<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_2232222</id>
	<title>Quantum Film Might Replace CMOS Sensors</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269256920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Quantum film <a href="http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/170250,quantum-film-might-replace-cmos.aspx">could replace conventional CMOS image sensors</a> in digital cameras and are four times more sensitive than photographic film. The film, which uses embedded quantum dots instead of silver grains like photographic film, can image scenes at higher pixel resolutions. While the technology has potential for use in mobile phones, conventional digital cameras would also gain much higher resolution sensors by using quantum film material."</i> The original (note: obnoxious interstitial ad) <a href="http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000253">article at EE Times adds slightly more detail</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Quantum film could replace conventional CMOS image sensors in digital cameras and are four times more sensitive than photographic film .
The film , which uses embedded quantum dots instead of silver grains like photographic film , can image scenes at higher pixel resolutions .
While the technology has potential for use in mobile phones , conventional digital cameras would also gain much higher resolution sensors by using quantum film material .
" The original ( note : obnoxious interstitial ad ) article at EE Times adds slightly more detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Quantum film could replace conventional CMOS image sensors in digital cameras and are four times more sensitive than photographic film.
The film, which uses embedded quantum dots instead of silver grains like photographic film, can image scenes at higher pixel resolutions.
While the technology has potential for use in mobile phones, conventional digital cameras would also gain much higher resolution sensors by using quantum film material.
" The original (note: obnoxious interstitial ad) article at EE Times adds slightly more detail.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580170</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269374400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.</p> </div><p>Nope. Increasing resolution without first increasing light gathering ability will make the image worse. In fact, most digital cameras would produce better pictures if they decreased the resolution. Manufacturers put a higher pixel density than is useful because megapixels sell: the salesman and your mom, and even you see two cameras, one with 6mp, and one with 12mp, and you assume the 12mp camera is better. If they're similar in other respects, the one with a smaller pixel density (the 6mp one) is guaranteed to be better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if money is no object , more of everything will certainly improve things .
Nope. Increasing resolution without first increasing light gathering ability will make the image worse .
In fact , most digital cameras would produce better pictures if they decreased the resolution .
Manufacturers put a higher pixel density than is useful because megapixels sell : the salesman and your mom , and even you see two cameras , one with 6mp , and one with 12mp , and you assume the 12mp camera is better .
If they 're similar in other respects , the one with a smaller pixel density ( the 6mp one ) is guaranteed to be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.
Nope. Increasing resolution without first increasing light gathering ability will make the image worse.
In fact, most digital cameras would produce better pictures if they decreased the resolution.
Manufacturers put a higher pixel density than is useful because megapixels sell: the salesman and your mom, and even you see two cameras, one with 6mp, and one with 12mp, and you assume the 12mp camera is better.
If they're similar in other respects, the one with a smaller pixel density (the 6mp one) is guaranteed to be better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270</id>
	<title>Night vision goggles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:<blockquote><div><p>For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image.  Clarifying that could have millions of applications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : For the future , the company also plans to target other specialized applications , such as pitch-black night vision goggles , cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays .
Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image .
Clarifying that could have millions of applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.
Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image.
Clarifying that could have millions of applications.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578406</id>
	<title>if the word QUANTUM is in the name.....</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's vaporware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's vaporware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's vaporware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31588266</id>
	<title>So they are making a</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269376980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum Leap movie?</p><p>what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum Leap movie ? what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum Leap movie?what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577696</id>
	<title>I'm Sitting On the Fence</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1269263580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno about quantum photography, it's neither here nor there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about quantum photography , it 's neither here nor there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about quantum photography, it's neither here nor there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577978</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the sensor gets small enough, the lens can be something other that a refractive solid.  Perhaps a drop of liquid in some sort of electrostatic suspension, where problems with the material are far less, and the lens can be focused by reshaping rather than moving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the sensor gets small enough , the lens can be something other that a refractive solid .
Perhaps a drop of liquid in some sort of electrostatic suspension , where problems with the material are far less , and the lens can be focused by reshaping rather than moving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the sensor gets small enough, the lens can be something other that a refractive solid.
Perhaps a drop of liquid in some sort of electrostatic suspension, where problems with the material are far less, and the lens can be focused by reshaping rather than moving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580504</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269336420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously though, not long now until we see Quantum Enabled phones, TVs, toasters and what not. Stop abusing the term, it's not a buzz word!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , not long now until we see Quantum Enabled phones , TVs , toasters and what not .
Stop abusing the term , it 's not a buzz word !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, not long now until we see Quantum Enabled phones, TVs, toasters and what not.
Stop abusing the term, it's not a buzz word!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580538</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269336840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both, and more. The new tech should give at least 4x better sensitivity with higher resolutions, but the other major benefit over CMOS is something else called "Fill Factor". Basically this is the amount of the sensor surface which collects useful light. With typical CMOS chips this is something like 40\%, but with these quantum dot devices it is 100\% as the light sensitive region lies on the surface of the chip with the electronics below. This is not such a huge deal for mobile phone cameras, but it is a big deal in astronomy and scientific imaging applications which use very low light levels, and currently have to use CCDs with all their disadvantages.</p><p>This could be revolutionary in the field of Raman spectroscopy and other similar fields, and I for one am waiting with baited breath for this to become a reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both , and more .
The new tech should give at least 4x better sensitivity with higher resolutions , but the other major benefit over CMOS is something else called " Fill Factor " .
Basically this is the amount of the sensor surface which collects useful light .
With typical CMOS chips this is something like 40 \ % , but with these quantum dot devices it is 100 \ % as the light sensitive region lies on the surface of the chip with the electronics below .
This is not such a huge deal for mobile phone cameras , but it is a big deal in astronomy and scientific imaging applications which use very low light levels , and currently have to use CCDs with all their disadvantages.This could be revolutionary in the field of Raman spectroscopy and other similar fields , and I for one am waiting with baited breath for this to become a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both, and more.
The new tech should give at least 4x better sensitivity with higher resolutions, but the other major benefit over CMOS is something else called "Fill Factor".
Basically this is the amount of the sensor surface which collects useful light.
With typical CMOS chips this is something like 40\%, but with these quantum dot devices it is 100\% as the light sensitive region lies on the surface of the chip with the electronics below.
This is not such a huge deal for mobile phone cameras, but it is a big deal in astronomy and scientific imaging applications which use very low light levels, and currently have to use CCDs with all their disadvantages.This could be revolutionary in the field of Raman spectroscopy and other similar fields, and I for one am waiting with baited breath for this to become a reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577328</id>
	<title>Don't care about more pixels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want the pixels that I have on iso 50 and with F1 over a 700mm objective please. Make it smaller and less 'noticeable' then the L-glass I have to carry with me these days and I might buy myself a new body and some glass...

