View Full Version : Wild Idea for Next-Gen LF
mccormickstudio
2-Mar-2009, 23:06
I have this wild idea for a next-generation large format camera. It literally came to me in a dream a few weeks ago and now I can't stop thinking about it.
I dreamed that I was in the focusing bag behind my 8x10 Chamonix and instead of a ground glass it was a thin LCD monitor - color, not inverted, reading the direct result of the lens on the front standard. Levelling with a beep and calculating the exposure. The film holder slipped in behind the LCD, just as it does behind the groundglass.
The technology was a means to making the film exposure, not a substitute for the film.
Prophetic? I'm an artist and not an engineer, so if one of you tech-laden geniuses figures out how to make this, forget me not.
Okay, five hours of editing and twice through my Bonnie Prince Billy playlist - I'm going to bed.
Copyright Craig McCormick 2009
aphexafx
2-Mar-2009, 23:14
You're imagining a panel with an 8x10 sensor on the back and an 8x10 LCD on the front that would replace your focusing frame/glass, and provide metering and help you find parallel lines, level, and the like - a digital, live, "Polaroid" with touch capabilities?
lol - it's a great idea, but in reality this thing would cost thousands and thousands of dollars and only do slightly more than a piece of ground glass and a bubble level! :D
I can't imagine an 8x10 CCD? I mean, even a low resolution one. It would cost millions of dollars to produce - one in a thousand would be acceptable.
It could be auto focus couldn't it? In fact you could touch the screen in a few places with a little touch tool and tell the sensor what you want in focus.
aphexafx
2-Mar-2009, 23:23
It could be auto focus couldn't it? In fact you could touch the screen in a few places with a little touch tool and tell the sensor what you want in focus.
Oooh yeah, actually that would be sweet. In fact, you would touch all the points you wanted in focus and it would drive your standards and set your aperture.
It would strip away all the fun, and take a rechargeable Li-Ion battery to do it!
Bob Salomon
2-Mar-2009, 23:33
Oooh yeah, actually that would be sweet. In fact, you would touch all the points you wanted in focus and it would drive your standards and set your aperture.
It would strip away all the fun, and take a rechargeable Li-Ion battery to do it!
That sounds somewhat like the fully automatic version of the Camdynamics camera showed several years ago at a couple of Photokinas. It never reached production in any of its' versions.
mccormickstudio
2-Mar-2009, 23:42
I'm still editing.
Yeah, a huge low-res ccd reading the lens. The problem with current ccds is that when they're recording the image, they need to be immaculately clean, protected, and amazingly hires. But this one can be under glass or something. To my knowledge, no one has utilized a low-res big-size ccd. It's all been hi-res, small-size, which is expensive. And LCDs are not expensive. I have friends working on architectural applications with a product which is a flexible LCD membrane - the future.
Strip away all the fun? You can still edit all the dust out of your 8x10 film like I do. That's the real party!
While not a Luddite, my first reaction and continued thought about thus is, yuck! :p
Take a nice wood and brass beauty and fill it with electronics?! You might as well forget the film and capture the image with the ccd's or whatever.
I like looking at the GG, everything is there, gloriously upside down and backwards, in full true color and high resolution.
Oh well, some people love their robotic pets, too...;)
Vaughn
mccormickstudio
3-Mar-2009, 00:15
Let's call it a digital groundglass, or maybe a DGG. A sensor-backed, LCD-fronted device. On the most fundamental level, replacing a groundglass to do the following: 1. invert the image to correct as our eyes and brains do, 2. illuminate and perhaps calculate the result of shooting in the night or in challenging metering conditions (eliminating the fresnel), 3. assuming perspectival level and plumb.
Beyond these , I think, fundamental ideas to create a DGG are the ideas of: A. accurately calculating accurate DOF and eliminating the DOF calc errors that I often do - specific lenses could be programmed into the software; B. connecting the DGG with a lens which might shift it's internal elements to create effects of huge wide open aperture, specific bokeh, or possibly electrically altered coating on the lenses to create contrast variation, processing rendition, etc.
