Single-Pixel Camera

quarkquark Registered Users Posts: 510 Major grins
edited January 20, 2007 in The Big Picture
New technology (far out) from a BBC article. I apologize if this was already posted somewhere.

Researchers in the US are developing a single-pixel camera to capture high-quality images without the expense of traditional digital photography.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6263551.stm


heather dillon photography - Pacific Northwest Portraits and Places
facebook
photoblog

Quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter in the Standard Model of particle physics.

Comments

  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2007
    That will put a new angle on spy/security cameras.
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,245 moderator
    edited January 19, 2007
    Very interesting, but first they will need to get the size down from that lab table setup. And after reading it, I couldn't help thinking how much faster it would be if they could use four pixels.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2007
    David_S85 wrote:
    Very interesting, but first they will need to get the size down from that lab table setup. And after reading it, I couldn't help thinking how much faster it would be if they could use four pixels.
    Or 8...hang on..what if we look at something like 8-16 million pixels eek7.gif how good would that be ?
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2007
    My favorite comment on Slashdot about this camera was
    "It sure would suck to have a bad pixel on that camera"

    Someone also questioned its low light capability. If each mirror must expose in sequence, and each needs 1/30th of a second to get enough light, and there are a couple million mirrors, the exposure should be done...sometime later today...
  • ian408ian408 Administrators Posts: 21,939 moderator
    edited January 19, 2007
    DLP in reverse...
    Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
  • claudermilkclaudermilk Registered Users Posts: 2,756 Major grins
    edited January 19, 2007
    The camera has a way to go before it is available for practical use

    Now there's an understatement. Gotta love the quality of that sample image too.

    I must be missing something, but I don't get the point. What "problem" exactly are they trying to solve? Expensive sensors? Um, can't you get a digital camera for $20 now (that goofy keychain one)? Expensive microprocessors & "massive" battery power? Um, aren't they hooking this thing to a PC to process the data? Doesn't that require AC power? Last time I checked processors are cheap and its the LCD that eats the batteries, not the CPU. "The camera is hooked up to a computer to display the captured image which can take minutes to construct." - yep, that's useful. Throwing away 80-90% of captured data? Who does that? Not me, nor does any of those of us who shoot in RAW mode (which also eliminates the process time eargument). Seems to me the only problem they're solving is how to stay employed.
    Chris
    http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited January 20, 2007
    claudermilk wrote:
    Now there's an understatement. Gotta love the quality of that sample image too.

    I must be missing something, but I don't get the point. What "problem" exactly are they trying to solve? Expensive sensors? Um, can't you get a digital camera for $20 now (that goofy keychain one)? Expensive microprocessors & "massive" battery power? Um, aren't they hooking this thing to a PC to process the data? Doesn't that require AC power? Last time I checked processors are cheap and its the LCD that eats the batteries, not the CPU. "[/size]The camera is hooked up to a computer to display the captured image which can take minutes to construct." - yep, that's useful. Throwing away 80-90% of captured data? Who does that? Not me, nor does any of those of us who shoot in RAW mode (which also eliminates the process time eargument). Seems to me the only problem they're solving is how to stay employed.
    Agree completely. I love these two quotes:

    "The camera was created, according to Dr Kelly and his colleague Richard Baraniuk, because digital cameras are very wasteful. They require expensive microprocessors and massive battery power to capture an image.../"

    Contrast that statement against this one:
    "    The camera is hooked up to a computer to display the captured image which can take minutes to construct.

    eek7.gif

    Ok, now there's an improvement. rolleyes1.gif

    And millions of mirrors? Ok, fine. We've traded millions of sensor pixels for millions of mirrors. Then we multiplex the light coming off those mirrors by "turning the mirrors on and off" into a single sensor. Now, they don't go into details, but how do you think they selectively enable a million mirrors? I can't think of any way that's less complicated than simply having an array of sensors which you scan electrically (which is how today's digital cameras operate).

    Either the BBC reporter completely blew the details, or these researchers are a few french fries short of a happy meal. :crazy

    Cheers,
    -joel
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
Sign In or Register to comment.