or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Well that's a sensible decision, but in that context I'm not sure what further "pressure" will achieve. If Apple cannot decrypt messages, for example, then there will be no backdoor.
Of course, but inductive charging has always been about convenience, not efficiency.
I have the XR and the regular SEEK, and I agree that for wildfire applications the larger field of view is better. It also wins for applications such as diagnosing electronic circuits and building issues. The XR works better for outdoor detection of smaller objects at distance, such as for search and rescue use or, presumably, hunting.
Did you read the discussion on exactly this topic, above?
 DED seems to be the only one to engage regularly, but I seem to recall at least one other author replying as an administrator. @nhughes, perhaps?
Ah - so you are saying that DTI can also improve optical isolation if done with materials of suitable refractive index. That's elegant if it works. From the wording I still don't think the author of the article understood the distinction though - it's not diffusion in the case of photons.
Agreed. I only use it when the camera is on a tripod - mostly for astro/night photography in my case.
I don't think I understand your comment. Deep trench isolation is designed to prevent electron diffusion, not photon diffusion. It's not a method to reduce optical crosstalk. What am I missing?
The newer DSLRs effectively provide ELV focus tools via Live View (as Nikon calls it).
The article seems to be confusing two different issues. Deep trench isolation is a technique to prevent photoelectron-diffusion crosstalk, not optical crosstalk.
New Posts  All Forums: