A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital camera design idea



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 04, 12:01 AM
Justin Thyme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

For a while I've been looking at various DSLRs, and the one thing that bugs
me is that if I spend ~2k on a camera, and next year there is some advance
in sensor (eg, lets say they jump to 20MP with super low noise or
something), I'm still stuck with 2004 technology. One thing that film has
as an advantage, is that I can control the type of photo by changing my
film. I can put in a 50ISO fine grain film if I want super enlargement
capability, or I can put in B&W film, or even IR film for special effects.
My film SLR is close on 20 years old - in the last 20 years there have been
advances in film technology and all I've had to do to take advantage of them
is buy the new roll.
So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps
like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of
interchangeable sensor modules. It would make the camera much more versatile
and give it a much longer useful life. For example, at the moment the ISO
sensitivity is a combination of sensor element size, and acceptable noise -
larger sensor elements result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see
times when it would be really handy if I could choose for example to have a
20MP sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at
ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W sensor. Or
within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor technology, and
having this feature would allow it to be taken advantage of, without having
to buy a whole new camera. I know creating a camera like this would add
cost, but I think it would make the camera a much more complete replacement
for film.
Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it just be a
cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone except me?


  #2  
Old June 26th 04, 01:31 AM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

How dumb is this? Let me count the ways...


"Justin Thyme" wrote in message
...
For a while I've been looking at various DSLRs, and the one thing that

bugs
me is that if I spend ~2k on a camera, and next year there is some advance
in sensor (eg, lets say they jump to 20MP with super low noise or
something), I'm still stuck with 2004 technology.


If you do the research you should be happy with your purchase for 2-3
years....and can get by for another as you save up.

One thing that film has
as an advantage, is that I can control the type of photo by changing my
film. I can put in a 50ISO fine grain film if I want super enlargement
capability, or I can put in B&W film, or even IR film for special effects.
My film SLR is close on 20 years old - in the last 20 years there have

been
advances in film technology and all I've had to do to take advantage of

them
is buy the new roll.


Or...you can pick exactly the right film for every shot if you use sheet
film! And digital will never match large format for quality!


So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps
like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of
interchangeable sensor modules.


Standards kill innovation...we are all on the bleeding edge. If standards
were a good idea then after 50 years why can't I use a nikon lens on a canon
camera?


It would make the camera much more versatile
and give it a much longer useful life. For example, at the moment the ISO
sensitivity is a combination of sensor element size, and acceptable

noise -
larger sensor elements result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see
times when it would be really handy if I could choose for example to have

a
20MP sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at
ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W sensor. Or
within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor technology, and
having this feature would allow it to be taken advantage of, without

having
to buy a whole new camera. I know creating a camera like this would add
cost, but I think it would make the camera a much more complete

replacement
for film.
Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it just be

a
cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone except me?




  #3  
Old June 26th 04, 01:39 AM
Mark M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps
like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of
interchangeable sensor modules.


This doesn't work because the other internals of DSLRs are advancing just as
quickly as the sensors themselves. Take the Canon 1D Mark II, for example.
This camera can process 8MP images at a rate of 8FPS for 40 frames. The
computing power to do this is quite substantial, and is a major advance not
available before. This computing power must be carefully dsigned
specifically to handle each sensor's output...along with buffering, etc.

As larger sensors emerge, you would cripple the sensor by the inability of
the camera's older computer to efficiently handle the data.

It just doesn't work...or at least...not well.

It's like sticking a super fast processor in a computer with old, slow
components.

Bottle-necking would be severe, and cripple effectiveness of the processor.


  #4  
Old June 26th 04, 02:15 AM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

"Justin Thyme" writes:

So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard
(perhaps like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a
standard of interchangeable sensor modules. It would make the camera
much more versatile and give it a much longer useful life. For
example, at the moment the ISO sensitivity is a combination of
sensor element size, and acceptable noise - larger sensor elements
result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see times when it
would be really handy if I could choose for example to have a 20MP
sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at
ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W
sensor. Or within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor
technology, and having this feature would allow it to be taken
advantage of, without having to buy a whole new camera. I know
creating a camera like this would add cost, but I think it would
make the camera a much more complete replacement for film.


Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it
just be a cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone
except me?


