Think Your Camera is Advaced?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:48:26 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Alan Smithee wrote:

It's ironic, the mirror which is what many people love about SLR's is also
the bit that can restrict it. Getting rid of the mechanical mirror and
replacing it with an electronic mirror/shutter obviously has quite a few
advantages such as quieter, faster shutter speeds possible,

How would removing the *mirror* give you faster shutter speeds?
Shutter *lag*, maybe (you'll have sensor and monitor lag
instead!), but shutter *speed*?

more FPS possible,

Just keep the mirror locked up, no problem.

shorter blackout times/shutter lag,

Completely different things caused by completely different
reasons ... and I know how long the blackout times and image lag
can be for cameras with no mirror at all.

no
X-sync speed limitations,

Mixing up MIRROR and SHUTTER again?? Man, what did you
smoke? Do you even know what you are talking about?

extended possibilities for AF systems,

Like ... slower and less possibilities (no phase detection),
since all of-the-sensor AF can and mostly is already implemented
in the newest DSLRs?

less moving
parts, etc. It could also mean that square sensors could be used and aspect
ratio, orientation, etc. could be set in camera.

There is no, and I mean it, no reason in the mirror that
requests non-square sensors. Good morning, smell the coffee.

How they go about it though is anyone's guess. The two main ways I can see
are either an electronic mirror/shutter with maybe some sort of
liquid/crystals that will change from opaque to transparent by switching it
electronically.

That's still a mirror, and will produce much fun with every
little bit of dust on it.

Electric shutters (like kerr cells) are nothing new at all.
They have other drawbacks.

Or obviously by using an electronic viewfinder.

And obviously having a nice image lag, sun sensitivity,
blinding at night, eating batteries like there was no
tomorrow, less dynamic range, nothing to see in the dark etc
etc etc.

As a choice, no problem, but as a replacement it works as
well as horses work as a replacement for car engines.

That said, I suppose it
could be possible for them to develop an electronic viewfinder that's pretty
spectacular and is indistinguishable from a real image.

Suuure. You happen to have a super power's militarys' budget
for your next camera?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang finally reveals himself to be yet another know-nothing
virtual-photographer troll. I wondered how long it would take for him to reveal
his lack of comprehension of the simplest things. Net-parroting others just goes
so far. Then wham. Along comes a post where they have to think on new terms
about how cameras actually work and all they have in their minds is net-parroted
nonsense that they learned from other net-trolls to fall back on.

"bugbear" wrote in message
et...

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader circuitry
that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with no shutter at
all. Imagine being able to save any time segment's sensor data within
an X-second window either side of the moment you hit the "shutter."
Imagine raw sensor files that would allow you to choose your exposure
time(s) in postprocessing, including the moments they begin and end.
They'd be huge files, but what the heck - storage and data transfer
will likely improve by then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible, although I can't
think of a real life scenario where it would be that useful if you had a
fast camera anyway. You would be already looking through the viewfinder at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose exposure times in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only way would be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at the time
of capture. So that would come down to the basics of sensor
sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.

Alan Smithee wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

Mixing up MIRROR and SHUTTER again??

I am talking hypothetically about a pellicle mirror where the mirror is not
a solid mirror, but some sort of liquid that responds to electrical charge.
That means it can be switched opaque/transparent electronically. So, why
would you need a shutter if this were possible?

Yes.

It might be a shutter with an integrated mirror. Maybe the chip
would have an electronic shutter, too, for movie mode maybe.

-Wolfgang

BaumBadier wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hello, troll. I see you misuse other people's domain names.

[crap deleted]

You disagree. Fine with me. Give us a rebuttal based on
facts, instead on waving your ****sticks, OK?

-Wolfgang

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:17:48 -0000, "Alan Smithee"
wrote:

"bugbear" wrote in message
net...

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader circuitry
that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with no shutter at
all. Imagine being able to save any time segment's sensor data within
an X-second window either side of the moment you hit the "shutter."
Imagine raw sensor files that would allow you to choose your exposure
time(s) in postprocessing, including the moments they begin and end.
They'd be huge files, but what the heck - storage and data transfer
will likely improve by then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible, although I can't
think of a real life scenario where it would be that useful if you had a
fast camera anyway. You would be already looking through the viewfinder at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose exposure times in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only way would be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at the time
of capture. So that would come down to the basics of sensor
sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.