Oh, this one is really important. Make it cheaper please. I know you know that we (photographers) will just give you all that we have for a decent setup, but it would be so cool if a real good objective, would cost less than a real good car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want the pixels that I have on iso 50 and with F1 over a 700mm objective please .
Make it smaller and less 'noticeable ' then the L-glass I have to carry with me these days and I might buy myself a new body and some glass.. . Oh , this one is really important .
Make it cheaper please .
I know you know that we ( photographers ) will just give you all that we have for a decent setup , but it would be so cool if a real good objective , would cost less than a real good car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want the pixels that I have on iso 50 and with F1 over a 700mm objective please.
Make it smaller and less 'noticeable' then the L-glass I have to carry with me these days and I might buy myself a new body and some glass...

Oh, this one is really important.
Make it cheaper please.
I know you know that we (photographers) will just give you all that we have for a decent setup, but it would be so cool if a real good objective, would cost less than a real good car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31588976</id>
	<title>What TFS/TFS doesn't mention is...</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1269337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This material has a tunable band-gap by using different combinations and ratios of S, Pb, Cu, Ti, Cd, Hg, Te, Ag, etc.   Silicon sensors and their exotic equivalents have fixed, and very limited band-gaps.   Additionally silicon based sensors have a rather limited quantum efficiency which is about 40\% to 50\% efficient under idea configurations.  CMOS imagers are anything but idea configurations.</p><p>OmniVision's innovation of using BSI didn't increase their efficiency to 80\%, it reduced the number of photons absorbed by interfering metalization. area over front-side illuminated solutions... under ideal conditions.  This is where the 40\% - 50\% efficiency numbers come from, and they cannot say so with a straight face because the trenching around the sensor's pixels reduced the coverage over the array... increasing the gaps between pixels.</p><p>With this new material they get increased conversion efficiency from the material and increased active area within the pixel with the first-surface configuration. (the metal area is hidden under the photo-sensitve layer, with no trenching.  With the tunable band-gap they also get to target IR solutions with sensitivity to wave lengths &gt;1000nm.  Si can't do that at all.  With other tunings they get improved visible light sensitivity.</p><p>While the material is far more toxic than silicon-only solutions, it is a lot cheaper to deposit.  Don't eat the film and you should be fine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This material has a tunable band-gap by using different combinations and ratios of S , Pb , Cu , Ti , Cd , Hg , Te , Ag , etc .
Silicon sensors and their exotic equivalents have fixed , and very limited band-gaps .
Additionally silicon based sensors have a rather limited quantum efficiency which is about 40 \ % to 50 \ % efficient under idea configurations .
CMOS imagers are anything but idea configurations.OmniVision 's innovation of using BSI did n't increase their efficiency to 80 \ % , it reduced the number of photons absorbed by interfering metalization .
area over front-side illuminated solutions... under ideal conditions .
This is where the 40 \ % - 50 \ % efficiency numbers come from , and they can not say so with a straight face because the trenching around the sensor 's pixels reduced the coverage over the array... increasing the gaps between pixels.With this new material they get increased conversion efficiency from the material and increased active area within the pixel with the first-surface configuration .
( the metal area is hidden under the photo-sensitve layer , with no trenching .
With the tunable band-gap they also get to target IR solutions with sensitivity to wave lengths &gt; 1000nm .
Si ca n't do that at all .
With other tunings they get improved visible light sensitivity.While the material is far more toxic than silicon-only solutions , it is a lot cheaper to deposit .
Do n't eat the film and you should be fine : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This material has a tunable band-gap by using different combinations and ratios of S, Pb, Cu, Ti, Cd, Hg, Te, Ag, etc.
Silicon sensors and their exotic equivalents have fixed, and very limited band-gaps.
Additionally silicon based sensors have a rather limited quantum efficiency which is about 40\% to 50\% efficient under idea configurations.
CMOS imagers are anything but idea configurations.OmniVision's innovation of using BSI didn't increase their efficiency to 80\%, it reduced the number of photons absorbed by interfering metalization.
area over front-side illuminated solutions... under ideal conditions.
This is where the 40\% - 50\% efficiency numbers come from, and they cannot say so with a straight face because the trenching around the sensor's pixels reduced the coverage over the array... increasing the gaps between pixels.With this new material they get increased conversion efficiency from the material and increased active area within the pixel with the first-surface configuration.
(the metal area is hidden under the photo-sensitve layer, with no trenching.
With the tunable band-gap they also get to target IR solutions with sensitivity to wave lengths &gt;1000nm.
Si can't do that at all.
With other tunings they get improved visible light sensitivity.While the material is far more toxic than silicon-only solutions, it is a lot cheaper to deposit.
Don't eat the film and you should be fine :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578420</id>
	<title>Re:Night vision goggles</title>
	<author>colman77</author>
	<datestamp>1269268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The infrared spectrum is generally broken up into 3 subcategories - shortwave, midwave, and longwave.  If you look around a dark room with no windows using a SWIR camera/lens, you won't see anything, because most natural objects (people, walls, basically anything except lights and the cosmos) don't give off SWIR radiation.

MWIR and LWIR, however, would still work because pretty much everything gives off radiation at these wavelengths (MWIR is the region of the spectrum which allows one to measure temperature).  I suppose you could call this "pitch-black night vision," although I've never heard that anywhere in the IR optics industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The infrared spectrum is generally broken up into 3 subcategories - shortwave , midwave , and longwave .
If you look around a dark room with no windows using a SWIR camera/lens , you wo n't see anything , because most natural objects ( people , walls , basically anything except lights and the cosmos ) do n't give off SWIR radiation .
MWIR and LWIR , however , would still work because pretty much everything gives off radiation at these wavelengths ( MWIR is the region of the spectrum which allows one to measure temperature ) .
I suppose you could call this " pitch-black night vision , " although I 've never heard that anywhere in the IR optics industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The infrared spectrum is generally broken up into 3 subcategories - shortwave, midwave, and longwave.
If you look around a dark room with no windows using a SWIR camera/lens, you won't see anything, because most natural objects (people, walls, basically anything except lights and the cosmos) don't give off SWIR radiation.
MWIR and LWIR, however, would still work because pretty much everything gives off radiation at these wavelengths (MWIR is the region of the spectrum which allows one to measure temperature).
I suppose you could call this "pitch-black night vision," although I've never heard that anywhere in the IR optics industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577380</id>
	<title>This technology is very spooky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't know if a film is Lawrence Of Arabia or a Rob Schneider picture until you actually watch it. Very spooky at any distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't know if a film is Lawrence Of Arabia or a Rob Schneider picture until you actually watch it .
Very spooky at any distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't know if a film is Lawrence Of Arabia or a Rob Schneider picture until you actually watch it.
