Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital OM-5?

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital OM-5?
From: "R. Lee Hawkins" <lhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:11:00 -0400
Cc: lhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In your message dated: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:55:59 +1000 you write:
>Hi all
>
>all this ccd stuff is way over my head, but I do know you are justified in

If this is the case, how can you possibly go on to make blanket claims
about the capabilities of this technology?  Can you say oxymoron? :)

>saying "never say never". It will *always* come back and bite you
>eventually. There is a famous quote by the guy who was CEO or MD of IBM
>back in the late fifties or early sixties, where he forecast that the
>worldwide market for computers would be "five or six". How embarrassing....

I never say never, but I also understand how this stuff works.

>
>I don't know whether this info is correct or not, but I was watching a
>documentary on tv last weekend, and they stated that when the original
>Apollo missions went to the moon, they had a computer with just 64k of
>memory. (It probably cost a gazillion dollars too!!!). Most of us wouldn't
>even bother to even consider buying a personal organiser now if it had less
>than 128k or 256k of memory, let alone trust it to fly us to the moon!

The reason memory is so cheap now is that:
1) Memory chips have become very, very small, meaning you can get many
of them on one wafer, and that bulk impurities in the wafer kill fewer
chips.  The Apollo memory was ferrite core, which was a whole different
technology, so it can't be compared directly to silicon in cost.

2) The demand for them is *huge*, probably more than will ever be the
case for CCD's for cameras.  (likely by many factors of 1000).

>
>The more companies competing in the digital race the better, because it is
>consumer demand, and competition for market share that will lead to more
>$$$$ spent on research. And one day, (maybe sooner than we think) with
>improved compression algorithms, storage technology, electronics and $2 36k
>x 24k ccd 's (or whatever technology replaces them with!), someone will say

Dream on.  First of all, you wouldn't *want* a 36kx24k CCD even if you
could afford one without a loan fro the World Bank.  The appropriate
size to duplicate 35mm is about 12kx3k(if there are 3 pixels/color).  
And to make a 12kx3k useful for photography, you have to make a silicon 
wafer the size of a 35mm frame with 0 defects.  Not impossible, but not 
a cinch either.  And you have to distribute the costs of making the ones 
that don't work over the costs of making those that do work.  

>"Hell, all these old OM series have interchangeable backs, why not whack
>one of our xxxx arrays into the space where the film pressure plate sits -
>we might be able to sell one or two of them!"
>
>I'll be first in line!
>
>I remember when the first computer hard drives came out for mainframes,
>they were huge-  a 60cm diameter platter, with a capacity of 1 MB per side
>for about $10,000. Now, you can buy an 8Gb drive that is the size of a
>matchbox for $500 (I have one in my laptop). That's 8000 times the
>capacity, at 1/100 the size, for 1/20 of the cost. Translate those figures
>to digital imaging.

Once again, that is a totally different technology, different physics,
and thus is NOT directly comparable.  Making hard drives is *trivial*
compared to making silicon chips.

>
>I guess the point is that as long as there is a demand to drive it, the
>scientists, engineers, physicists, electronics and computer gurus will keep
>slaving away making things smaller, lighter and faster. Eventually, I'm
>pretty sure we will reach a stage where *something* that is digital based,
>will be able to be placed inside the back of a "traditional" film camera
>and replace the use of film, with little or no loss of resolution,
>convenience, speed etc. It might even give us more resolution, more "shots
>per roll", faster motor drives (although resetting the shutter would become
>a limiting factor). I think it is not "if" but "when". And before someone
>(who knows more about these things than me) argues that ccds do this, or
>can't do that etc, just think outside the square (film frame?) for a minute
>as I am sure that somewhere someone is working on a technology that will
>make even ccds look clunky and obsolete....

Well, tell me what *scientific* reasons you have to back these
assertions up?  I can't argue that CCDs won't get faster, cheaper, and
larger over time.  They have been doing exactly that for the last 10
years :)  However, the more complicated you make a circuit, the more
likely you are to have a failure, and so the more expensive that circuit
is to produce.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see CCD's replace film,
but as a person who knows a little about how these things work and how
much they cost, I think it is my responsibility to correct
misunderstandings about the capabilities of the technology when I see
them.  It is good to dream.  But it is also good to know what you can do
*now* :)

Cheers,
--Lee

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz