Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on camera design  (Read 8649 times)

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Thoughts on camera design
« on: July 30, 2008, 11:03:56 am »

I had thought keeping me awake the other day after reading the mostly negative response to the new digiback offerings by Hasselblad, Phase One and Leaf.  I was not thinking if I could ever afford the new backs but rather, why is the business so f***ed-up?  Everyone seems however to like the RED video cameras, why can't someone just take the medium format as we know it an redesign it from scratch!?!?

What do we need the camera body for, the buttons?  Why do we need a shutter at all?  Do we need viewfinder/mirrors/prisms if we have a top-quality screen or evf?  The focusing system, it could be done with software through the non-obstructed live-view, right?  Could we make a digital camera without batteries ...use a crank to generate just enough power to take one shot??  Think outside of the box, not just how we can replace the film cartridge in a 50 year old technology camera.

 

Best, Hrannar
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2008, 12:10:07 pm »

Quote
What do we need the camera body for, the buttons? 

Exposure metering and auto modes, auto focus, bracketing, display of settings, EXIF data, manual aperture and shutter control, and a viewfinder.

Quote
Why do we need a shutter at all?

If the sensor is still exposed to light while the data is read off the chip, you get a streaking effect.

Quote
Do we need viewfinder/mirrors/prisms if we have a top-quality screen or evf?

Have you seen how large and clear my waist level viewfinder is? No LCD screen comes close. An optical system is also more reliable and draws no power. So yes, I'd keep it

Quote
The focusing system, it could be done with software through the non-obstructed live-view, right?

Yes, and that should give the best possible result too, assuming it is implemented properly and the sampling points are exactly where you need focus. However, the mirror would need to be up and block the viewfinder.
Logged

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2008, 01:02:21 pm »

Quote
Exposure metering and auto modes, auto focus, bracketing, display of settings, EXIF data, manual aperture and shutter control, and a viewfinder.
If the sensor is still exposed to light while the data is read off the chip, you get a streaking effect.
Have you seen how large and clear my waist level viewfinder is? No LCD screen comes close. An optical system is also more reliable and draws no power. So yes, I'd keep it
Yes, and that should give the best possible result too, assuming it is implemented properly and the sampling points are exactly where you need focus. However, the mirror would need to be up and block the viewfinder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, all settings, metering etc. and knobs could easily be part of the computer software.  The body would then only be a shell to hold the lens, computer and sensor together.  I guess you could look at modern cameras like that in a way.  

The streak effect you speak of is just a property of the camera and sensor not being properly synchronized.  We don't see this streaking effect on point and shoot cameras.

Eliminating the viewfinder is a stretch but would make the camera simpler (no mirror).  And the no mirror thingy would make software focusing easier.

Some of what crossed my mind may be impossble to implement or some ideas even plain stupid     The problem is nothing unexpected or radical is happening with MF at the moment even though technology has advanced enormously in the last 10 years.  The manufacturers will need to make room for creative thought for MF photography to survive the digital age.

Best, Hrannar
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2008, 02:07:27 pm »

Quote
The streak effect you speak of is just a property of the camera and sensor not being properly synchronized.  We don't see this streaking effect on point and shoot cameras.

Perhaps there is more to it. I'll look into it.

Quote
The problem is nothing unexpected or radical is happening with MF at the moment even though technology has advanced enormously in the last 10 years.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed but what else do you really need a camera to do? Everyone on this forum is clamouring for simple improvements such as better high ISO performance, larger LCDs and larger sensors, nothing revolutionary. If it aint broke...
Logged

JonasYip

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2008, 03:25:52 pm »

Quote
The streak effect you speak of is just a property of the camera and sensor not being properly synchronized.  We don't see this streaking effect on point and shoot cameras.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Point and shoots use a different kind of CCD (inline transfer) in which each photosite has a shielded area where the charge can be stored while the data is read. This allows the sensor to be exposed to the light before and after the capture, and so no shutter is needed. You don't want one of these in your high end digital camera, since you sacrifice photosite area.

Full-frame CCD (not referring to sensor size here, but sensor type) has no shielding and so needs to be kept in the dark when the data is read out. Hence the continuing need for a shutter. The advantage of course is maximized photosite size with better sensitivity and less noise.
Logged
-
-  Jonas Yip  http://www.