Very spooky at any distance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577348</id>
	<title>finally...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269261420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A camera to take pics of Schr&#246;dinger's LOLcat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A camera to take pics of Schr   dinger 's LOLcat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A camera to take pics of Schrödinger's LOLcat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579782</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1269281940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>85/1.2L is actually pretty soft around the edges, from what I've heard.</p><p>But, yes, long tele primes are excellent, as are some midrange macro lenses (Sigma 150/2.8, Olympus 50/2, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>85/1.2L is actually pretty soft around the edges , from what I 've heard.But , yes , long tele primes are excellent , as are some midrange macro lenses ( Sigma 150/2.8 , Olympus 50/2 , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>85/1.2L is actually pretty soft around the edges, from what I've heard.But, yes, long tele primes are excellent, as are some midrange macro lenses (Sigma 150/2.8, Olympus 50/2, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577538</id>
	<title>More in The Economist</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1269262740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read <a href="http://www.economist.com/science-technology/technology-quarterly/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=15582161" title="economist.com">a story about this</a> [economist.com] in a recent issue of <i>The Economist.</i> The article focuses more on the <i>other</i> direction -- how quantum dots can be used to enhance LEDs to create more pleasing/efficient/versatile lighting. But it also mentions how they can be used to read light, too; for example, to make better solar panels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a story about this [ economist.com ] in a recent issue of The Economist .
The article focuses more on the other direction -- how quantum dots can be used to enhance LEDs to create more pleasing/efficient/versatile lighting .
But it also mentions how they can be used to read light , too ; for example , to make better solar panels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a story about this [economist.com] in a recent issue of The Economist.
The article focuses more on the other direction -- how quantum dots can be used to enhance LEDs to create more pleasing/efficient/versatile lighting.
But it also mentions how they can be used to read light, too; for example, to make better solar panels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579894</id>
	<title>Re:Night vision goggles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269283620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pitch-black night vision goggles?</p><p>AKA: a blindfold?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pitch-black night vision goggles ? AKA : a blindfold ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pitch-black night vision goggles?AKA: a blindfold?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580326</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269376500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.  But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.</p></div><p>Ironically, glass and silicon are for the most part one in the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if money is no object , more of everything will certainly improve things .
But practically speaking , the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.Ironically , glass and silicon are for the most part one in the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.
But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.Ironically, glass and silicon are for the most part one in the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31583270</id>
	<title>Film replacement? It's here already.</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1269357540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a large format camera smaller, is it still a large format camera?  Hmm.</p><p>Right now you can get digital backs for large format camerers The Phase 1 P45 is a 39 Megapixel 16 bit, 6x9 frame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a large format camera smaller , is it still a large format camera ?
Hmm.Right now you can get digital backs for large format camerers The Phase 1 P45 is a 39 Megapixel 16 bit , 6x9 frame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a large format camera smaller, is it still a large format camera?
Hmm.Right now you can get digital backs for large format camerers The Phase 1 P45 is a 39 Megapixel 16 bit, 6x9 frame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578954</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269273300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the EE Times article they seem to be referencing actual sensitivity.</p><p>This collects photons on the surface instead of through several microns of metal, making it 2x more sensitive than silicon. Additionally, quantum dots utilize the light more efficiently, adding an additional 2x sensitivity.</p><p>The result is that they say they can either make an existing size sensor 4x more sensitive (and that is actually using an inferior fab process to the big guys, read between the lines and they just need to upgrade fab) or they can make an equally sensitive sensor that is 4x as small.</p><p>The band gap is configurable digitally instead of being a fixed hardware feature.</p><p>Combined with fab at room temp and cheap process they claim they can actually produce these chips at dramatically lower costs than the existing big dog chips.</p><p>Course, if all that is true, or even half of it then a big dog will buy them tomorrow and we won't be seeing price drops, just big dog profit increases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the EE Times article they seem to be referencing actual sensitivity.This collects photons on the surface instead of through several microns of metal , making it 2x more sensitive than silicon .
Additionally , quantum dots utilize the light more efficiently , adding an additional 2x sensitivity.The result is that they say they can either make an existing size sensor 4x more sensitive ( and that is actually using an inferior fab process to the big guys , read between the lines and they just need to upgrade fab ) or they can make an equally sensitive sensor that is 4x as small.The band gap is configurable digitally instead of being a fixed hardware feature.Combined with fab at room temp and cheap process they claim they can actually produce these chips at dramatically lower costs than the existing big dog chips.Course , if all that is true , or even half of it then a big dog will buy them tomorrow and we wo n't be seeing price drops , just big dog profit increases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the EE Times article they seem to be referencing actual sensitivity.This collects photons on the surface instead of through several microns of metal, making it 2x more sensitive than silicon.
Additionally, quantum dots utilize the light more efficiently, adding an additional 2x sensitivity.The result is that they say they can either make an existing size sensor 4x more sensitive (and that is actually using an inferior fab process to the big guys, read between the lines and they just need to upgrade fab) or they can make an equally sensitive sensor that is 4x as small.The band gap is configurable digitally instead of being a fixed hardware feature.Combined with fab at room temp and cheap process they claim they can actually produce these chips at dramatically lower costs than the existing big dog chips.Course, if all that is true, or even half of it then a big dog will buy them tomorrow and we won't be seeing price drops, just big dog profit increases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578476</id>
	<title>Pictures...</title>
	<author>honestmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269269160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or it didn't happen. Right? Amiright? I slay me. Seriously, though, the article was just a bunch of words. Pretty pictures, that's what I want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or it did n't happen .
Right ? Amiright ?
I slay me .
Seriously , though , the article was just a bunch of words .
Pretty pictures , that 's what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or it didn't happen.
Right? Amiright?
I slay me.
Seriously, though, the article was just a bunch of words.
Pretty pictures, that's what I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578206</id>
	<title>Quantum or Nano?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this Quantum or Nano technology? Reading the article its sounding more like nano than quantum as field states and other quantum theories are not applied, its simply "really small dots embedded in a substrate" to create a new semiconductor. Its very irritating having people throw quantum around for really small things when nano is more applicable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this Quantum or Nano technology ?
Reading the article its sounding more like nano than quantum as field states and other quantum theories are not applied , its simply " really small dots embedded in a substrate " to create a new semiconductor .
Its very irritating having people throw quantum around for really small things when nano is more applicable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this Quantum or Nano technology?
Reading the article its sounding more like nano than quantum as field states and other quantum theories are not applied, its simply "really small dots embedded in a substrate" to create a new semiconductor.
Its very irritating having people throw quantum around for really small things when nano is more applicable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577520</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269262620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Couldn't one lead to the other? Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one?</p></div></blockquote><p>To a certain extent, yes.  But, there is a certain minimum overhead for every pixel.  The more pixels you cram onto a sensor, the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.  Consequently, there are real limits to how much resolution you would want to have on a sensor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't one lead to the other ?
Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one ? To a certain extent , yes .
But , there is a certain minimum overhead for every pixel .
The more pixels you cram onto a sensor , the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light .
Consequently , there are real limits to how much resolution you would want to have on a sensor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't one lead to the other?
Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one?To a certain extent, yes.
But, there is a certain minimum overhead for every pixel.
The more pixels you cram onto a sensor, the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.
Consequently, there are real limits to how much resolution you would want to have on a sensor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578806</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269272040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my cannon G11 10mp is better thant the 14MP G10</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my cannon G11 10mp is better thant the 14MP G10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my cannon G11 10mp is better thant the 14MP G10</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</id>
	<title>Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>lastomega7</author>
	<datestamp>1269260820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There seems to be a sensationalist mix-up with the two terms... is this technology going to bring about more sensitive pixels (i.e. higher ISO capabilities) or just more pixels on the sensor? or both?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a sensationalist mix-up with the two terms... is this technology going to bring about more sensitive pixels ( i.e .
higher ISO capabilities ) or just more pixels on the sensor ?
or both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a sensationalist mix-up with the two terms... is this technology going to bring about more sensitive pixels (i.e.
higher ISO capabilities) or just more pixels on the sensor?
or both?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579744</id>
	<title>Re:Night vision goggles</title>
	<author>Laser Dan</author>
	<datestamp>1269281700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FTFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.</p></div></blockquote><p>Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image.  Clarifying that could have millions of applications.</p></div><p>The grainy image is mostly due to the photomultiplier tube that amplifies the photons. Apart from noise in the tube, at such low light levels individual photons are being made visible so it is not possible to avoid a grainy image.</p><p>A 4x improvement in sensitivity would certainly help though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : For the future , the company also plans to target other specialized applications , such as pitch-black night vision goggles , cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image .
Clarifying that could have millions of applications.The grainy image is mostly due to the photomultiplier tube that amplifies the photons .
Apart from noise in the tube , at such low light levels individual photons are being made visible so it is not possible to avoid a grainy image.A 4x improvement in sensitivity would certainly help though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:For the future, the company also plans to target other specialized applications, such as pitch-black night vision goggles, cheaper solar cells and even spray-on displays.Right now night vision goggles give a very grainy tinged image.
Clarifying that could have millions of applications.The grainy image is mostly due to the photomultiplier tube that amplifies the photons.
Apart from noise in the tube, at such low light levels individual photons are being made visible so it is not possible to avoid a grainy image.A 4x improvement in sensitivity would certainly help though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490</id>
	<title>Quantum!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269262320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577754</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>sortius\_nod</author>
	<datestamp>1269263880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to anyone using a transmission electron microscope. I have friends who dislike the digital microscopy due to the detail being much lower than film. While it is quicker and less susceptible to movement problems, you lose most of the detail due to the electrons being far smaller than the CMOS sensor's pixels.</p><p>I really think this jaded "we don't need any more technology" bullshit is just a modern day luddite attitude. It seems to be a fear of being superseded with the technology you currently use. Maybe it's that or the fear that the camera(s) you spent thousands of dollars on are made redundant by this tech. Heaven forbid that an amateur can start taking photos better than pros.</p><p>I remember people said similar stuff when digital photography came in, now it's the standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to anyone using a transmission electron microscope .
I have friends who dislike the digital microscopy due to the detail being much lower than film .
While it is quicker and less susceptible to movement problems , you lose most of the detail due to the electrons being far smaller than the CMOS sensor 's pixels.I really think this jaded " we do n't need any more technology " bullshit is just a modern day luddite attitude .
It seems to be a fear of being superseded with the technology you currently use .
Maybe it 's that or the fear that the camera ( s ) you spent thousands of dollars on are made redundant by this tech .
Heaven forbid that an amateur can start taking photos better than pros.I remember people said similar stuff when digital photography came in , now it 's the standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to anyone using a transmission electron microscope.
I have friends who dislike the digital microscopy due to the detail being much lower than film.
While it is quicker and less susceptible to movement problems, you lose most of the detail due to the electrons being far smaller than the CMOS sensor's pixels.I really think this jaded "we don't need any more technology" bullshit is just a modern day luddite attitude.
It seems to be a fear of being superseded with the technology you currently use.
Maybe it's that or the fear that the camera(s) you spent thousands of dollars on are made redundant by this tech.
Heaven forbid that an amateur can start taking photos better than pros.I remember people said similar stuff when digital photography came in, now it's the standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579286</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269277140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who sells flash memory.</p><p>Here, I fixed that for you.</p><p>It's true that many photos would be improved by more detail. But it's not always a benefit: just as text is well-represented with a modest number of bits to describe a letter in ASCII, storing sophisticated graphical images of each character is usually quite pointless and actually interferes with getting work done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who sells flash memory.Here , I fixed that for you.It 's true that many photos would be improved by more detail .
But it 's not always a benefit : just as text is well-represented with a modest number of bits to describe a letter in ASCII , storing sophisticated graphical images of each character is usually quite pointless and actually interferes with getting work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who sells flash memory.Here, I fixed that for you.It's true that many photos would be improved by more detail.
But it's not always a benefit: just as text is well-represented with a modest number of bits to describe a letter in ASCII, storing sophisticated graphical images of each character is usually quite pointless and actually interferes with getting work done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578498</id>
	<title>They're black!</title>
	<author>shis-ka-bob</author>
	<datestamp>1269269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Our quantum film even looks like photographic film&mdash;an opaque black material that we deposit right on the top layer of our image chip."</p></div><p>
This is important.  Current digital sensors are reflective &amp; that results in a specular reflection.  This greatly increases the flare, since much of the light the strikes the sensor reflect back into the lens, where it can reflect from a lens back to the sensor.  This is one area where digital has been noticeably worse that film.  See PhotoTechEDU Day 4: Contrast, MTF, Flare, and Noise  @ <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNvFsOvVkOg&amp;feature=channel" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNvFsOvVkOg&amp;feature=channel</a> [youtube.com].  This is the major loss of contrast at low spacial frequency (eg ~ 10 lp/mm).  The digital censors are not living up to the potential of the glass.  This could really help.  Now if I can just save up enough for a next generation Leica M10...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our quantum film even looks like photographic film    an opaque black material that we deposit right on the top layer of our image chip .
" This is important .
Current digital sensors are reflective &amp; that results in a specular reflection .
This greatly increases the flare , since much of the light the strikes the sensor reflect back into the lens , where it can reflect from a lens back to the sensor .
This is one area where digital has been noticeably worse that film .
See PhotoTechEDU Day 4 : Contrast , MTF , Flare , and Noise @ http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = tNvFsOvVkOg&amp;feature = channel [ youtube.com ] .
