Nothing in the article talks about what the resulting aperture is. To get a reasonable exposure time, you need to capture adequate light. Cameras in cell phones already suffer because their lenses are too small to capture enough light. Is this scheme worse because it lets less light through or better because a larger "lens" is practical?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @07:20AM (#51526319)
Aperture is not a finite value but the ration between sensor (film) and lens opening.
In this case they use tiny pixels with tiny pinholes, remember there is no intend or even ability to focus on a single pixel so maximum aperture is possible.
Millions of pinholes * near zero size = ?? (Score:3)
Nothing in the article talks about what the resulting aperture is. To get a reasonable exposure time, you need to capture adequate light. Cameras in cell phones already suffer because their lenses are too small to capture enough light. Is this scheme worse because it lets less light through or better because a larger "lens" is practical?
Re:Millions of pinholes * near zero size = ?? (Score:0)
In this case they use tiny pixels with tiny pinholes, remember there is no intend or even ability to focus on a single pixel so maximum aperture is possible.
--
Teun