Prototypes of future digital ultra-compact pocketable camera - Willthere be much improvement in the

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. aniramca

    aniramca Guest

    I am not a professional photographer, but I do like to take reasonable
    good quality photos (in term of exposures, sharpness, zooming, manual/
    autoshots). DSLR is just simply too big to be used as a pocketable
    camera. Will anyone guess that in the next 10 years or so, ultra
    compact (pocketable) digital camera can EVER reach the quality of
    today's DSLR? Or it is just an impossible physical size to have a
    good zoom, plus large sensor size to be fitted into a ultra compact
    size? Remember, the size SD card never changes, but 5 years ago, you
    are dealing with 32, 64 and 128 MB, versus 2, 4 and 8 GB size today
    (on the same physical size). Does the light path that pass through a
    lens can be shortened to make the camera thin? Perhaps this is going
    into the technology of building lens or its materials (glass,plastic
    or ceramic lens?).
    I hope this discussion will not end up with another fight between P&S
    and DSLR. I still feel that there are a great numbers out there who
    like to use a compact camera, instead a bulky ultra zoom or DSLR. I
    can even settle down with a Canon G7/Nikon P6000's size which has
    picture quality at par with Canon 50D or Nikon D300. I can still put
    my G7 in my pocket.
    Thanks for the discussion.
     
    aniramca, Jan 18, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Keith nuttle Guest

    There are physical limits even in this day and age of change. A good
    Zoom lens requires a lot of glass to bend the light rays on to the
    sensor. My Olympus C-740 has 11 elements in 7 groups. Light passes
    through a glass or any medium in very defined ways that can only be
    changed by changing the properties of the glass or changing its shape.
    Someone could respond that it could be done on the sensor but like the
    cpu (see below) there are physical limits to the number of pixel that
    can be placed on a chip. So it is unlikely that you will ever see an
    ultra thin zoom camera.

    One other physical limit that has been meet and can not be passed is
    with cpu for computers. Physical laws state that at a certain size and
    speed there will be electron tunneling where the pathway of the
    electrons can no longer be controlled. This was a big topic in computer
    magazines in the 1980's. That limit was hit Pentium 4 3.0 GHz chips.
    After that to increase through put the manufactures started the duo, and
    quad processors which all run at about half that rate 1.6GHz.
     
    Keith nuttle, Jan 18, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Keith nuttle Guest

    The brain uses algorithms to interpret the raw data that comes in
    through the lens into the eye. If you wear bifocals you should remember
    how quickly the brain translated the curved line produced by the lens in
    the glasses into a straight line. Algorithms can not produce as sharp
    of an image as an optical lens. That is why some pictures through a
    high quality lens do not look correct, they are too good.
     
    Keith nuttle, Jan 18, 2009
    #3
  4. It's difficult to make exact comparisons of sensor size, because the
    human eye is in effect several different cameras simultaneously doing
    different jobs, and some of them use a rather low res very wide angle
    view on a very curved sensor. I suspect it's a fair approximation to
    say that the lens is of roughly P&S dimensions because so is the
    effective comparable sensor. The same optics and physics applies.

    Many people don't appreciate that the apparently detailed view we get
    from the eye is in effect a stitched panorama. There's only a rather
    small high res portion of the retina, and our view of a view is
    sampled at points of detailed interest by very high speed jumps of the
    eyeball (saccades) to point at each item of interest. The brain
    stitches these together into the impression of a much wider detailed
    view. For example, when reading a book, typically only a word or two
    on the line are in clear legible high resolution.

    That's how the eye-brain has solved the data rate problem of
    transferring and understanding images of the world at speeds high
    enough to play ball games. (Our ball games exploit most of the high
    speed capabilities of the human eye-brain complex to their limits.)

    There's also a fantastic amount of crud and distortion in the basic
    image as sampled by the retina. For example the "wiring" in the sense
    of nerves and blood vessels are in front of the light sensing
    elements. This casts a shadow of its detailed twiggery over every
    image. The brain however does such a good job of cleaning up the image
    that most of the time it looks as though our eyes are very much better
    than they really are. Most of the time we don't even notice the large
    blind spot where the frontal twiggery is bundled up and taken through
    a hole in the retina to the back side.

    The human retina is a is a highly tuned and ingeniously compensated
    development of a really stupid original design. The designer managed
    to get in right in the cephalopod eye, but the absence of bones in the
    cephalopods has put serious constraints on how far that superior eye
    can travel.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 23, 2009
    #4
  5. aniramca

    mike Guest

    There are significant physical limitations while camera technology
    requires the focusing of an image through glass optics onto a sensor
    which measures amplitude and frequency distribution of the light
    striking its surface.

    However, if a detector could be designed that could directly measure and
    store not only the amplitude and frequency distribution, but also the
    relative phase and angle of incidence of the light striking its surface
    then the 'lens' could be done away with altogether.

    Obviously, such technology does not exist at present (well - not to a
    practically utilisable extent), although existing imaging methodologies
    such as synthetic aperture imaging, phase array radar, holography etc
    utilise some of these principles. But if it is developed in the future
    it would allow a data-file to be collected that could be post-processed
    to provide anything from wide angle to extreme telephoto to macro-
    closeup, with a dialed-up depth of field and resolution.

    Theoretically, such a sensor - operating entirely without glass optics,
    could provide images with performance and resolution equal to or
    exceeding that of any lens with a front-end lens diameter smaller than
    that of the sensor.

    Mike
     
    mike, Jan 26, 2009
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.