I would love to see this thread explore ideas of how LF might evolve for the better of the medium, for the better of the artful pictures that we are making, and not become subsumed in posts which beat down ideas which might be progressive for our medium. And don't be scared, I'm just hashing out ideas for what might progress LF photography, not replace what can be achieved by the current mediums.
In fact, I would argue by my own analog and experimental work that digital cannot replace film - rather, it should be a mechanism to achieve better results through film, at least in the near future.
I'm really going to sleep now...
aphexafx
3-Mar-2009, 00:16
Well if you mounted this device to a cool wooden camera it would be steampunk like and totally wicked that way. Bonus points there!
Plus it could simulate what your exposure would look like on different transparency films. :)
aphexafx
3-Mar-2009, 00:27
I would love to see this thread explore ideas of how LF might evolve for the better of the medium, for the better of the artful pictures that we are making, and not become subsumed in posts which beat down ideas which might be progressive for our medium.
Well, your idea is fun and it would be interesting to have, especially in regards to actual light calculations which it could sample and perform in the areas of exposure and focusing (and film previewing, I might add). I didn’t mean to knock it.
One thing that is outside of the context of your device is actual large format sensor planes with a high resolution and large photo-sites for huge dynamic range, that would behave like large format film and use existing (non-digital) lenses. I love film, of course, as do we all, but a LF digital back that performed this way would just be fantastic as an option, especially in the studio. It could even change exposure across the frame to counteract edge falloff, probably at the expense of noise or dynamic range in those areas.
Having a 4x5 back like this would take us into the next generation with multi-exposure capabilities, etc. But I don't know if this will ever happen due to the problems and costs associated with silicon manufacture. Still, one can dream.
And I don’t mean to divert your intentions by turning this into a "LF back" thread, I just thought I’d mention that in the context of LF evolution.
aphexafx
3-Mar-2009, 00:36
Another thing that I've thought would be cool is a standard ground-glass with built-in micro wiring and micro light sensors in a grid. This would result in a grid of tiny dots on your glass, hardly more obtrusive than gridlines, but a small computer attached would be able to meter your scenes in several modes, like a SLR.
I am all for manual metering techniques and very much enjoy my light meter and figuring exposures, but such a metering glass would redefine the metering back concept and be especially useful for commercial and product work where exposure is critical and time is limited.
But I would hate to see traditional techniques lost to a device like this.
And it would suck if you broke it. :)
mccormickstudio
3-Mar-2009, 00:39
Matt - (checked your website, digging your work) I was a student 10 years ago, and I try to always think of myself as a student. That's what keeps the work inventive. This honestly started in a dream, so (in my endless hours of editing 8x10 scans) I've been thinking of the ins and outs of this. And in my professional work as an architect, I am in contact with a major tech guru client - the kind of uber millionaire who hears your out-of-the-box ideas first and the rest thereafter.
These things inspired this thinking. I started a group on flickr called 'analog', and I am devoted to film, so I don't want the DGG or device to affect our shooting, only to improve it in the dark night, in the cold, in the rough neighborhoods... all of which is romantic like film, but rough in the reality.
And these are all just ideas. Just ideas, and I'm asking for more - because who knows - someone might make these things...
aphexafx
3-Mar-2009, 00:45
Craig, what if your DGG device was more like a current binocular hood that would attach to the focusing frame in the same way and which would employ a smaller, current technology CCD and lens that would see the ground glass. Instead of an eye hood there would be a fairly large LCD, and with the transmission properties of the GG known, it would be able do everything you’ve mentioned. This would effectively be a digital camera working against a known GG surface in a mountable unit.
This would actually be viable even today and would do away with the only piece of your plan which is problematic: the huge piece of silicon for the CCD sensor.
???
Yep, bed time.
Eric Leppanen
3-Mar-2009, 00:53
The problem is not so much the display on the back of the camera, as there are a number of relatively inexpensive technologies (thin film flexible displays, etc.) in development that might work. The image capture sensor transmitting the image to the display is the problem.