If for each shot taken you stored a time segment from the buffer in 3D
(X,Y,Time) rather than the conventional 2D (X,Y with accumulated Time)
you could then time-crop the exposure in post. It would be as if you
took the shot with the chosen exposure time.

With before-and-after buffered capture you could also fix a shot where
you pressed the shutter just a bit too late for current cameras. Sort
of a "Tivo" for still cameras.

With advanced processing you might even be able to achieve image
stabilization in cases where it's the subject shaking, not the camera.

"John A." wrote in message
...

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader circuitry
that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with no shutter at
all. Imagine being able to save any time segment's sensor data within
an X-second window either side of the moment you hit the "shutter."
Imagine raw sensor files that would allow you to choose your exposure
time(s) in postprocessing, including the moments they begin and end.
They'd be huge files, but what the heck - storage and data transfer
will likely improve by then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible, although I can't
think of a real life scenario where it would be that useful if you had a
fast camera anyway. You would be already looking through the viewfinder
at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose exposure times
in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only way would
be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at the time
of capture. So that would come down to the basics of sensor
sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.


If for each shot taken you stored a time segment from the buffer in 3D
(X,Y,Time) rather than the conventional 2D (X,Y with accumulated Time)
you could then time-crop the exposure in post. It would be as if you
took the shot with the chosen exposure time.

With before-and-after buffered capture you could also fix a shot where
you pressed the shutter just a bit too late for current cameras. Sort
of a "Tivo" for still cameras.

With advanced processing you might even be able to achieve image
stabilization in cases where it's the subject shaking, not the camera.


I was visualising shooting something like a tennis player where you can
anticipate their moves in advance. But, thinking about it, I can see the
appeal now especially when shooting something fast that isn't as
predictable, say a wildlife photographer who for example wants to photograph
a Chameleon catching a cricket with it's tongue. The photographer could
then just hit the shutter release at the 'trigger point' and the frames
before and after will also be stored to card.

I still can't see how you could time crop exposure in post though, unless
the camera is on a tripod and it's a static shot. If there's movement, the
frames won't line up. Within reason, software could use scene recognition
and the frames could be aligned, but the capabilities are limited.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:46:54 -0000, "Alan Smithee"
wrote:

"John A." wrote in message
.. .

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader circuitry
that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with no shutter at
all. Imagine being able to save any time segment's sensor data within
an X-second window either side of the moment you hit the "shutter."
Imagine raw sensor files that would allow you to choose your exposure
time(s) in postprocessing, including the moments they begin and end.
They'd be huge files, but what the heck - storage and data transfer
will likely improve by then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible, although I can't
think of a real life scenario where it would be that useful if you had a
fast camera anyway. You would be already looking through the viewfinder
at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose exposure times
in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only way would
be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at the time
of capture. So that would come down to the basics of sensor
sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.


If for each shot taken you stored a time segment from the buffer in 3D
(X,Y,Time) rather than the conventional 2D (X,Y with accumulated Time)
you could then time-crop the exposure in post. It would be as if you
took the shot with the chosen exposure time.

With before-and-after buffered capture you could also fix a shot where
you pressed the shutter just a bit too late for current cameras. Sort
of a "Tivo" for still cameras.

With advanced processing you might even be able to achieve image
stabilization in cases where it's the subject shaking, not the camera.


I was visualising shooting something like a tennis player where you can
anticipate their moves in advance. But, thinking about it, I can see the
appeal now especially when shooting something fast that isn't as
predictable, say a wildlife photographer who for example wants to photograph
a Chameleon catching a cricket with it's tongue. The photographer could
then just hit the shutter release at the 'trigger point' and the frames
before and after will also be stored to card.

I still can't see how you could time crop exposure in post though, unless
the camera is on a tripod and it's a static shot. If there's movement, the
frames won't line up. Within reason, software could use scene recognition
and the frames could be aligned, but the capabilities are limited.

That would be the advantage to exposure cropping. You could crop the
time to the beginning and end of whatever brief moment you were
keeping the camera still and/or when the subject was keeping still. It
would be like taking an ultra high speed video, at several thousand no
doubt noisy frames a second, and combining a selected range of frames
to make one clear image.

Picture a child in an adorable candid moment. You snap a shot of it
but the kid, as is their wont, suddenly launches himself across the
room or otherwise jerks his head around. In a current camera you might
get only a blur instead of the beautiful shot you hoped for. With a
buffered exposure shot you could crop the exposure time afterward to
the brief moment when the camera was still and so was the kid. Shot
saved! Portrait studios would love it.

