Re: Why not make the sensor larger?

ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:31:11 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

Let's look at what was actually said:
"That's not what I mean: I mean taking 16 shots at 1/1000 second of a
race car at midnight at the 24 hours of whatever, ISO 16,000, and then
compositing them into one final product, using all the information
in all 16, to produce and unblurred and not noisy image. The computer
decides what is car and what is background, and matches the images
together and corrects them before averaging them. It's sort of like
the matching done when making a panorama, but the computer has to
figure out the motion vectors properly, and remap each of the 16
images to match. It has to do this in 3-D because of teh different
planes in motion."
You're adding the idea of taking these 16 shots in an extremely short
time (just over 1/60 second, according to yor own post, above); Doug
didn't say that.
I understad some of the problems with doing what Doug propsed, but you
added the 1/60 second (later ammended to 1/30 second after adding
various needed delay), then proceeded to use that figure to argue. You
can't do that. It's called a strawman argument.
I'm not calling you a bad person. I'm just saying your argument here
is one you're making against something you said, not Doug.
I did not "add" or amend times as you say. I simply
computed the consequences of the position being put
forward by Doug, and then by your interpretation
of Doug's idea. You interpreted Doug's position
as sequential 1/1000 second exposures. I computed
the consequences of that idea if:

1) the readout was instantaneous (giving the 1/60 second value),
and
2) the readout was 1/1000 second (which is still many
times faster than currently possible).

The calculations are not based on something I said, but
but based on what you and Doug said.

No intention to insult you here, but you seem so sure that you're
right that you aren't to see any other possibility. Notice the
mention of panoramas, above. We've had discussions here before
about creating arrays of cameras that can allow the taking of many
(dozens?) of virtually simultaneous shots. You're assuming that all
of the 16 shots mentioned would be taken sequentially, using a
single camera. In fact, more than 2 days ago I replied to you :

If you increased the time between frames, then you lose
image stopping action, and in complex situations like
sports or wildlife, things change too much in a very short
time. e.g.:
Maybe someday adventurous sports photographers will solve that
problem by shooting with Gatling Cams.

Think of this future camera as one that extends Nikons CLS from
flash to cameras. The future camera might be called the DX-800, and
it would be the master camera, controlling up to 16 slave cameras.

Ha Ha! You think people complain now about the weight,
bulk, and cost of DSLRs now? Just wait until they
are carrying around 16 of them, with 16 matching lenses!
How many opportunities will they miss when they have
to change lenses?

Actually what you propose has already been done:
the movie The Matrix used a bunch of DSLRs fired in
rapid sequence for some of the slow motion sequences.

You think they will let me in the museum for some
snapshots when I carry that 16 DSLR array up to the
entrance? ;-)

Roger
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why not make the sensor larger?
    ... You're adding the idea of taking these 16 shots in an extremely short ... about creating arrays of cameras that can allow the taking of many ... and cost of DSLRs now? ... They had some high definition video samples on the site, which were stunning, but it looked like there was a lot of planning needed for each short sequence. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Why not make the sensor larger?
    ... 16 frames ... there were enough photons in those 16 exposures ... I understad some of the problems with doing what Doug propsed, ... Since no current cameras can shoot 16 frames in under a ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: DSLR Cameras
    ... If I were to take a job with 3000 shots I would want to ... It even has a more complex shutter mechanism than most P&S cameras, ... P&S cameras' less complex and more accurate leaf-shutters have little to ... Ask the P&S camera owners in the CHDK forums who are putting their cameras ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Opinions on Canon A610
    ... longer-lasting, rechargeable Li-Ion, but most lower cost cameras will ... designed years ago could deplete their AA batteries in minutes, ... confirming Canon's claim of up to 1,500 shots. ... Z750's heavier noise reduction it still looks noisy - with nasty blotches ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Sigma SD 14
    ... We are talking about cameras, ... Yeah, Doug. ... This is an actual size crop from one of Sigma's sample images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading