Paul,
I think you don't understand the difference between high end consumer
digital cameras and the digital cameras that are necessary for
commercial use. First and foremost, all professional digi cams use a 3
chip ccd array and have for some time. These chips can always be
smaller and more dense than a single chip camera. Single chip cameras
just cannot produce a large size image (say over 10 megabytes) which can
be used for high quality output. One of the first things that is
noticed is the bleeds of colors. Also you are thinking that digi cams
work like traditional film cams. Sure the image is projected by the
lens but not on a film plane. It is projected through various prism
configurations depending on the size and density of the type of the ccd
array. Therefore it is a very different imaging process. The engineers
who develop these ccd arrays have many options for controlling the
imaging capabilities of the camera. There are digital backs available
for almost all medium and large format cameras. Do you think these
backs use ccd arrays equal to the size of the film of these formats?
You stated that:
"The Kodak highness design is expensive because
it's stupid, er, not optimized. It has to shove all the CCD pixels
directly
across a data link. More modern designs (the nikon/Oly/etc prosumer
models)
store the image in fast RAM and then trickle it out to permanent storage
over
the course of several seconds."
You miss the point of what these cameras are designed to do. They must
shoot at least one frame per second. The DCS660/560 can record only one
frame per second (burst of only 3 frames) because it has an image sensor
which produces 6 million pixels of resolution. The older DCS520/620 can
shoot at 3.5 frames per second (with a 12 frame burst rate) because it
is only imaging at 2 million pixels. The DCS660/560 costs quite a bit
more than the older 520/620 model. State of the art data transmissions
can only be engineered to go so fast on these cams (and of course these
are the state of the art). These high data rates require the fastest
data cards made, and yes these electronics can suck up power. Of course
the lcd panels can use much power but no one is inclined to use these on
professional quality still cams. LCD panels are for consumer cameras
and video. By lowering the voltage requirements and reducing the size of
the IC, data transmission speeds can be increased.
Basically I think you are confusing the image requirements of consumer
cams with those which are necessary for commercial imaging. Sure one
can get some pretty good small images in the ideal situation with a top
of the line consumer camera ... but this does not even begin to approach
the requirements needed by the pro. Next time you see a news conference
or a major sporting event you will notice that more and more pros are
packing one of these pro systems. Just as you would not expect to see a
pro using a $75.00 point & shoot camera don't be misled by what you
think is a state of the art digital professional quality camera. Yes
they are very expensive. Don't you think that if they could build them
for less money some major company would be doing just that. Studio
digital backs are damn expensive too. I've been waiting for 5 years for
these prices to come down so that I can economically incorporate them
into my work. However the prices are staying very high but the quality
and versatility are improving drastically. Like I said in my original
post, these cameras must offer the same versatility a flexibility of a
professional camera system. Otherwise they just won't be accepted by
the industry.
If you get a chance go to one of the pro shows where they demo this
equipment. Then compare the capabilities of these systems to those of
the consumer variety. I think you will understand the vast
differences. My original post was in reference to why there may never
be a perfect fit of film camera lenses to the needs of professional
digital imaging. Yes .. Kodak, Nikon, and Canon and some of the other
companies producing backs for medium and large format systems have made
great efforts to use these existing lenses. However I would not hold my
breathe for a perfect across the board fit. Most of the experts I've
spoken with have basically said that they expect newer lens designs will
appear as these cameras have a more widespread use. This is the price
we pay for progress.
Respectfully,
Phillip Franklin
< 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 >
|