Admittedly, my understanding of traditional optics is very limited. I happened upon it in a dream whilst trying to figure out how to handle dynamic scenes while using SLAM.
I was thinking of a prism (new word: pellicle mirror) like this one :
Except I don't need the deconvolutional prism. I can handle that in software easily with a X or Y matrix flip. And I assume we are using the same CCD module for both areas; given that, I can sum the contrast between the pixels and calculate the min and max, as well as can calculate the HDR image from both sources.
Calibration would be easy to handle, using a checkerboard to link the CCDs to each other (assume aligning errors will happen).
I also see no reason why the pellicles wouldn't be kept clean. The same goes for the CCDs as well. I'd embed them in a dark acrylic box and try to seal them as best as can be.
The acrylic box blocks all your light (dark is bad), and now you have to keep THAT clean instead. Any surface in your optical path needs to be kept clean, but especially those that are between the center of the optical system and the sensor. Dust on the front element doesn't matter too much, dust on the rear element matters a lot and pellicle mirrors are even worse since they're closer to the focal plane. Scratches from cleaning are real bad too.
As long as your lens system is sealed it's not a problem. But many systems are interchangeable-lens, and when the lens is removed then dust can float in. Or some lenses generate a "vacuum" effect as they focus in and out.
Sensors often incorporate an ultrasonic motor which vibrates it and throws dust off. Or some sensors are mounted on shake tables to reduce blur from operator motion - you can do a similar thing there too. At the end of the day you just have to be careful though.
Like I said, totally possible optically, and yes, very simple to process. The downsides are that when you split the beams each sensor only gets half the light intensity, which means you need to get more light into the optical system in the first place, and you need 2 sensors, which are by far the single most expensive component in the whole camera.
You can actually do something similar with Magic Lantern, a hacked-up open-source firmware for Canon cameras. They scan alternate rows of the sensor at different sensitivities, and use the low-sensitivity row as the most-significant-bits of dynamic range for the high-sensitivity image. You lose a bunch of vertical resolution, but hey, you don't need 2 sensors.
I was thinking of a prism (new word: pellicle mirror) like this one :
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ca877ce4b014ea90e14b...
Except I don't need the deconvolutional prism. I can handle that in software easily with a X or Y matrix flip. And I assume we are using the same CCD module for both areas; given that, I can sum the contrast between the pixels and calculate the min and max, as well as can calculate the HDR image from both sources.
Calibration would be easy to handle, using a checkerboard to link the CCDs to each other (assume aligning errors will happen).
I also see no reason why the pellicles wouldn't be kept clean. The same goes for the CCDs as well. I'd embed them in a dark acrylic box and try to seal them as best as can be.