This is the major loss of contrast at low spacial frequency ( eg ~ 10 lp/mm ) .
The digital censors are not living up to the potential of the glass .
This could really help .
Now if I can just save up enough for a next generation Leica M10.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our quantum film even looks like photographic film—an opaque black material that we deposit right on the top layer of our image chip.
"
This is important.
Current digital sensors are reflective &amp; that results in a specular reflection.
This greatly increases the flare, since much of the light the strikes the sensor reflect back into the lens, where it can reflect from a lens back to the sensor.
This is one area where digital has been noticeably worse that film.
See PhotoTechEDU Day 4: Contrast, MTF, Flare, and Noise  @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNvFsOvVkOg&amp;feature=channel [youtube.com].
This is the major loss of contrast at low spacial frequency (eg ~ 10 lp/mm).
The digital censors are not living up to the potential of the glass.
This could really help.
Now if I can just save up enough for a next generation Leica M10...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31586326</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269369300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a benefit to super high resolution in a camera. Not for snapshots on a phonecam, but in professional applications where the image may need to be blown up and cropped.</p><p>Given that the fab process is likely to be cheaper as well, the low end benefits as well. Even moreso if it allows a bin-sorting technique where high res sensors with small defects can be usable at a lower resolution by mapping out dead pixels rather than throwing it away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a benefit to super high resolution in a camera .
Not for snapshots on a phonecam , but in professional applications where the image may need to be blown up and cropped.Given that the fab process is likely to be cheaper as well , the low end benefits as well .
Even moreso if it allows a bin-sorting technique where high res sensors with small defects can be usable at a lower resolution by mapping out dead pixels rather than throwing it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a benefit to super high resolution in a camera.
Not for snapshots on a phonecam, but in professional applications where the image may need to be blown up and cropped.Given that the fab process is likely to be cheaper as well, the low end benefits as well.
Even moreso if it allows a bin-sorting technique where high res sensors with small defects can be usable at a lower resolution by mapping out dead pixels rather than throwing it away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577864</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue is that todays sensors reveal lens flaws that could not be noticed with earlier film cameras or older DSLR's. From what I understand it would be very difficult to mass produce cameras and lenses reliably with more resolution. This is why so many lenses are considered defective out of the box. LensRentals.com has a story about it. <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts" title="lensrentals.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts</a> [lensrentals.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that todays sensors reveal lens flaws that could not be noticed with earlier film cameras or older DSLR 's .
From what I understand it would be very difficult to mass produce cameras and lenses reliably with more resolution .
This is why so many lenses are considered defective out of the box .
LensRentals.com has a story about it .
http : //www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts [ lensrentals.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that todays sensors reveal lens flaws that could not be noticed with earlier film cameras or older DSLR's.
From what I understand it would be very difficult to mass produce cameras and lenses reliably with more resolution.
This is why so many lenses are considered defective out of the box.
LensRentals.com has a story about it.
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.03.06/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts [lensrentals.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577622</id>
	<title>Schrodinger's Lolcat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269263220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im Livin in ur Box</p><p>OR MEBBI IM DED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im Livin in ur BoxOR MEBBI IM DED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im Livin in ur BoxOR MEBBI IM DED</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lenses are actually getting pretty good. For example, take a look at 300mm f/2.8L. The thing is crazy sharp. Heck, it's still pretty sharp with 2x teleconverter (300mm f/2.8 -&gt; 600mm f/5.6) on it! Or 85mm f/1.2L, wow! Those things could probably outresolve 100MP+ 35mm DSLR sensor.</p><p>If anything, it's diffraction that bites you in the ass. Small aperture, like f/22, is just a blurry mess because of it, no matter how good the lense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lenses are actually getting pretty good .
For example , take a look at 300mm f/2.8L .
The thing is crazy sharp .
Heck , it 's still pretty sharp with 2x teleconverter ( 300mm f/2.8 - &gt; 600mm f/5.6 ) on it !
Or 85mm f/1.2L , wow !
Those things could probably outresolve 100MP + 35mm DSLR sensor.If anything , it 's diffraction that bites you in the ass .
Small aperture , like f/22 , is just a blurry mess because of it , no matter how good the lense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lenses are actually getting pretty good.
For example, take a look at 300mm f/2.8L.
The thing is crazy sharp.
Heck, it's still pretty sharp with 2x teleconverter (300mm f/2.8 -&gt; 600mm f/5.6) on it!
Or 85mm f/1.2L, wow!
Those things could probably outresolve 100MP+ 35mm DSLR sensor.If anything, it's diffraction that bites you in the ass.
Small aperture, like f/22, is just a blurry mess because of it, no matter how good the lense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who takes photographs.  It provides better capability to can crop an image to a smaller size, and still have enough resolution to print or display something.
<br> <br>
A lot of people just vomit their photos onto Facebook, but many still take the time to do a simple crop/levels/contrast edit. The only people who don't need more megapixels are those that never edit their pictures. And they probably don't care about quality anyway.
<br> <br>
Most cameras can take pictures in all but the lowest light levels.  I have taken hand-held pictures around a campfire with the proper lens. In fact, this just moves the problem from dark pictures to blown out pictures.  Increasing sensitivity without being able to either stop down the lens or to decrease the exposure time is worthless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. daytime pictures come out too bright but you don't need a flash for indoor shots for cheap cell phone cameras.
<br> <br>
One issue not mentioned is electronic noise.  The closer together you bring elements on a CCD, and the longer the exposure, the more noise that is generated. Poor lens, very small CCDs, and poor camera software are the major causes of poor quality in small cameras. My wife and I have a 14MP and an older 7MP dSLR camera. The 14MP not only provides for the ability to crop, but the noise levels are significantly lower probably due to improved software and electronics. Given the choice, I will grab the 14MP. The images take up more disk space, but it is worth it when it comes time to edit.
<br> <br>
It is not an improvement to make a photo-detector smaller and increase the resolution if it can't work in bright sunlight or has a lot of noise at low light levels.
<br> <br>
So for now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I'll mark the article interesting until someone actually produces a working camera that can be tested against current cameras in the same price range.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who takes photographs .
It provides better capability to can crop an image to a smaller size , and still have enough resolution to print or display something .
A lot of people just vomit their photos onto Facebook , but many still take the time to do a simple crop/levels/contrast edit .
The only people who do n't need more megapixels are those that never edit their pictures .
And they probably do n't care about quality anyway .
Most cameras can take pictures in all but the lowest light levels .
I have taken hand-held pictures around a campfire with the proper lens .
In fact , this just moves the problem from dark pictures to blown out pictures .
Increasing sensitivity without being able to either stop down the lens or to decrease the exposure time is worthless .. daytime pictures come out too bright but you do n't need a flash for indoor shots for cheap cell phone cameras .
