Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: What is APS?


  • From: P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: What is APS?
  • Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:40:54 -0700

Mike K. continues:

>A third the resolution of 35mm film isn't too bad.

Compared to what?  Cf. the complaints on this list re APS, which is
only slightly smaller than 35mm.  Many people don't think 35mm is
good enough!

>Again, if resolution needs to be improved by only a factor of three
>in the next 10~15 years, that seems to be a very doable goal in
>concideration of the last 10~15 years of progress.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the curve remains constant.
Not true.  The CCD imager is a transducer, not a microprocessor, where
new piplining techniques, higher clock speeds, etc., allow a 2x speed
improvement every few years.  Even micros will eventully run into the
laws of physics, when the structures that need to be etched onto the
silicon can no longer be reduced in size.  This day is rapidly
approaching, by the way, but I digress.

By your reasoning, the microphone and the speaker, which were invented
about 100 years ago, should by now be microscopically small, require
virtually no power and be perfect in their ability to capture and
reproduce sound.  This certainly isn't the case.  They improved rapidly
to the point where the laws of physics dictated that additional
improvements were incremental (better materials, mostly).  But (with
a couple of exceptions like electrostatics) the microphones and
speakers of today are not substantially different than what our
parents and grandparents listened to in the 1930's.

The CCD imager evolved rapidly from hundreds of pixels to the current
six megapixels, but such order-of-magnitude jumps are no longer
possible.  They've reached the knee in the curve, dictated by
the physical properties of the materials involved.

>How does chip processing costs now compare with 1980?  I expect the trend
>to continue such that 15 years from now, current processing will be
>thought to be rather crude and expensive.

Certain costs are fixed, or rising: labor, taxes, land, buildings,
materials, hazardous waste disposal.  These things are political, not
technological.  What has improved is the density of your gate count.
Larger wafers are being made, which allows for a higher production
rate.  The rate at which structures are shrinking is falling, as
etching has moved from visible light, to UV, to electron-beam epitaxy.
But again, the curve is flattening.  Using gamma radiation to etch
your silicon is probably impractical, and with structures that small,
your clean room needs to get an order of magnitude cleaner, too.

>Do you think catching up with 35mm film to be inadequate and that digital
>cameras are unacceptable until they are significantly better?

I would not seriously consider adopting a digital photographic system
unless it had at least as good resolution as what it was replacing, if
it cost the same.  If it were more expensive than what it's replacing,
I would expect improvements, and if it's significantly more expensive,
I would expect significant improvements.  A $20,000 digital camera that
isn't quite as good as 35mm film holds absolutely no interest for me.
If it were $2000 I might consider it; if it were $200 I'd buy it now.
Your $200 digital camera today is no more than a toy.
 
>> of successive refinement; some real breakthroughs are needed.  The sad
>> part is that if people are willing to settle for what's available now,
>> we'll never get there.

>Don't know about you, but I think I could stand a better stereo photography
>system than I'm using now.

What I meant was that if the general public is satisifed with the current
level of digital image capture (as you seem to be), there won't be much,
if any, market pressure to produce the order-of-magnitude improvements
you are so confident are inevitable, and that I believe are required,
before digital photography will be an acceptable replacement for film.

	-Greg


------------------------------