The cost of a silicon-based sensor (CCD or CMOS) is a function of the semiconductor process used and the sensor size. Pixel density has virtually zero effect on sensor cost. For example, even though Nikon has not actually fessed up to this, the sensors in the Nikon D3 (12MP) and D3x (24MP) have a similar production cost, since they are both the same size (if you're wondering about this, look at the similarly-sized Sony A900, which supports the same resolution as the D3x at a price point comparable to the D3). So a "low res" sensor doesn't save you any cost versus a "high res" sensor, which I think we all agree would be prohibitively expensive.
I think the closest you could get to your goal would be to use some type of scanning back to generate the image for the display, then replace the scanning back with a film holder to take the picture. But even that would be cost-prohibitive, let alone practical.
Realistically, the only way this will work is to shrink the camera and use existing Live Preview capabilities of a medium format digital back on a small format technical camera. But of course now you've lost that big, beautiful 8x10" display to compose with.
Personally, my LF dream machine is a 4x5" scanning back that could scan at a full 8x10" equivalent resolution within one second. But so far, no one has come close to building such a unit.
tim o'brien
3-Mar-2009, 02:28
While not a Luddite, my first reaction and continued thought about thus is, yuck! :p
Take a nice wood and brass beauty and fill it with electronics?! You might as well forget the film and capture the image with the ccd's or whatever.
I like looking at the GG, everything is there, gloriously upside down and backwards, in full true color and high resolution.
Oh well, some people love their robotic pets, too...;)
Vaughn
I don't have that problem. The problem I have is hauling out the highbar and the 1980s inverted gravity boots I always wear when shooting landscapes. And the fact that after 15 minutes all the blood has rushed to my brain and I can't thunk no more.
Being a robotics expert, well a robotics engineer anyway, it's doable. But in the same light as when I think about programming at the house (after hours you know), the big question remains... WHY?
To the OP... You need a new project in your life.
May I suggest a Deardorff 8x10 or if that's too tame, a 16x20 camera?
tim in san jose
Paul Ewins
3-Mar-2009, 05:07
For the sensor side of things you should be able to tile a lot of small sensors to make one big one. The gaps between them should be insignificant since you are only trying to drive a relatively low-res display. Once you move away from trying to cram as many photosites onto a piece of silicon as possible you may find that other, cheaper sensors may become viable. i.e. you only need to get 1 to 2 mp out of an 4x5 or 8x10 sensor. There may be some sort of technology used fora completely different purpose that will never be good enough for camera use, but will be good enough to drive a monitor.
Archphoto
3-Mar-2009, 05:53
A couple of things:
- I have been dreaming about a 4x5" full-frame digital back and it is till not here
- automation with LF for what ? It is the charm of LF that you are in control of everything, that you are the master of this medium
- if you want a good preview of what you will get, get your self a DSLR and a laptop
--- the DSLR can function as an advanced lightmeter, colormeter and polaroid.
Robert Fisher
3-Mar-2009, 06:04
Arch, those are some great and useful ideas.
I have this wild idea for a next-generation large format camera. It literally came to me in a dream a few weeks ago and now I can't stop thinking about it.
...
Prophetic? I'm an artist and not an engineer, ...
A technical idea is not good because it is pleasing. In order to see if a technical idea is good or not first you have to measure the idea in the light of physical and manufacturing possibilities and economic realities. Only after such an analysis you can see if the idea is good or not.
To have a car that I can call with my mobil, tell it where I'm and it would come to me by itself in the time I indicated - would that be a good idea? A pleasing one perhaps, but when you measure it as said it is not good. Why not? It could revolutionize fright transports, couldn't it? It could but... etc.
Of course, this also means that once the measuring realities change the properties of the idea change too. But in all cases for a technical idea to be a good one it's not enough to be just a pleasing one.
This was the case with people like Leonardo da Vinci or Jules Verne. Leonardo is sometimes described as one of the greatest inventors. Rubbish. The majority of his "inventions" could not work at all because of the constraints of that time's technology. Take as an example his parachute idea... Nice to fall down to your death with it :)
There is the difference between dreaming (nice in itself, why not) and inventing. Did Jules Verne invent a rocket, a fax, etc.? Nothing of that. Only inventors did. Did Clarke invent satellites? No, but the guys who made the idea workable they did. To have an idea that doesn't work and a one that does is an important difference. The guy who invented Icarus didn't invent an airplane at all. However artistic he was.
Scott Knowles
3-Mar-2009, 06:17
Cool idea. Any bets some companies already have this in their R&D lab? I don't see it costing a lot as a focusing aid/replacement if you don't expect to recoup your R&D investment, which I suspect would be significant.
My concern would be getting the resolution on the screen with the live view (now on several DSLR's) where the minute focusing changing are obvious, at least equal if not better than a GG. After that it's just a matter of streaming the image to something, and that's existing technology.
Are you looking for early investors? Sorry, the market killed my venture capital. But hey, good luck with it.
A technical idea is not good because it is pleasing. In order to see if a technical idea is good or not first you have to measure the idea in the light of physical and manufacturing possibilities and economic realities. Only after such an analysis you can see if the idea is good or not.
To have a car that I can call with my mobil, tell it where I'm and it would come to me by itself in the time I indicated - would that be a good idea? A pleasing one perhaps, but when you measure it as said it is not good. Why not? It could revolutionize fright transports, couldn't it? It could but... etc.
Of course, this also means that once the measuring realities change the properties of the idea change too. But in all cases for a technical idea to be a good one it's not enough to be just a pleasing one.
This was the case with people like Leonardo da Vinci or Jules Verne. Leonardo is sometimes described as one of the greatest inventors. Rubbish. The majority of his "inventions" could not work at all because of the constraints of that time's technology. Take as an example his parachute idea... Nice to fall down to your death with it :)
There is the difference between dreaming (nice in itself, why not) and inventing. Did Jules Verne invent a rocket, a fax, etc.? Nothing of that. Only inventors did. Did Clarke invented satellites? No, but the guys who made the idea workable they did. To have an idea that doesn't work and a one that does is an important difference. The guy who invented Icarus didn't invent an airplane at all. However artistic he was.
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
That's why they became engineers in the first place - they are good at finding ways to make things work. But imagining a new concept often requires a different kind of mindset. That's what Leonardo, Verne and their likes did.
As for Clark, he was a hard scientist himself, and according to this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke):
Although he was not the originator of the concept of geostationary satellites, one of his most important contributions may be his idea that they would be ideal telecommunications relays. He advanced this idea in a paper privately circulated among the core technical members of the BIS in 1945. The concept was published in Wireless World in October of that year.[19][20][21] Clarke also wrote a number of non-fiction books describing the technical details and societal implications of rocketry and space flight. The most notable of these may be The Exploration of Space (1951) and The Promise of Space (1968). In recognition of these contributions the geostationary orbit 36,000 kilometres (22,000 mi) above the equator is officially recognized by the International Astronomical Union as a Clarke Orbit.[22]
It seems kinda hard to invent something without an idea, doen't it?
If those dreamers followed conventional wisdom or listened to the old, crusty men telling them why it is not possible, wise or feasible, we would all still collectively be living on trees. Or would, at the very least, be inhaling mercury vapours because we'd never move further from daguerreotypes.
The only question I have for this concept is: once you have a full size sensor at a reasonable price level, why bother with film at all? Why not just go full hog and do the straight capture? RAW, of course. :)
P.S. Make it multiple bracketing shots with an eye toward the automated HDR, of course. That would boost the DR like you wouldn't believe... And incorporate a sound of machine-gun fire, just to keep the luddite gallery happy... :D
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
That's why they became engineers in the first place - they are good at finding ways to make things work. But imagining a new concept often requires a different kind of mindset. That's what Leonardo, Verne and their likes did.
As for Clark, he was a hard scientist himself, and according to this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke):
It seems kinda hard to invent something without an idea, doen't it?
If those dreamers followed conventional wisdom or listened to the old, crusty men telling them why it is not possible, wise or feasible, we would all still collectively be living on trees. Or would, at the very least, be inhaling mercury vapours because we'd never move further from daguerreotypes.
The only question I have for this concept is: once you have a full size sensor at a reasonable price level, why bother with film at all? Why not just go full hog and do the straight capture? RAW, of course. :)
Let me tell you it in this way - There is a difference between imaging and inventing.
