or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Thanks for the clarification.
If the sapphire layer is thin enough (probably the top layer of a laminate) then in principle it could be sufficiently flexible for this purpose.
The distinction is somewhat semantic. Chemical treatment usually implies reaction, since any material addition otherwise must count as a chemical treatment, but I'm not sure that there is an accepted, standard definition.
The article says "published", which I took to mean it was granted.
They mention iron and titanium.
It's not regarded as a chemical treatment because it does not involve a chemical reaction per se, just physical bombardment.
Although, as the article mentions, inject enough foreign atoms or ions and you lose the ordered crystalline structure. Whether the resulting material still qualifies to be called sapphire, or meets the full definition of glass, could be questionable though, so you are probably correct.
Well not any dust. It has to be oxidizable.
I've noticed that several quite major local errors that I have been reporting since Maps was released have now been fixed. I'm surprised if they have only just started a significant effort on this.
That seems very unlikely since it would be simple sensor focus stacking, not light field imaging. The rays in question should be the directionally-resolved rays separated at each image pixel location by a microlens and recorded on the actual sensor. That implies that the actual recording sensor (under the microlens array) is 40 MP, which is quite reasonable. The final iamge has the same pixel dimensions as the microlens array, and so if the new camera is using the same...
New Posts  All Forums: