Author Topic: Digital Photography (Read 844 times)

Sandman · « **on:** January 08, 2003, 05:07:00 PM »

http://www.discover.com/dec_02/featphoto.html

According to the article... this chip could change everything.

SOB · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:09:01 PM »

Kind of like 3 CCD digital camcorders?

SOB

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:22:02 PM »

Are you being sarcastic?

Sandman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:32:05 PM »

Got this frome the Foveon site... this is how the X3 works:

SOB · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:32:49 PM »

Nope, but I didn't read the article...just looked at the first image and read the caption. I was hoping someone would summarize, as I've got homework and am WAY too lazy to read that at the moment.

SOB

Octavius · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:34:06 PM »

Amazing.

How were they able to map out the processes of the central nervous system? Did Mead only try to duplicate the retina?

I got some history I wasn't aware of out of that too... good read!

Sandman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:35:22 PM »

The X3 uses CMOS technology rather than CCD. If you're interested in the difference between the two, http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera3.htm.

Biggest difference... CMOS is cheaper.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2003, 05:44:32 PM »

SOB is correct. (having just taken my TV Broadcasting course)
most high-end cameras have 3 ccds (one for each color)
the new chip (if it's the same one I think it is) is being used now and is replacing the CCD type cameras .

The most important breakthrough in cameras in decades.
too cool.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2003, 06:21:42 PM »

Sell your valuable film cameras now!

Verry cool read!

I have a degree in photography, got it in 92, I think. I predicted that digital photography would be at this point about 5 years later. In 96, I sold most of my valuable film stuff just so that I wouldn't get caught watching it devalue 80% in a year... when digital capabilities surpassed film (didn't use the stuff much more anyway). It sure took a lot longer to get to this point than I thought, but here it is!

Anyway, If you have any film stuff that's worth more than $100 used, go sell it now. If it has sentimental value, buy the same thing back in 5 years for $15.

I have a collection of old 8mm (film) cameras. Bought most of them for $2 to $12. Some of them would have comparable values at todays dollars in the several hundreds.

eskimo

Pongo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2003, 07:21:24 PM »

Instead of capturing a picture like a normal ccd does. (each pixle is only captured in one colour and the values for the other two colours are "guessed" by the other colour sensors around it)
the x3 can capture each of red green and blue for each pixel.
Here is the result vs a very expesive slr type digital

dpreview

The x3 camera was 1800 US and the Cannon was 2k I think.

Airhead · « **Reply #10 on:** January 08, 2003, 08:16:49 PM »

BAH!!! I think this is a hoax. Let's go back to HBlair's Cloneaid thread.

mason22 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2003, 09:01:40 PM »

WOW...that's really an amazing turn in technology for those of us in the field.

bye bye film....

sshh · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2003, 09:02:43 PM »

Its on Ebay already.

eskimo2 - people own cameras not just for its value. Why sell and wait 5 years being unable take pictures ?

Plus its not a big breakthrough. It has not many pixels comparing to "standard" digicams. And three times more pixels in "standard" camera can produce same quality image as this X3.

Sandman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2003, 11:30:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by sshh
Its on Ebay already.

eskimo2 - people own cameras not just for its value. Why sell and wait 5 years being unable take pictures ?

Plus its not a big breakthrough. It has not many pixels comparing to "standard" digicams. And three times more pixels in "standard" camera can produce same quality image as this X3.

You're sure about that?

whgates3 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 09, 2003, 12:50:33 AM »

the best 35mm film has grain sizes as small as 0.3 µm (.0003mm).
not coinidentally, 0.3 µm, is the shortest wavelength visible to the human eye, so you dont get better than that as far as image resolution goes unless you're working on a UV or X-ray camera.
the size of a 35mm negative is ~ 36mm x 24mm - thats nearly 10 billion 'pixels' @ 0.3 µm² per pixel...& 3 bytes per pixel (24 bit color is pretty standard)...so this is going to produce images larger than 30 gigs per...not that i'm saying this couldn't be a serious advance - the same type of gnarly films (double digit ASA stuff) i used as an example are sensitive to about 1 in 10,000 photons that hit it. the best CCDs can be sensetive to better than 9 of every 10, but have pixel sizes in the range of 10 µm per pixel and are much smaller than 35mm negative. combine CCD sensetivity w/ film resolution & a big arnold hard drive & you have just about a perfect imaging system

not to cast dispersions (LOL, optics double entendre! but seriously the endorsment of bill gates isn't helping this dude's rep), but any photographer worthy of the name could produce that butterfly image w/ the exact opposite results in the inset w/out resorting to digital image manipulation