If you go to a patent office (and I was working in one) and you say I imagine this and that they will tell you - "it's not enough for an invention, let alone a patent". Why not? Sure, if you want to invent you have to imagine first, but that is just the first step and not a sufficient one for an invention. To imagine and to invent (= to make an invention) are two different things. You can imagine without inventing even if you cannot invent without imaging. Go and wonder why...
If you know engineers that can engineer "anything" ONCE they are provided with the idea you just say pure rubbish. Send them over to NASA to solve all their problems saying they can engineer whatever their ideas are. Were it so, the world would not have any ideas just imagined and not realized...
Clarke had an idea, was a scientist but all this did not invent a satellite. To have potatoes and an idea of a dinner doesn't make you yet a cook. Cooking does. That you have to have ideas and potatoes to make the dinner is sure but is not enough for the dinner.
If inventors only listened to all ideas people imagine possible they wouldn't need to invent, would they? But inventing is much more that just imaging. In this sens an inventor is more than just an imaging artist. Leonardo imagined his parachute but someone else invented it.
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
...
OK, don't loose any time now and let them engineer that electrical car that is light, has longer reach that any conventional car and can be recharged in a matter of minutes like any conventional car. GM and Chrysler need them badly and your engineers have the capabilities and solutions...
But how will they do it when they cannot dream something up on their own?:(
One thing is to say nonsense and the other to be reasonable...
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
That's why they became engineers in the first place - they are good at finding ways to make things work.
...
It seems kinda hard to invent something without an idea, doen't it?
...
It does, indeed. I wonder how these super hero engineers find the solutions of all ideas and visions without being capable to dream something up on their own. It seems kinda hard to invent something without an idea...:rolleyes:
This has been an interesting thread.
I like the idea of technology making a classic tool (such as a LF film camera) more useful, rather than merely transform it into a less useful (or less desirable) modern tool (digital camera with large-sized display panel.)
However, the 8x10 sensor technology is the show-stopper, unless someone dusts off an old paper somewhere and finds out it's do-able using non-silicon wafer processes. That's the rub: manufacturing any electronic device on silicon wafers is limited by the economics of the silicon "real estate": the cost per unit is simply the cost of running the multi-billion dollar factory over a given period of time, divided by the number of wafer started (at the beginning of the production line) per given period of time, usually measured in thousands of wafer starts per week, minus material losses through the line (line yield), minus material losses at end of line after testing the devices and some don't work properly (die yield).
And the consequent revenue is the number of working die at the end of the line, times what each can be sold at per unit price, minus the cost of manufacturing them.
It costs the same to run wafers with no circuit patterns on them through the Fab as it does to run wafers with many hundreds of high-profit die on each wafer. So the economics are to miniaturize the process and chip design so as to fit as many die as possible on a silicon wafer, maximizing profits. This is why cashe-RAM in microprocessors is so stingily controlled, why they don't simply double or triple the onboard cache: it makes each chip die larger in size, meaning you can't fit as many of them on a wafer. So to make the same profit, you'd have to market them as "higher performance" parts, and charge more for them, since they take up more room on the wafer.
An 8x10 sensor panel would have a diagonal length of 12.08 inches, meaning you could barely fit one panel onto a 300mm silicon wafer. It would cost many tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars, for one panel. Why? Because that's what these chip-making companies are making, per 300mm wafer, by making hundreds of die, each the size of, or smaller than, your finger nail, onto each wafer, and then selling each tiny die for tens or hundreds of dollars.
There would have to be found a non-silicon photo-diode or photo-transistor (or photo-resistor) device that could be cheaply manufactured on a non-silicon substrate. The pixel size required only has to satisfy the needs of a compositional aid, so I don't think it needs to be as fine as even a laptop computer screen. It's not a replacement for the film sensor, only an aid in focus and composition.
This has me thinking that some standard discrete diodes that I've worked with, although intended to be merely non-optical in use, do have some limited optical sensitivity, while many other non-optical diodes actually emit a fare amount of IR light as a consequence of their normal operation, even though they are not advertised as LEDs. Which makes me wonder if it were possible to take an LED-type laptop display panel and operate it as if it were a panel of photo-diodes, and would it display some degree of light sensitivity? I suspect each pixel would have to be read-off, sequentially, line-by-line, and the signal amplified, similar to a CCD device.
