Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Canon - world's largest CMOS sensor

Expand Messages
  • Ken Warner
    It s for orbiting spy satellites or astronomical telescopes.
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      It's for orbiting spy satellites or astronomical telescopes.


      prague wrote:
      > It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life.
      >
      > Go Canon!
      >
      > But really, I wish they'd start thinking about more reasonable features.
      >
      > -GPS chip (i mean *really* - come on!!!)
      > -accelerometer / gyroscope (for recording position, and/or reducing motion blur)
      > -faster multiexposure (without mirror flip)
      > -in-camera exposure blending
      > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing
      > -wifi / local or web uploading from camera
      >
      > not as romantic as 120MP or 8" x 8" sensor, i know.... maybe the above features have little value to anyone but me. but i somehow doubt that....
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:
      >> Sometime around 31/8/10 (at 11:03 -0400) Mark D. Fink said:
      >>
      >>> not knowing what the resolution is, maybe not. They are quite
      >>> vague on that, or did I miss something?
      >> Hard to nail down vapour, but I imagine that the huge jump in light
      >> sensisitivy is down to much larger sensor sites. Which would mean the
      >> resolution would not be increased all that much - if at all.
      >>
      >> k
      >>
      >
      >
      >
    • Fabio Bustamante
      Couldn t agree more, Jeffrey. ... This is the dumbest. I bet that when Canon release the US$ 100K 8 x8 sensor camera, it will have only 2 stop / 3 shots
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Couldn't agree more, Jeffrey.

        > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing

        This is the dumbest. I bet that when Canon release the US$ 100K 8"x8"
        sensor camera, it will have only 2 stop / 3 shots bracketing.

        It definitely seems that the evolution of SLR camera's interface is not
        in sync with the rest of the UI's world. We're kept stuck with such old
        design vices that it even amazes me.

        Let me add some more features I'd like to see in future cameras:

        - Bluetooth remote with real functions instead of the dumb
        wired-focus-and-shutter we've been using for decades. A remote that
        allows you to control f-stop, exposure, ISO etc.
        - Touchscreen (doh!)
        - Hard disk storage
        - Better file and folder naming
        - More presets to save configurations
        - Fully customizable time lapse shooting (preferably with option to
        output as full HD video for those movie capable cameras)
        - Audio notes
        - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a physical
        shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
        speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises maintenance
        costs.
        - Definitely better I.S. (image stabilization).

        A friend of mine has one of those Sony full HD camcorders (gorgeous
        image on a full hd tv, BTW). The effect of the camera's stabilization is
        so brutal that it makes my IS lenses look like cheap toys. Really, it
        seems you're using some magical steadycam. I don't know how different
        their IS technology is from Canon's or if it could be applied to 21mp
        photo sensors, but I would *really* like to have something like that in
        my camera.

        Finally once I thought about a feature to try to raise the chances of
        recovering stolen cameras (I had a Canon 5D and several lenses stolen
        from me in Chile once). It would work more or less like this: every once
        in a while (once every two months, for example - configured by owner)
        the camera displays some fake random error message - but very believable
        - such as "CMOS Error #23-b please take camera to authorized service".
        The camera will then stop working. To disable the fake message the owner
        would have to press a specific secret, pre-configured sequence of buttons.

        If the equipment was stolen and sold to someone, the new owner would
        eventually take the camera to a Canon service. At Canon people would be
        able to access the true owner's information stored by him at the camera
        including name, address, phone and email, and then contact him to see if
        he did sell the camera or if it was stolen.

        Of course professional robbers and dealers would know it and try to
        break this security as best as they can, but still I believe some people
        would fall for that. :-)

        Em 01/09/2010 08:32, prague escreveu:
        > It would appear to be an ongoing - and impressive, undisputed - pissing contest on the part of Canon without any real application in real life.
        >
        > Go Canon!
        >
        > But really, I wish they'd start thinking about more reasonable features.
        >
        > -GPS chip (i mean *really* - come on!!!)
        > -accelerometer / gyroscope (for recording position, and/or reducing motion blur)
        > -faster multiexposure (without mirror flip)
        > -in-camera exposure blending
        > -more than 2 stops / 3 shots bracketing
        > -wifi / local or web uploading from camera
        >
        > not as romantic as 120MP or 8" x 8" sensor, i know.... maybe the above features have little value to anyone but me. but i somehow doubt that....
        >
        >
      • Erik Krause
        ... No. You simply need a different lens - a large format one as they where in use for ages - to have an image circle that is big enough for that sensor. Such
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 01.09.2010 01:21, schrieb Paul D. DeRocco:
          >> > You need a large format lens of course, but the aperture has not
          >> > necessarily be larger than normal. If a sensor pixel captures
          >> > a certain
          >> > number of photons from a given lens at a given aperture 100
          >> > pixels will
          >> > capture 100 times as much photons. If now one pixel is as
          >> > large as 100
          >> > pixels in the other sensor it captures 100 times as much
          >> > photons, too.
          >> > Always with the same lens and aperture.
          > It only does that if the FOV is 10 times as large (linearly), doesn't it?

          No. You simply need a different lens - a large format one as they where
          in use for ages - to have an image circle that is big enough for that
          sensor. Such a lens has a much longer focal length if it covers the same
          field of view as a lens for a DSLR.

          But this has nothing to do with the pixel size. You can have large
          pixels in a small sensor which would result in low resolution. If you
          increase sensor size (but not pixel size) and focal length
          proportionally you get more resolution at same field of view.

          If you increase sensor size, pixel size and focal length proportionally
          you have always the same resolution and the same field of view but any
          single pixel gathers more light and hence produces less noise.

          That is what makes the difference between a full format sensor and the
          match head sized sensor of a compact digital. And that makes the
          difference between a large format sensor and a DSLR.

          --
          Erik Krause
          http://www.erik-krause.de
        • prague
          You mean have a rolling shutter instead? I m pretty sure that would be a very bad idea... http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            You mean have a rolling shutter instead?

            I'm pretty sure that would be a very bad idea...

            http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/

            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Fabio Bustamante <contato@...> wrote:
            >
            > - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a physical
            > shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
            > speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises maintenance
            > costs.
          • Ron Rack
            You have to see the video version of the rolling shutter, weird! http://www.wimp.com/recordpropellers/ ron rack ... [Non-text portions of this message have
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              You have to see the video version of the rolling shutter, weird!

              http://www.wimp.com/recordpropellers/

              ron rack


              On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:44 AM, prague wrote:

              >
              >
              > You mean have a rolling shutter instead?
              >
              > I'm pretty sure that would be a very bad idea...
              >
              > http://www.flickr.com/photos/sorenragsdale/3192314056/
              >
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Fabio Bustamante <contato@...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > - Maybe getting rid of the shutter? Does a CMOS actually need a
              > physical
              > > shutter in front of it? All I can say is that it limits flash sync
              > > speed, reduces MTBF (medium time between fails) and raises
              > maintenance
              > > costs.
              >
              >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.