One issue not mentioned is electronic noise .
The closer together you bring elements on a CCD , and the longer the exposure , the more noise that is generated .
Poor lens , very small CCDs , and poor camera software are the major causes of poor quality in small cameras .
My wife and I have a 14MP and an older 7MP dSLR camera .
The 14MP not only provides for the ability to crop , but the noise levels are significantly lower probably due to improved software and electronics .
Given the choice , I will grab the 14MP .
The images take up more disk space , but it is worth it when it comes time to edit .
It is not an improvement to make a photo-detector smaller and increase the resolution if it ca n't work in bright sunlight or has a lot of noise at low light levels .
So for now .. I 'll mark the article interesting until someone actually produces a working camera that can be tested against current cameras in the same price range.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having more pixels is a good thing for anyone who takes photographs.
It provides better capability to can crop an image to a smaller size, and still have enough resolution to print or display something.
A lot of people just vomit their photos onto Facebook, but many still take the time to do a simple crop/levels/contrast edit.
The only people who don't need more megapixels are those that never edit their pictures.
And they probably don't care about quality anyway.
Most cameras can take pictures in all but the lowest light levels.
I have taken hand-held pictures around a campfire with the proper lens.
In fact, this just moves the problem from dark pictures to blown out pictures.
Increasing sensitivity without being able to either stop down the lens or to decrease the exposure time is worthless .. daytime pictures come out too bright but you don't need a flash for indoor shots for cheap cell phone cameras.
One issue not mentioned is electronic noise.
The closer together you bring elements on a CCD, and the longer the exposure, the more noise that is generated.
Poor lens, very small CCDs, and poor camera software are the major causes of poor quality in small cameras.
My wife and I have a 14MP and an older 7MP dSLR camera.
The 14MP not only provides for the ability to crop, but the noise levels are significantly lower probably due to improved software and electronics.
Given the choice, I will grab the 14MP.
The images take up more disk space, but it is worth it when it comes time to edit.
It is not an improvement to make a photo-detector smaller and increase the resolution if it can't work in bright sunlight or has a lot of noise at low light levels.
So for now .. I'll mark the article interesting until someone actually produces a working camera that can be tested against current cameras in the same price range.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1269261300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't one lead to the other?  Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't one lead to the other ?
Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't one lead to the other?
Would averaging 4 noisy pixels give you a better light sensitivity than just having the one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577424</id>
	<title>CCD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how is this different from a Charge-coupled device?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this different from a Charge-coupled device ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this different from a Charge-coupled device?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578496</id>
	<title>Similar article at Scientific American</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-dots-cell-camera</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm ? id = quantum-dots-cell-camera</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-dots-cell-camera</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446</id>
	<title>Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still suck</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1269262080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible. Improving the sensors just means that we'll get very accurate digital representations of blurry images, produced by tiny, dirty lenses with minuscule, fixed focal lengths. Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor. It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know too much about the physics of photography , but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible .
Improving the sensors just means that we 'll get very accurate digital representations of blurry images , produced by tiny , dirty lenses with minuscule , fixed focal lengths .
Even as things stand now , a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor .
It seems to me that sensor is n't the bottleneck anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible.
Improving the sensors just means that we'll get very accurate digital representations of blurry images, produced by tiny, dirty lenses with minuscule, fixed focal lengths.
Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor.
It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578608</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>shis-ka-bob</author>
	<datestamp>1269270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are talking about the Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens, which is a legend.  The optics date back to the early 70's.  One of these took a picture of Henry Kissenger that was so sharp you could read his classified document.  It only costs a bit over 4 grand.  The MTF function for this lens it just crazy good, see <a href="http://reithian.com/mtf.htm" title="reithian.com">http://reithian.com/mtf.htm</a> [reithian.com]
<p>
The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is also a legend.  And only about 2 grand.
</p><p>If these lenses are only 'pretty good', you must be accustomed to the optics in research telescopes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are talking about the Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens , which is a legend .
The optics date back to the early 70 's .
One of these took a picture of Henry Kissenger that was so sharp you could read his classified document .
It only costs a bit over 4 grand .
The MTF function for this lens it just crazy good , see http : //reithian.com/mtf.htm [ reithian.com ] The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is also a legend .
And only about 2 grand .
If these lenses are only 'pretty good ' , you must be accustomed to the optics in research telescopes ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are talking about the Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens, which is a legend.
The optics date back to the early 70's.
One of these took a picture of Henry Kissenger that was so sharp you could read his classified document.
It only costs a bit over 4 grand.
The MTF function for this lens it just crazy good, see http://reithian.com/mtf.htm [reithian.com]

The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is also a legend.
And only about 2 grand.
If these lenses are only 'pretty good', you must be accustomed to the optics in research telescopes ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577226</id>
	<title>NIce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> This may mean higher quality porn. I'm "excited", if you know what I mean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may mean higher quality porn .
I 'm " excited " , if you know what I mean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This may mean higher quality porn.
I'm "excited", if you know what I mean.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580070</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1269286500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.</p><p>Not a big problem if you build stuff in 3D.</p><p>Some modern sensors have microlenses in front of the actual detectors.</p><p><a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/iso/img/cp\_02.gif" title="nikon.com">http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/iso/img/cp\_02.gif</a> [nikon.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;articleID=246" title="canon.com">http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;articleID=246</a> [canon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.Not a big problem if you build stuff in 3D.Some modern sensors have microlenses in front of the actual detectors.http : //imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/iso/img/cp \ _02.gif [ nikon.com ] http : //www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller ? act = GetArticleAct&amp;articleID = 246 [ canon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the more space on the sensor is dedicated to overhead instead of picking up light.Not a big problem if you build stuff in 3D.Some modern sensors have microlenses in front of the actual detectors.http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/imagingsensor/iso/img/cp\_02.gif [nikon.com]http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;articleID=246 [canon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581156</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269344520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>key word - quantum.</p><p>If that doesn't immediately make you think of ULTRA-TINY SCALES, and thus lead you to think quantum dot  silver grains thus quantum dots = higher MP in the same sensor size, I guess you should be handing in your geek card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>key word - quantum.If that does n't immediately make you think of ULTRA-TINY SCALES , and thus lead you to think quantum dot silver grains thus quantum dots = higher MP in the same sensor size , I guess you should be handing in your geek card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>key word - quantum.If that doesn't immediately make you think of ULTRA-TINY SCALES, and thus lead you to think quantum dot  silver grains thus quantum dots = higher MP in the same sensor size, I guess you should be handing in your geek card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577530</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1269262680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The two are closely related, as the smaller the pixel's physical dimensions, the fewer photons it can capture for a given exposure time resulting in a lower S/N ratio.  For any given sensor size and technology you need to trade off resolution against ISO performance, so a technology providing an four fold increase in sensitivity would, for instance, let you:

<ol>
<li>Quadruple resolution</li>
<li>Quadruple ISO performance (reduction in noise)</li>
<li>Double resolution <b> <i>and</i> </b> double ISO performance</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two are closely related , as the smaller the pixel 's physical dimensions , the fewer photons it can capture for a given exposure time resulting in a lower S/N ratio .
