a device that counts photons in a region and reports the number
at the end of the exposure period seems pretty digital.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 27/02/2012 16:25, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Mxsmanic<> writes:
>
>> There is no such thing as a digital sensor. All sensors are analog electronic
>> devices. More generally, any device that interfaces with the physical world
>> will always be an analog device.
>
> I suspect that's definitional with you.

He is also fundamentally wrong. Several technologies exist that can
count individual photons or ions by cascade amplifiers. The classic
photomultiplier tube being the earliest example of the genre.
>
> For me, a device that counts photons in a region and reports the number
> at the end of the exposure period seems pretty digital.

IPCS actually gave the x,y,t coordinates of each photon splot hitting
the detector screen. The incident photon amplified many times first.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:56:58 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet writes:
>
>> For me, a device that counts photons in a region and reports the number
>> at the end of the exposure period seems pretty digital.
>
>It is neither digital nor analog, strictly speaking.
>
>Digital and analog are ways of representing information, nothing more.

Which means it's a digital sensor since it's directly presenting you
with digital count, i.e., digital information, not analog information.
The output of the sensor is not continuous and can only take on a
finite set of integer values between a given range of positive
integers. Therefor it is a digital sensor and not an analog one.

Case closed.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:46:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
wrote:

>TheRealSteve writes:
>
>> Which means it's a digital sensor since it's directly presenting you
>> with digital count, i.e., digital information, not analog information.
>
>No, it means that the sensor is neither digital nor analog, since both of
>these things are concepts, not physical reality.
>
>> The output of the sensor is not continuous and can only take on a
>> finite set of integer values between a given range of positive
>> integers. Therefor it is a digital sensor and not an analog one.
>
>That's not what makes something digital.

Actually, yes it is.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:25:09 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
wrote:

>TheRealSteve writes:
>
>> Actually, yes it is.
>
>There's more to digital vs. analog than that.

Not really.

Nice use of quotations by the way.