Digital camera design idea

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
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.
Yeah I know that sort of thing can be done in post processing stages, but
the things I am talking about cannot be controlled by any post-processing.
Eg IR or true B&W require a different sensor to normal colour - converting
to colour via the Bayer colour filter, then back to B&W doesn't have the
same level of detail as if the image was recorded in B&W from the get-go.
Especially if you are using colour filters in - a 6MP colour bayer, with a
Red filter (irrespective of if that red filter is used when the photo is
taken or in post processing), converted to B&W really only has about 1.5MP
of detail - the rest is interpolated. A very high resolution sensor will
deliver more noise at high iso's, but if used at low ISO's will deliver a
very high detail image, just like low ISO film does. People don't just use
Kodachrome 25 for the saturated colours, they also use it for BIG
enlargements, which would require 20+ MP to emulate. 20+MP on a normal
sized sensor would be noisy as all hell at normal ISO's, but would be pretty
good at ISO 25, so would be a good match for film. Likewise, a normal 6MP
sensor is noisy as all hell at high ISO's, yet if the sensor was the same
size but with 3M sensors, then it's noise levels would be a bit more
controlled and would yield good usable pictures. Note that low resolution
low noise is not the same as downsampling. The current standard 6-10MP
sensors used by Canon/Nikon/Pentax represent a compromise that covers
probably 90% of shooting requirements, the other 10% however are totally not
catered for by digital.

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