For any given sensor size and technology you need to trade off resolution against ISO performance , so a technology providing an four fold increase in sensitivity would , for instance , let you : Quadruple resolution Quadruple ISO performance ( reduction in noise ) Double resolution and double ISO performance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two are closely related, as the smaller the pixel's physical dimensions, the fewer photons it can capture for a given exposure time resulting in a lower S/N ratio.
For any given sensor size and technology you need to trade off resolution against ISO performance, so a technology providing an four fold increase in sensitivity would, for instance, let you:


Quadruple resolution
Quadruple ISO performance (reduction in noise)
Double resolution  and  double ISO performance
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577366</id>
	<title>Won't this cause other problems?</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1269261480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With silicon, having to pass through narrow gaps should reduce the amount of light coming at the sensor from an unexpected angle as would occur due to lens flare, imperfections in the lens, etc.  Without that, I'd expect the clarity of the image to be impacted.  Am I missing something, or is this just trading one problem for another?</p><p>Also, how does this improve over already commercially available <a href="http://www.displayblog.com/2009/08/21/sony-cybershot-tx1-exmor-r-cmos-low-light-10fps-3-inch-touch-lcd/" title="displayblog.com">newer CMOS designs</a> [displayblog.com] that push the photo-sensitive material to the front surface?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With silicon , having to pass through narrow gaps should reduce the amount of light coming at the sensor from an unexpected angle as would occur due to lens flare , imperfections in the lens , etc .
Without that , I 'd expect the clarity of the image to be impacted .
Am I missing something , or is this just trading one problem for another ? Also , how does this improve over already commercially available newer CMOS designs [ displayblog.com ] that push the photo-sensitive material to the front surface ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With silicon, having to pass through narrow gaps should reduce the amount of light coming at the sensor from an unexpected angle as would occur due to lens flare, imperfections in the lens, etc.
Without that, I'd expect the clarity of the image to be impacted.
Am I missing something, or is this just trading one problem for another?Also, how does this improve over already commercially available newer CMOS designs [displayblog.com] that push the photo-sensitive material to the front surface?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577478</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>uberjack</author>
	<datestamp>1269262260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been waiting for technology that would make my computer's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonvolatile\_BIOS\_memory" title="wikipedia.org">bootup sequence more sensitive</a> [wikipedia.org] to my needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for technology that would make my computer 's bootup sequence more sensitive [ wikipedia.org ] to my needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for technology that would make my computer's bootup sequence more sensitive [wikipedia.org] to my needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578612</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't mean much as long as the optics still s</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269270360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible.</p></div><p>It seems to anybody who knows anything about the problem with digital cameras that you don't have a clue.  And this statement proves it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor. It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.</p></div><p>The reason the old 5mp camera produces a better picture than the 12mp camera is <i>not</i> because of the optics, it's because of the size of the individual pixels on the chip.  The 5mp camera has sensors that are 2-3 times larger than the 12mp camera, which means they can collect that much more light, and therefore can have shorter exposure times and/or more accurate color.</p><p>That's why the $1000 + 12mp cameras use an image sensor that is many times the size of a $100 12mp camera - so they can pick up more light.  The optics can't improve the picture the image sensor picks up, they can only avoid harming it.  That's why they are so expensive, because meticulous care goes into ensuring the lenses don't ruin the picture the image sensor picks up while enabling you to zoom great distances.</p><p>What this quantum film is supposed to do is improve the light sensitivity without increasing the size of the image sensor, or allow you to shrink the image sensor without losing light sensitivity.  Applying this to camera-phones would allow them to come somewhere in-between current consumer grade cameras and professional cameras, consumer grade cameras would be in the realm of the professional grade sans-optics, and they'd be able to crank up the resolution on professional cameras without losing any quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know too much about the physics of photography , but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible.It seems to anybody who knows anything about the problem with digital cameras that you do n't have a clue .
And this statement proves it : Even as things stand now , a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor .
It seems to me that sensor is n't the bottleneck anymore.The reason the old 5mp camera produces a better picture than the 12mp camera is not because of the optics , it 's because of the size of the individual pixels on the chip .
The 5mp camera has sensors that are 2-3 times larger than the 12mp camera , which means they can collect that much more light , and therefore can have shorter exposure times and/or more accurate color.That 's why the $ 1000 + 12mp cameras use an image sensor that is many times the size of a $ 100 12mp camera - so they can pick up more light .
The optics ca n't improve the picture the image sensor picks up , they can only avoid harming it .
That 's why they are so expensive , because meticulous care goes into ensuring the lenses do n't ruin the picture the image sensor picks up while enabling you to zoom great distances.What this quantum film is supposed to do is improve the light sensitivity without increasing the size of the image sensor , or allow you to shrink the image sensor without losing light sensitivity .
Applying this to camera-phones would allow them to come somewhere in-between current consumer grade cameras and professional cameras , consumer grade cameras would be in the realm of the professional grade sans-optics , and they 'd be able to crank up the resolution on professional cameras without losing any quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know too much about the physics of photography, but it seems to me that the real problem in the picture quality of tiny cameras is that the lenses are terrible.It seems to anybody who knows anything about the problem with digital cameras that you don't have a clue.
And this statement proves it:Even as things stand now, a older camera with good optics and a 5MP sensor produces much better images than a new camera with cheap optics and a 12MP sensor.
It seems to me that sensor isn't the bottleneck anymore.The reason the old 5mp camera produces a better picture than the 12mp camera is not because of the optics, it's because of the size of the individual pixels on the chip.
The 5mp camera has sensors that are 2-3 times larger than the 12mp camera, which means they can collect that much more light, and therefore can have shorter exposure times and/or more accurate color.That's why the $1000 + 12mp cameras use an image sensor that is many times the size of a $100 12mp camera - so they can pick up more light.
The optics can't improve the picture the image sensor picks up, they can only avoid harming it.
That's why they are so expensive, because meticulous care goes into ensuring the lenses don't ruin the picture the image sensor picks up while enabling you to zoom great distances.What this quantum film is supposed to do is improve the light sensitivity without increasing the size of the image sensor, or allow you to shrink the image sensor without losing light sensitivity.
Applying this to camera-phones would allow them to come somewhere in-between current consumer grade cameras and professional cameras, consumer grade cameras would be in the realm of the professional grade sans-optics, and they'd be able to crank up the resolution on professional cameras without losing any quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580866</id>
	<title>4 Times more sensitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269341160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..than photographic film!?  Sorry, very bad joke.  That means they are a factor of maybe 10 less sensitive than CMOS cameras, is it?</p><p>I don't think they will capture much more than quantum noise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..than photographic film ! ?
