Daniel Sheehy Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 This looks... interesting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6263551.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Hmm - a DLP / DMD projector in reverse, sort of. I wonder how short a shutter speed you could get; and what the refresh limits would be. Color would seem to require 3 of them - how could you bayer stripe a single pixel ? I suppose you could in theory have a color wheel rotating at some insanely fast speed... The trend in our part of the imaging world is to NOT compress the image. -Sam Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Interesting, but more or less useless for moving images. A moving image requires that all pixels be exposed simultaneously, impossible with one pixel. I doubt it will ever make it past the theoretical/experiment stage. Why on earth would we need a device that complicated, when CMOS sensors are comming down in both price and power consumption? Why worry about battery life when ultra-high capacity flash drives will one day render in-camera compression useless? Interesting test, but i doubt anyone here will be buying a one-pixel digital cine camera....ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Don't you mean ''single-sensor camera''? 1x1 would be an awful resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) Forget it... it won't sell... People want as many megapixels as possible! Because the more megapixels the better the quality! (My impression of a Jessops customer, before you start getting worried) Don't you mean ''single-sensor camera''? 1x1 would be an awful resolution. No, single pixel. Sensors are built up of many pixels, but this camera uses the one pixel to capture lots more information. Edited January 18, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I suppose this is a break through because instead of recording only a pixel of a certain color, we will be able to record multiple aspects of an image within a pixel, taking away the uniform pixelation look of digital images so they fit together seamlessly? This is all very interesting to me...although I may not completely understand everything, ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I suppose this is a break through because instead of recording only a pixel of a certain color, we will be able to record multiple aspects of an image within a pixel, taking away the uniform pixelation look of digital images so they fit together seamlessly? This is all very interesting to me...although I may not completely understand everything, ha ha Imagine several of these 'pixels'. Now that would be a break through. A full-framed CCD full of these little things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Imagine several of these 'pixels'. Now that would be a break through. A full-framed CCD full of these little things. Precisely my point :) Unless they're aspiring for a world without lines of resolution but one giant pixel comprising an entire image. It's all very neat...not much I can do to help this technology move along though, ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 18, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hi, What if you were to project it in the same way? That way, you could define a scanning pattern for the frame which changed on, say, a ten-frame cycle. Then you'd have, well, grain. Obviously you'd have to scan at some insane rate to capture motion blur approximately correctly. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 What if you were to project it in the same way? Well they already do, as Sam pointed out, using DLP projectors (rear projection) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLP And it seems to handle the refresh rates ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 18, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hi, That's not really how a DLP works; a DLP still has a two-dimensional field of actuators. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 And this doesn't ? It says they are using DMD's - and this is pulse-width modulation also, no ? How else could they do it - what am I missing ? -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 And this doesn't ? It says they are using DMD's - and this is pulse-width modulation also, no ? Is you guys still referrin' to the picture radio I've heard so much about ;) yuck yuck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 No, single pixel. Sensors are built up of many pixels, but this camera uses the one pixel to capture lots more information. Wow, that is amazing. :D Hang on, if this image has no resolution that means it can (in theory) be sharper than a 35mm film frame. Is there anyone else out there just a little worried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 ...a DLP still has a two-dimensional field of actuators. Isn't that a DMD? http://www.dsp.ece.rice.edu/cs/cscamera/ has a prototype & some more sample images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Giles Sherwood Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Hang on, if this image has no resolution that means it can (in theory) be sharper than a 35mm film frame. Is there anyone else out there just a little worried? Why would that be worrying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) Why would that be worrying? Because 35mm lovers would suddenly run out of excuses to slag off digital. Funny how it's only the film lovers that are always trying to prove things... you would think they feel threatened or something, but they've never said anything about it. Strange... Edited January 18, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Because 35mm lovers would suddenly run out of excuses to slag off digital. Excuses? nah There's nothing wrong with preferring a certain format...it's all subjective anyway. Besides, all filmmakers get excited at the advancement of digital. But you can't deny that there is a difference and that we're all entitled to our preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Excuses? nah There's nothing wrong with preferring a certain format...it's all subjective anyway. Besides, all filmmakers get excited at the advancement of digital. But you can't deny that there is a difference and that we're all entitled to our preferences. Without any doubt. But you must have at some point come across the people who go for 'one or the other'. I've come across so many people that all say digital is rubbish and that film is the way to go. However, I'm going to a video exhibition during February and I can almost guess that they will all say that video is much better and that video is the way to go. Only difference is, it's very rare that you hear opinions biased towards video. I just can't stand the way people talk about film or video like they are 10 times better than the other. The quality of HD and 35mm surpasses the skill of most DP's. So I don't know why so many people complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Warr Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Wow, now we're *really* getting small... forget an image in one pixel, now we have an image in one photon: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5792 Talk about efficient data compression! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now