I have *no* idea if enough people would be interested to make it worth
marketing; but I have myself expressed a desire for a dedicated B&W
sensor (somewhat higher res, and significantly higher sensitivity due
to lack of the color filters), and an IR sensor (take off one more
bit, the IR blocking plate).

The concept of a sensor more highly specialized for high ISO, perhaps
at lower res (after all, I don't need Kodachrome-level resolution for
most of my low-light pictures), is also interesting.

If we step back, and don't build the viewfinder optics for some crop
factor, but instead insist the user install a screen with the crop
area marked on it, you could even have a choice between 1.5x crop and
full frame sensors, potentially.

Of course, the software in general is so dependent on the sensor that
I sense problems lurking here. And I rather think there are
parameters stored in flash ram somewhere specific to the *particular*
sensor. So it would take a considerable rework of the software
architecture to handle all this. But that's doable.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for this, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
  #5  
Old June 26th 04, 03:40 AM
Gene Palmiter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea


" I have *no* idea if enough people would be interested to make it worth
marketing; but I have myself expressed a desire for a dedicated B&W
sensor (somewhat higher res, and significantly higher sensitivity due
to lack of the color filters), and an IR sensor (take off one more
bit, the IR blocking plate).



Several friends got together and put on a show of
photography....portraiture. I went to see it with a GF and she asked me why
I wasn't invited to participate. The guy who curated the show looked a bit
embarrassed at being asked...because I am well known locally as a
non-commercial portrait photographer....that is ...I do portraits but not
for a living....as an artistic outlet. The curator said that they didn't
even think of me because I don't do film or B&W. The idea was that to be
"art" it had to include those two elements.

Well...that was a couple of years ago. I doubt that they have changed their
minds much though they are beginning to play with digital. B&W is used by
people who develop their own because it can be used. Color is insanely
difficult and expensive if you strive for the same control and quality. It's
every thing you have to do for B&W times three! Try dodging and burning
color if you don't believe me.

It will take time for attitudes to change....its been only in the last year
that galleries have stopped asking for slides for evaluation.


  #6  
Old June 26th 04, 04:06 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

Justin Thyme wrote:

For a while I've been looking at various DSLRs, and the one thing that bugs
me is that if I spend ~2k on a camera, and next year there is some advance
in sensor (eg, lets say they jump to 20MP with super low noise or
something), I'm still stuck with 2004 technology. One thing that film has
as an advantage, is that I can control the type of photo by changing my
film. I can put in a 50ISO fine grain film if I want super enlargement
capability, or I can put in B&W film, or even IR film for special effects.
My film SLR is close on 20 years old - in the last 20 years there have been
advances in film technology and all I've had to do to take advantage of them
is buy the new roll.
So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps
like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of
interchangeable sensor modules. It would make the camera much more versatile
and give it a much longer useful life. For example, at the moment the ISO
sensitivity is a combination of sensor element size, and acceptable noise -
larger sensor elements result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see
times when it would be really handy if I could choose for example to have a
20MP sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at
ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W sensor. Or
within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor technology, and
having this feature would allow it to be taken advantage of, without having
to buy a whole new camera. I know creating a camera like this would add
cost, but I think it would make the camera a much more complete replacement
for film.
Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it just be a
cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone except me?


You really shouldn't compare a mature technology with one that has been
around only a short time. Probably if it were 1950, you would find film
a bit limiting in the same ways.
  #7  
Old June 26th 04, 04:41 AM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

In article lB3Dc.21571$wS2.15@okepread03, mjmorgan2
@goaway.cox.unless.no.crap.net says...
This doesn't work because the other internals of DSLRs are advancing just as
quickly as the sensors themselves. Take the Canon 1D Mark II, for example.
This camera can process 8MP images at a rate of 8FPS for 40 frames. The
computing power to do this is quite substantial, and is a major advance not
available before. This computing power must be carefully dsigned
specifically to handle each sensor's output...along with buffering, etc.

As larger sensors emerge, you would cripple the sensor by the inability of
the camera's older computer to efficiently handle the data.

It just doesn't work...or at least...not well.

It's like sticking a super fast processor in a computer with old, slow
components.

Bottle-necking would be severe, and cripple effectiveness of the processor.