I called it "buffered exposure" but I'm not sure that's the best term.
That would really only refer to the capability to capture what the
sensor saw pre-release. I'd call it "3D" but that's been used for
images recording parallax. Maybe "XYT" for the horizontal, vertical,
and temporal dimensions in which it can be cropped?

It's all pie-in-the-sky dreaming now, of course, but then so were the
communicators in Star Trek and look at the much more capable
communicators we're carrying around now just a generation or so later.
I really hope some engineers read this some day and think "Hey! I
think we could do that!" Maybe it'll start as just a single-shot
in-camera thing rather than saving all that data for every shot -
you'd just have the opportunity to correct the exposure time in your
last shot - but I think we can get there.

"John A." wrote in message
...

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader circuitry
that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with no shutter at
all. Imagine being able to save any time segment's sensor data within
an X-second window either side of the moment you hit the "shutter."
Imagine raw sensor files that would allow you to choose your exposure
time(s) in postprocessing, including the moments they begin and end.
They'd be huge files, but what the heck - storage and data transfer
will likely improve by then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible, although I
can't
think of a real life scenario where it would be that useful if you had a
fast camera anyway. You would be already looking through the viewfinder
at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose exposure times
in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only way
would
be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at the
time
of capture. So that would come down to the basics of sensor
sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.


If for each shot taken you stored a time segment from the buffer in 3D
(X,Y,Time) rather than the conventional 2D (X,Y with accumulated Time)
you could then time-crop the exposure in post. It would be as if you
took the shot with the chosen exposure time.

With before-and-after buffered capture you could also fix a shot where
you pressed the shutter just a bit too late for current cameras. Sort
of a "Tivo" for still cameras.

With advanced processing you might even be able to achieve image
stabilization in cases where it's the subject shaking, not the camera.


I was visualising shooting something like a tennis player where you can
anticipate their moves in advance. But, thinking about it, I can see the
appeal now especially when shooting something fast that isn't as
predictable, say a wildlife photographer who for example wants to
photograph
a Chameleon catching a cricket with it's tongue. The photographer could
then just hit the shutter release at the 'trigger point' and the frames
before and after will also be stored to card.

I still can't see how you could time crop exposure in post though, unless
the camera is on a tripod and it's a static shot. If there's movement,
the
frames won't line up. Within reason, software could use scene recognition
and the frames could be aligned, but the capabilities are limited.

That would be the advantage to exposure cropping. You could crop the
time to the beginning and end of whatever brief moment you were
keeping the camera still and/or when the subject was keeping still. It
would be like taking an ultra high speed video, at several thousand no
doubt noisy frames a second, and combining a selected range of frames
to make one clear image.

Picture a child in an adorable candid moment. You snap a shot of it
but the kid, as is their wont, suddenly launches himself across the
room or otherwise jerks his head around. In a current camera you might
get only a blur instead of the beautiful shot you hoped for. With a
buffered exposure shot you could crop the exposure time afterward to
the brief moment when the camera was still and so was the kid. Shot
saved! Portrait studios would love it.

I called it "buffered exposure" but I'm not sure that's the best term.
That would really only refer to the capability to capture what the
sensor saw pre-release. I'd call it "3D" but that's been used for
images recording parallax. Maybe "XYT" for the horizontal, vertical,
and temporal dimensions in which it can be cropped?

It's all pie-in-the-sky dreaming now, of course, but then so were the
communicators in Star Trek and look at the much more capable
communicators we're carrying around now just a generation or so later.
I really hope some engineers read this some day and think "Hey! I
think we could do that!" Maybe it'll start as just a single-shot
in-camera thing rather than saving all that data for every shot -
you'd just have the opportunity to correct the exposure time in your
last shot - but I think we can get there.


Yeah, seem we have a different definition to exposure cropping.

For your scenario, you don't need to stack thousands of fps. What you
mentioned is already possible with Photoshop. The only difference is that
you hit the shutter release a few times for the same photo. So, say you are
shooting a group shot, you take a few photos of the same shot, if none of
them are the perfect shot because someone was blinking for example, you just
align the multiple exposures and draw from a layer where they aren't
blinking.

John A. wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:46:54 -0000, "Alan Smithee"
wrote:

"John A." wrote in
message ...

