Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:16965 rec.photo:19651 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!spdcc!dirtydog!suitti From: suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) Newsgroups: comp.graphics,rec.photo Subject: Re: Digital Photography Message-ID: <1991Apr01.182950.14843@ima.isc.com> Date: 1 Apr 91 18:29:50 GMT References: <1991Mar22.234502.4783@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <50815@apple.Apple.COM> <1991Mar27.015600.21812@rice.edu> <1991Mar29.173328.23660@cello.hpl.hp.com> <1991Mar30.060743.25275@rice.edu> Sender: usenet@ima.isc.com Reply-To: suitti@ima.isc.com (Stephen Uitti) Organization: Interactive Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138-5302 Lines: 105 In article <1991Mar30.060743.25275@rice.edu> fontenot@comet.rice.edu (Dwayne Jacques Fontenot) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.173328.23660@cello.hpl.hp.com> jacobson@cello.hpl.hp.com (David Jacobson) writes: >>In article <1991Mar27.015600.21812@rice.edu> fontenot@rice.edu (Dwayne >>Jacques Fontenot) writes regarding a previous query about digital video: >> >>> The image data is stored internally (on the 2" floppy) in an *analog* format >>> that was developed ~10 years ago by a consortium of electronics corporations. >>> After the image is taken off the CCD, it is no longer digital -- if you want >>> it in digital form, you have to *digitize* it. The analog step involves >>> quite a bit of degradation of the image data. >>> [stuff deleted] >>> Also, I refuse on principle alone to buy anything so stupidly >>> obviously built-in-planned-obsolescence designed (i.e. there is *NO* reason, >>> at least no good reason I have heard, for these cameras to still be using >>> ugly, messy analog technology). [more stuff deleted] Standards. Ten years is a long for technology these days. I don't complain about how slow VAX 780s are any more. I don't complain about how expensive they are to maintain any more. We ditched ours. >Yes, several people have informed me that CCDs are not digital devices. You >are right and I was wrong...about *that* part. Perhaps the only semi-malicious >thing going on here is the fact that these devices are said to do "digital >photography". I think that term applied to these devices is misleading >many people. Audio CDs have taught many, for good or ill, that "digital" means "perfect". It's a lie. It was always a lie. If anything, "digital" means "flexible". >The main point I would like to make is that I think the image >data should be digitized as soon as possible; inside the camera before it >is stored on disk. Once you have your data in digital form degradation due >to signal attenuation and noise stops. I think this is well within the >capabilities of today's technology, and at a reasonable price. It is true >that images in digital form take up more space than analog, but storage >technology has increases many times over what was available 10 years ago. >We now have 2" hard disks that have >60Mb capacities, as can be found in >any self-respecting notebook computer. I guess it all comes down to marketing. >The cameras did not take off when they were introduced and perhaps >companies are afraid of getting burned if they spend a great deal of money >to R & D a completely new-technology product in this area. (By this area I >mean at a price level that would be accessible to many people, not just >labs with $5-10-15 thousand dollars to spend). My guess is that the cameras did not take off because they were/are such poor quality. Let's say that the CCD in the camera can be arbitrarily large. The Hubble Space Telescope is said to have an 8Kx8K CCD. Note that 35 mm has an aspect ratio of about 3:2, rather than 1:1. Let's say that the disk speed is 2 MB/second for uncompressed data (no processing). Let's say that the disk is 72 MB (1 MB=2**20). Let's say that 24 bit color is considered OK. CCD size Data size Recording time Images/disk 8Kx8K 192 MB 96 sec 0.375 (Hubble Space Telescope) 4Kx6K 72 MB 36 sec 1 2Kx3K 18 MB 9 sec 4 1Kx1.5K 4.5 MB 2.25 sec 16 512x768 393216 0.1875 sec 192 Can the CCD hold an image for 36 seconds? 9 seconds? Can the user wait that long? Maybe 1Kx1.5K is the right size. You could put some 5 MB RAM into it so you could take two shots rapidly. It could end up costing more - so you make the RAM an add-on option. No matter what you do, users will complain it costs too much. Or maybe 512x768 will be better, since 4 MB RAM could buffer 10 rapid fire images. How much is a 72 MB disk drive going to cost? With power supply? How much would a 4Kx6K CCD cost? 2Kx3K? Can the disk drive survive the jerking that many cameras must survive? Maybe the camera should have a 4Kx6K CCD, but allow the user to select the resolution each shot. I don't know when such a camera might be built & marketed. I do know that large companies, such as Kodak, Canon, etc., do spend money on R&D. Lots of things that are only available to labs, etc., because they are > $10K are still profitable. Medicine & War are examples. Stephen suitti@ima.isc.com Disclaimer - I don't speak for Interactive, or Kodak. Any statistics should be computed for yourself. Any hand waiving should be waved for yourself. "We Americans want peace, and it is now evident that we must be prepared to demand it. For other peoples have wanted peace, and the peace they received was the peace of death." - the Most Rev. Francis J. Spellman, Archbishop of New York. 22 September, 1940