James R Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 992
    • http://www.russellrutherford.com/
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2008, 11:17:38 pm »

Quote
Of course I would welcome such a competitor in the MFDB market place. But let's stop blindly assuming that Red makes a much better product than their competitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you've ever tried to color time high def digital video footage from an ENG you'll think the RED is ground breaking.

Same as from the prosumer high defs, for different reasons.

Of course it's the price of the RED that's ground breaking.  Why wouild anyone build another Viper or Arriflex?

It's not perfect, no camera is, but at the price point, the system integration, the fact that it is well thought out in use and marketing makes it something we haven't seen in still photography.

Yes, it's the money, but that money savings can go into a whole lot of creative imagery.

The RED will open up cinema quality moving imagery to a lot of talented people, hence the reported sales figures.

Never discount how important the money is.

JR
Logged

Graeme Nattress

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
    • http://www.nattress.com
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2008, 11:50:59 pm »

What delay on the EVF? I don't see one when I use it. You also get a look-around region, which no other EVF has ever done - because it's a good feature from an OVF and we thought it would be useful, and it is.

An OVF has a 180 degree phase delay in what you're seeing compared to what you're recording.....

The lack of auto focus is for a number of reasons, not least PL mount lenses don't have motors in them.

As for features, no, there's no "auto" focus, exposure or the like, but there's lots of useful features for professional movie making, varispeed, slowmo, raw, various timecode and sync options, various  helper functions to ensure sharpness of focus, correct exposure, waveforms, histograms, spot meters etc, so on and so forth. What is different is the 16 major builds of software in the last year, each one adding new features and improved image quality.

Sure, shooting raw came from DSLRs, but our RAW is compressed so you can record 30fps 4k raw onto a compact flash - you just can't do that kind of datarate for standard uncompressed or losslessly compressed raw. Making that work is a non-trivial task.

Of course, there's only one other camera out there doing 4k, and it's the size of a PC, and I'd hate to try and hand hold the thing, and you can't buy it, only rent it.

The owner of RED, Jim Jannard founded Oakley, and was owner until recently. He's also a major camera collector, owning more cameras than anyone else I know - probably more cameras of all kinds - stills, movie, video - all formats - than I've had hot dinners. He's a camera fanatic. RED came about because he wanted the "perfect" camera for himself. I'm lucky enough to have been able to help with many aspects of the RED project so far. As for how it's done for the price point - bloody hard work is  the answer there... :-)

Graeme
Logged

hauxon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2008, 12:13:02 pm »

Just wanted to post this link here because Olympus/Panasonic are implementing basically the same idea as I was suggesting for the Four-Thirds system.  Omitting the mirror and viewfinder.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/#SlideFrame_9

Best, Hrannar
« Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 12:15:42 pm by hauxon »
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2008, 11:18:14 am »

Quote
Point and shoots use a different kind of CCD (inline transfer) in which each photosite has a shielded area where the charge can be stored while the data is read. This allows the sensor to be exposed to the light before and after the capture, and so no shutter is needed. You don't want one of these in your high end digital camera, since you sacrifice photosite area.

Full-frame CCD (not referring to sensor size here, but sensor type) has no shielding and so needs to be kept in the dark when the data is read out. Hence the continuing need for a shutter. The advantage of course is maximized photosite size with better sensitivity and less noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

my Nikon D70 could sync at 1/2000th of a second. What kind of technology was that?
Logged

JonasYip

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
Thoughts on camera design
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2008, 01:40:56 pm »

Quote
my Nikon D70 could sync at 1/2000th of a second. What kind of technology was that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was actually wondering the same thing as my D1 and D1x also used an electronic shutter at higher speeds, allowing for really high flash sync. That is, the mechanical shutter keeps firing at 1/125 or something... whatever speed still allows a fully open shutter and not a slit... and the CCD is strobed for the appropriate amount of time while the shutter is open. So, how does this work with the CCD that needs to be read in the dark? I dunno. I think (total guess) that it may be just a matter of strobing the electronic shutter towards the end, just before the shutter closes. Rear-curtain sync, as it were.

j
Logged
-
-  Jonas Yip  http://www.
Pages: [1]   Go Up