Re: What is APS?

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>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".
>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.
>the weather will follow.

Well, I don't recall you getting this specific in your original message.
These ideas are certainly apt applications of technology.  Go build one!

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

In about 1981 or so, a memory chip manufacturer in Idaho (Micron Technology?)
discovered that dynamic RAM chips could act as digital imagers.  A low-
cost digital camera with about 256x256 pixel resolution was introduced,
and it cost maybe a few $100.  Of course, you needed a computer to use
it.

Today's digital cameras typically capture about a 640x400 pixel image,
and you *still* have to upload it to a computer to actually see it,
although today the image capture is all self-contained.  Your *average*
digital camera is only about 3x better, resolution-wise, than 15 years
ago.  Convenience, ease-of-use, ergonomics are MUCH better, but that
is primarily cosmetic.

The 6-megapixel imager is state-of-the-art, and at its price, it is
not a mass-market technology.

>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".

That's obsolete information.  That's from the days when those engineers
didn't believe the sub-micron barrier could be broken.  It has been.
(Remember, there were aviation 'experts' who swore the sound barrier
could never be broken, either, and I'm sure they taught their students
that 'fact' with equal certainty.)

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

Not "digital cameras" per se, but CCD imagers.  As you point out, you
can still add all kinds of bells and whistles to the camera.  I didn't
say that *radios* hadn't changed since the '30s, just that microphones
and speakers haven't, very much, certainly not at the pace you suggest.

>Is current CCD technology the only way of digital imaging?

It's by far the most common.  If there's another way, I can't think of
it.

>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)?

Yes, it could.  But not at that price!

>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.

There've been cheap low-res digital cameras around for ages (see above).
What has mainly changed is that a) many more people have computers now
and can utilize them and b) they are being packaged for the consumer
rather than the computer hobbiest (plug-and-play).  The imaging element
hasn't significantly been improved, but the supporting hardware has.

>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.

I think this is where we mainly disagree...  I believe that, without
a significant breakthrough either in CCD technology or in some as-yet
undiscovered imaging technology, that quality will not be significantly
improved upon, nor will the cost of manufacturing such a chip come down
significantly (and might in fact go up).

>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?

If "the masses" have to boot up their computers to see their pictures,
they won't buy it.  They haven't bought into Photo-CD and that is exactly
the market Kodak was targetting.  The masses still seem to want their
4x6 matte prints, and don't particularly seem to care about the quality
of the image.  So, they might buy into crappy digital cameras as long as
they can still get their paper prints.  Once that happens, though, how
long before Kodak pulls the plug on film, because it's "too expensive
to produce in such small volumes"?  Then where are we?

	-Greg


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