160 meg line scan camera $36,000

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

WTLW!

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Old news.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Old news.

It does prove that the line scan camera is capable of being used like a
conventional
DSLR for some things and it's a cheap way to gain resolution, versus
what a real 160 meg
CCD would cost. $36,000 is peanuts compared to that.

RichA wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Old news.

It does prove that the line scan camera is capable of being used like a
conventional
DSLR for some things and it's a cheap way to gain resolution, versus
what a real 160 meg
CCD would cost. $36,000 is peanuts compared to that.

Looks like a pretty worthless camera (or at least not worth close to
$36K), just what would you use it for?

Scott

RichA wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Old news.

It does prove that the line scan camera is capable of being used like
a conventional
DSLR for some things and it's a cheap way to gain resolution, versus
what a real 160 meg
CCD would cost. $36,000 is peanuts compared to that.

It takes at least one second to expose a scene...which means no movement can
be in that scene.
-That doesn't sound like anything resembling a convention DSLR to me...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Scott W wrote:
RichA wrote:

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

RichA wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

Old news.

It does prove that the line scan camera is capable of being used like a
conventional
DSLR for some things and it's a cheap way to gain resolution, versus
what a real 160 meg
CCD would cost. $36,000 is peanuts compared to that.


Looks like a pretty worthless camera (or at least not worth close to
$36K), just what would you use it for?

If the obvious needs to be stated to you, then so be it: Not all scenes
or images have movement in them. This is a superior method, for
example, than mosaicing large detailed scenes.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
If the obvious needs to be stated to you, then so be it: Not all scenes
or images have movement in them. This is a superior method, for
example, than mosaicing large detailed scenes.

Not at all, with mosaicing you can have movement in the scene, I have
lots with people walking and cars going by as well as trees swaying.

I have better control if my FOW with mosaicing then this camera can
give.

I have a lighter camera to carry around.

I have more range on what aspect ratio I want in the image.

And since my lens only need to produce a small part of the image at a
time I can get a sharper image.

Their Roundshot D3 looks like a much better camera to me is one really
wants to scan.
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/intro.cfm

Scott