Sorry , very bad joke .
That means they are a factor of maybe 10 less sensitive than CMOS cameras , is it ? I do n't think they will capture much more than quantum noise : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..than photographic film!?
Sorry, very bad joke.
That means they are a factor of maybe 10 less sensitive than CMOS cameras, is it?I don't think they will capture much more than quantum noise :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269267600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you say is certainly true.  But let's say that you have an entry-level slr with a junky $50 lens, and then you suddenly have $500 to spend on your setup.  Do you buy a fancier camera or a fancier lens?
<br> <br>
Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.  But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.
<br> <br>
A nice lens on a relatively limited camera will take amazing photos.  A crappy lens on the best camera will not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you say is certainly true .
But let 's say that you have an entry-level slr with a junky $ 50 lens , and then you suddenly have $ 500 to spend on your setup .
Do you buy a fancier camera or a fancier lens ?
Of course , if money is no object , more of everything will certainly improve things .
But practically speaking , the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon .
A nice lens on a relatively limited camera will take amazing photos .
A crappy lens on the best camera will not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you say is certainly true.
But let's say that you have an entry-level slr with a junky $50 lens, and then you suddenly have $500 to spend on your setup.
Do you buy a fancier camera or a fancier lens?
Of course, if money is no object, more of everything will certainly improve things.
But practically speaking, the vast majority of folks in the real world would be better off paying more attention to their glass rather than to their silicon.
A nice lens on a relatively limited camera will take amazing photos.
A crappy lens on the best camera will not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581004</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum!</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1269342600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not."</p></div></blockquote><p>You'll only really know once you observe it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not .
" You 'll only really know once you observe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is either a picture of your Aunt Mavis... or not.
"You'll only really know once you observe it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577552</id>
	<title>We need bigger sensors!</title>
	<author>djlemma</author>
	<datestamp>1269262800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this technology could be used to make larger sensors more affordable, that would be quite exciting for the professional and pro-sumer photographers out there.  Right now the largest sensors that are in an affordable price range for normal humans are the full-frame 35mm style, and even those are pretty pricey.  When you get into the medium format backs, one can expect to spend a similar amount to a new sedan... or in some cases, a new sportscar.  As far as I know, they haven't even built a sensor that's large enough to be called "Large format" that's marketable- all the large format digital backs are scanners, as far as I know.
<br> <br>
Larger sensors do more than reduce noise and increase low-light sensitivity- they also reduce depth of field, which is something that often separates the amateur photos from the ones taken by the pros.  Of course, a cheaper sensor isn't going to reduce the cost of the glass, but maybe somebody else can figure that one out!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this technology could be used to make larger sensors more affordable , that would be quite exciting for the professional and pro-sumer photographers out there .
Right now the largest sensors that are in an affordable price range for normal humans are the full-frame 35mm style , and even those are pretty pricey .
When you get into the medium format backs , one can expect to spend a similar amount to a new sedan... or in some cases , a new sportscar .
As far as I know , they have n't even built a sensor that 's large enough to be called " Large format " that 's marketable- all the large format digital backs are scanners , as far as I know .
Larger sensors do more than reduce noise and increase low-light sensitivity- they also reduce depth of field , which is something that often separates the amateur photos from the ones taken by the pros .
Of course , a cheaper sensor is n't going to reduce the cost of the glass , but maybe somebody else can figure that one out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this technology could be used to make larger sensors more affordable, that would be quite exciting for the professional and pro-sumer photographers out there.
Right now the largest sensors that are in an affordable price range for normal humans are the full-frame 35mm style, and even those are pretty pricey.
When you get into the medium format backs, one can expect to spend a similar amount to a new sedan... or in some cases, a new sportscar.
As far as I know, they haven't even built a sensor that's large enough to be called "Large format" that's marketable- all the large format digital backs are scanners, as far as I know.
Larger sensors do more than reduce noise and increase low-light sensitivity- they also reduce depth of field, which is something that often separates the amateur photos from the ones taken by the pros.
Of course, a cheaper sensor isn't going to reduce the cost of the glass, but maybe somebody else can figure that one out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577528</id>
	<title>Re:Night vision goggles</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1269262680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clarifying? How about entirely rewriting to make sense? "Pitch-black night vision goggles"? If I wanted pitch black, I wouldn't be wearing the goggles.<nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>:\</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clarifying ?
How about entirely rewriting to make sense ?
" Pitch-black night vision goggles " ?
If I wanted pitch black , I would n't be wearing the goggles .
: \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clarifying?
How about entirely rewriting to make sense?
"Pitch-black night vision goggles"?
If I wanted pitch black, I wouldn't be wearing the goggles.
:\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269261060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Near as I can tell we've exceeded the useful range of pixel density increases for all but the most high-powered applications, so there's no reason to look for better resolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Near as I can tell we 've exceeded the useful range of pixel density increases for all but the most high-powered applications , so there 's no reason to look for better resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Near as I can tell we've exceeded the useful range of pixel density increases for all but the most high-powered applications, so there's no reason to look for better resolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577218</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577430</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the articles, both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the articles , both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the articles, both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31592606</id>
	<title>Re:finally...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269355080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can&rsquo;t has poisn deth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can    t has poisn deth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can’t has poisn deth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577266</id>
	<title>Finally a film replacement?</title>
	<author>ZERO1ZERO</author>
	<datestamp>1269260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this lead to large format film cameras being made smaller but same quality?<p>Can the speed be adjusted like ISO 100-400 etc?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this lead to large format film cameras being made smaller but same quality ? Can the speed be adjusted like ISO 100-400 etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this lead to large format film cameras being made smaller but same quality?Can the speed be adjusted like ISO 100-400 etc?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580688</id>
	<title>Re:Sensitivity is not Resolution</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1269338820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will make shot noise worse but may be used to improve other types of noise and distortion. Unfortunately, camera makers have already gotten much better at accommodating other flaws(at least, for domestic imaging) save shot noise which is a fundamental physical issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will make shot noise worse but may be used to improve other types of noise and distortion .
Unfortunately , camera makers have already gotten much better at accommodating other flaws ( at least , for domestic imaging ) save shot noise which is a fundamental physical issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will make shot noise worse but may be used to improve other types of noise and distortion.
Unfortunately, camera makers have already gotten much better at accommodating other flaws(at least, for domestic imaging) save shot noise which is a fundamental physical issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31586326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31583270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31592606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_2232222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31592606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31583270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31586326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31579286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578292
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580170
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577520
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31581156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31580538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31578206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_2232222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_2232222.31577226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