Additionally, look at what the Eos 3 costs versus the 1D Mark II. The
shutter and body aren't the expensive part of the camera - it's the
sensor & the image processor.
  #8  
Old June 26th 04, 11:28 AM
DJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:40:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
wrote:

snip


Several friends got together and put on a show of
photography....portraiture. I went to see it with a GF and she asked me why
I wasn't invited to participate. The guy who curated the show looked a bit
embarrassed at being asked...because I am well known locally as a


snip

Reminds me .. last week my missus bumped into an old girl friend whose husband
David is a photographer. She suggested her David (me) get together with her
David (him) and discuss our common interest, photography. But, "oh no, that is
quite out of the question, your David (me) does digital doesn't he?. _MY_
(friend's) David won't consider digital. They'd have no common ground."

Apparently digital photos only last a couple of years, so digital is beneath
contempt for a _real_ photographer. Hmmm.. he'd obviously closed off his mind
before Kodak 100 years papers and Canon and Epson pigment based printers.

Closed minds! Tiny minds!

dj
  #9  
Old June 26th 04, 01:39 PM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

DJ wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:40:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
wrote:

snip

Several friends got together and put on a show of
photography....portraiture. I went to see it with a GF and she asked me why
I wasn't invited to participate. The guy who curated the show looked a bit
embarrassed at being asked...because I am well known locally as a



snip

Reminds me .. last week my missus bumped into an old girl friend whose husband
David is a photographer. She suggested her David (me) get together with her
David (him) and discuss our common interest, photography. But, "oh no, that is
quite out of the question, your David (me) does digital doesn't he?. _MY_
(friend's) David won't consider digital. They'd have no common ground."

Apparently digital photos only last a couple of years, so digital is beneath
contempt for a _real_ photographer. Hmmm.. he'd obviously closed off his mind
before Kodak 100 years papers and Canon and Epson pigment based printers.

Closed minds! Tiny minds!

dj


Worse, his information was faulty initially. I have a picture in my
wallet I have carried for 5 years. It was taken with my brother's 1.3
mp Olympus camera, emailed to me, and printed on my HP inkjet printer.
It looks exactly like it did the day I printed it.

When one operates on faulty information, invalid, or downright wrong,
conclusions are likely.
  #10  
Old June 26th 04, 02:46 PM
Don Stauffer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera design idea

Different films (and, for that matter, different developers) do things
that in the digital world is done with post processing. You can do
things with your editor, like unsharp mask and edge enhancement, that
duplicate some of the things different film/develpers do. And, you can
do it without changing anything before you shoot. So you can take the
same basic image and process it any of several ways. Want highly
saturated color? Enhanced edges? Do your filtering on image after you
download it from camera.

Of course, you need to start with highest res camera you can afford, and
shoot/store in non-lossy format, such as TIFF or RAW.

Justin Thyme wrote:

For a while I've been looking at various DSLRs, and the one thing that bugs
me is that if I spend ~2k on a camera, and next year there is some advance
in sensor (eg, lets say they jump to 20MP with super low noise or
something), I'm still stuck with 2004 technology. One thing that film has
as an advantage, is that I can control the type of photo by changing my
film. I can put in a 50ISO fine grain film if I want super enlargement
capability, or I can put in B&W film, or even IR film for special effects.
My film SLR is close on 20 years old - in the last 20 years there have been
advances in film technology and all I've had to do to take advantage of them
is buy the new roll.
So it got me thinking - if the DSLR makers settled on a standard (perhaps
like fourthirds that olympus are doing), but also made a standard of
interchangeable sensor modules. It would make the camera much more versatile
and give it a much longer useful life. For example, at the moment the ISO
sensitivity is a combination of sensor element size, and acceptable noise -
larger sensor elements result in less noise at high ISO's. So I could see
times when it would be really handy if I could choose for example to have a
20MP sensor but at ISO 25, or a 3MP sensor that was still low noise at
ISO800. Or maybe I could put in an IR sensor, or a true B&W sensor. Or
within a few years there could be a big advance in sensor technology, and
having this feature would allow it to be taken advantage of, without having
to buy a whole new camera. I know creating a camera like this would add
cost, but I think it would make the camera a much more complete replacement
for film.
Does anyone else think such a feature would be useful? or would it just be a
cost adding feature that would have no advantage to anyone except me?


--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage-
http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.