Maybe someone will someday come up with a sensor and reader
circuitry that will allow continuous or buffered sampling with
no shutter at all. Imagine being able to save any time
segment's
sensor data within an X-second window either side of the moment
you hit the "shutter." Imagine raw sensor files that would
allow
you to choose your exposure time(s) in postprocessing,
including
the moments they begin and end. They'd be huge files, but what
the heck - storage and data transfer will likely improve by
then. (They'd have to!)


The files would be a bit per photon, I guess.

They'd be very nice... The dynamic range would be awesome!


Continuous buffering is something that could be possible,
although
I can't think of a real life scenario where it would be that
useful if you had a fast camera anyway. You would be already
looking through the viewfinder at
the subject and anticipating the next moves.

I also can't visualise how it would be possible to choose
exposure
times in
post processing that would work with moving subjects. The only
way would be
to capture more information than they already do at the moment at
the time of capture. So that would come down to the basics of
sensor sensitivity/capture capabilities, with low S/N.


If for each shot taken you stored a time segment from the buffer
in
3D (X,Y,Time) rather than the conventional 2D (X,Y with
accumulated
Time) you could then time-crop the exposure in post. It would be
as
if you took the shot with the chosen exposure time.

With before-and-after buffered capture you could also fix a shot
where you pressed the shutter just a bit too late for current
cameras. Sort of a "Tivo" for still cameras.

With advanced processing you might even be able to achieve image
stabilization in cases where it's the subject shaking, not the
camera.


I was visualising shooting something like a tennis player where you
can anticipate their moves in advance. But, thinking about it, I
can see the appeal now especially when shooting something fast that
isn't as predictable, say a wildlife photographer who for example
wants to photograph a Chameleon catching a cricket with it's
tongue.
The photographer could then just hit the shutter release at the
'trigger point' and the frames before and after will also be stored
to card.

I still can't see how you could time crop exposure in post though,
unless the camera is on a tripod and it's a static shot. If
there's
movement, the frames won't line up. Within reason, software could
use scene recognition and the frames could be aligned, but the
capabilities are limited.

That would be the advantage to exposure cropping. You could crop the
time to the beginning and end of whatever brief moment you were
keeping the camera still and/or when the subject was keeping still.
It
would be like taking an ultra high speed video, at several thousand
no
doubt noisy frames a second, and combining a selected range of
frames
to make one clear image.

Picture a child in an adorable candid moment. You snap a shot of it
but the kid, as is their wont, suddenly launches himself across the
room or otherwise jerks his head around. In a current camera you
might
get only a blur instead of the beautiful shot you hoped for. With a
buffered exposure shot you could crop the exposure time afterward to
the brief moment when the camera was still and so was the kid. Shot
saved! Portrait studios would love it.

The Casio EX-F1 and EX-FH20 can do something like this now. Press the
shutter and they record not just the shot but up to 60 previous
frames, recorded at rates of up to 60 frames/second. One second at 60
fps should save the shot that you described above. FWIW, Casio has
just announced several new models with the same capability, however
they max out at 30 fps (which isn't bad for something that almost fits
in your wallet). Incidentally, they may have solved the shutter lag
issue with point-and-shoots--they're adding a "select a lag" feature
that records just the image that was buffered at the lag time that you
specify.

I suspect that a few generations down the road this will make it into
DSLRs.

I called it "buffered exposure" but I'm not sure that's the best
term.
That would really only refer to the capability to capture what the
sensor saw pre-release. I'd call it "3D" but that's been used for
images recording parallax. Maybe "XYT" for the horizontal, vertical,
and temporal dimensions in which it can be cropped?

It's all pie-in-the-sky dreaming now, of course, but then so were
the
communicators in Star Trek and look at the much more capable
communicators we're carrying around now just a generation or so
later.
I really hope some engineers read this some day and think "Hey! I
think we could do that!" Maybe it'll start as just a single-shot
in-camera thing rather than saving all that data for every shot -
you'd just have the opportunity to correct the exposure time in your
last shot - but I think we can get there.

The Casio EX-F1 and EX-FH20 can do something like this now. Press the
shutter and they record not just the shot but up to 60 previous
frames, recorded at rates of up to 60 frames/second.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

John A wrote:

It would be like taking an ultra high speed video, at several thousand
no doubt noisy frames a second, and combining a selected range of
frames to make one clear image.

So what do you do about read noise?

-Wolfgang