Re: What is APS?

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >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!

As I recall, we were talking about an APS "version" to provide a stereo
camera for the masses.  I extrapolated to say that I really would expect
and want this to happen using digital cameras in the future due to two things:

	1) 3D will become more popular due to Internet activities that is
           building a 3D infrastructure that will want 3D visual interfaces
           as the next evolutionary step.  This activity is using digital
           photo technology now in a rudimentary way.  Digital photography
           is a technology that will integrate well into this driving market.

	2) Processing power will available (*LOTS* is needed for sophisitcated
           image processing and pattern recognition -- I'm not talking about
           sharpening filters, etc).  Purpose is to reduce the problems 
           that we here in photo-3D have when taking 3D photographs, over and
           above that which 2D has.  In other words trying to use technology
           to reduce 3D photography to the level of 2D.  Example: Auto-correcting
           of window "errors" seems to be most practical with digital technology
           rather than a mechanical one (don't see how that'd be done at all).

Objective is/was to make 3D photography as easy to use for the average person
as it is now using (the sometimes fairly sophisticated) point-and-shoot's now.
Including use of zoom lenses, macro-mode, etc.  Another example: A digital camera 
could triangulate and measure distance to nearest object and auto-adjust the
spacing between images using the 1/30'th rule (taking into account both zoom
lens's focal length and distance) or a more sophisticated "rule".  With 2D
cameras one can just autofocus at 18" or at infinity.  Don't need to do anything.
Point and click.  Want the 3D camera to do this too -- without having to
do *anything* but point and click.  No mounting to the window and all that.
Tell that to a non-3d'er, and blank stare with followup comments about
the weather will follow.

No, not low-tech like the good'ol days like when chemical emulsions on plastic
film was used.  But something that could *work* (in conjunction with an
equally easily to use viewer system).


> >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.

It only improved by a factor of three in the last 15 years?  Hmmmmm...
I'd have expected more than that.

> 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

That point was passed quite a long time ago.  I took semiconductor technology
type classes many years ago, and the point of being limited by physics
(as told to me then, by teachers who worked at Intel by day) has long been 
passed (now).  Not just "approaching".

> 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.

You are saying that "digital cameras" is a mature technology and hasn't
had much change in price or quality in quite some time?

> 
> 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.

Is current CCD technology the only way of digital imaging?

> >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

True, but the masses may be using something not as good as you are. Could
the imager in that Nikon body replace a 110 camera (which were probably used
by by more people than even saw a Nikon)?


> 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.

That under-$100 camera (go to Costco) today was a couple thousand only a 
few years ago even though you say it's a mature technology.

I'd expect the $200 digital camera of 10~15 years from now to be at
least as good if not better than the $20,000 one is now.

> >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,

Where did I say that?  I just expect more improvement than you do.  I think
digital cameras aren't quite to the maturity of speakers or microphones
(although speaker companies seem to still be coming out with new speakers,
including Bose who has a desktop radio with bass quality that was probably
declared impossible in that size of a package due to physics reasons).

> 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.

Speaking of *TOTAL* replacement, or replacement for the masses?  I've a
friend who thinks 2 1/4" formats are "tiny" and only barely acceptable.
It's convince him or nothing?

I'm not talking about outlawing film.  I'm talking about a new technology
that will take over the masses.   Rather than have film digitized (starting
to take off now -- I can get this service at Costco now), just use a
directly compatible technology.  And that technology, in conjunction with
future desire for 3D (internet driven) makes it possible.  Perhaps.  

I don't think film technology can succeed "to the masses".  Someone could
change my mind, certainly, but pragmatically, I don't think it can.

I think digital could, can, and will.


> 
> 	-Greg
> 
> 

Mike K.


P.S. - If "you" are a researcher reading the archives of the photo-3D list
       15 years from now, and I'm wrong, then "I was only kidding".  If I'm
       right, then *right on*!!!

       :-)





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