Any electronic gurus out there? Any thoughts about this?
~Joe
PS: I remember someone making a camera obscura box for a digital camera, as an alternative way of doing digital pinhole. The pinhole camera projected an image onto a highly reflective screen at the back of the camera; the digital camera was located at the front of the camera, adjacent to the pinhole, and looking backwards toward the projection screen, taking an image of the reflected image.
Perhaps this is the way to do what the OP suggested; have the ground glass instead be made of some highly reflective material that operates as an efficient projection screen, on the front side. A small, high resolution digital camera, built into the LF camera near the back of the lens board, takes and image of the projected image, and outputs that to a portable display screen that is temporarily mounted to the back of the camera. Once the image is adjusted properly for focus, composition and movements, the film back is inserted as normal and a film exposure made.
Since you're using a small digital camera to preview the display, you could then record each previewed image, including data on the LF lens setting and focus position along the rail, etc.
~Joe
Bruce Watson
3-Mar-2009, 09:00
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
That's just an amazing slam at the people who make your current quality of life possible. Engineers can't dream up anything on their own? The vast majority of inventions that are patented, are patented by engineers. It's true that most of this is done while working for a corporation, and that the inventions are assigned to the corporations. But it's the engineers who invent them.
Engineers are among the most creative people I've met. It's a different type of creativity than what you find in painting, literature, music, or even marketing (yes, even marketeers). But it's a most interesting and inventive creativity.
Don't be selling engineers so short.
Nathan Potter
3-Mar-2009, 09:09
OK, back to the original idea which I believe has some merit.
First point was that the full size LF sensor doesn't need lens quality resolution. I believe the object was only a previsualization device and possibly an image inversion device.
Some pixel by pixel analysis of brightness range has been suggested; perhaps even fancier image analysis. Much of this is not much more complicated than some current hand held portables.
The issue is not the engineering (yes that would need to be done) but market considerations. A large format market would never support the development costs so one needs to find a broad consumer application that one could ride on.
For engineering the device I would look at the commodity LCD flat panel display industry. Think about using older LCD fabrication facilities for manufacture and make use of as much of that process technology as possible. The sensor is not silicon but an amorphous semiconductor array already available with the LCD technology. The active device (photoreceptor) would need to be optimized as a detector of light in the visible range (different doping profile) etc. The quantum efficiency would need to be maximized for dynamic range. Pixel pitches of 100 microns are available in such manufacturing fabrication facilities and that pitch can be swung considerably by altering the photomaster plates.
So what would be the eventual cost of a glass flat panel sensor? Well right now $100 in 4X5 format would be likely - in high volume - or less.
Next design a back about the thickness of a polaroid back which has two of these flat panel glass units. One unit is at the film plane the second is the backlighted viewing screen with the erected image AND is a touch screen with readout connected to a signal processor that enables a digital readout of EV values wherever one touches the screen. Well, on and on using existing low cost technology based on the past decade of advances in portable electronics.
All in all I think it's a pretty good idea but I don't think I'd use one. It would corrupt my sense of LF history and charm. But I'll admit the exposure determination possibilities are pretty attractive. :) :) :)
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
...
Engineers are among the most creative people I've met. It's a different type of creativity than what you find in painting, literature, music, or even marketing (yes, even marketeers). But it's a most interesting and inventive creativity.
...
Thanks Bruce for these words. I love you, after all.:) There is a book written by an American author (have no access to my library right now) that compares engineering (and inventing, it goes hand in hand) with the highest degree of creative inspiration. Very true. Wasn't David, the inventor of music instruments, the most inspired man in the OT? (Oh, -that's not religion, it's musicology:)) It was mentioned in the book...
Whoa, hold on guys! Nobody was slamming anybody here...
Bruce, I said they can't dream things up, I didn't say they cannot be creative. I maintain that dreaming things up is not an engineering task. Nothing derrogatory about it.
My parents were engineers, my son is an engineer - a damn good one at that - and so are many other people close to me. All I'm saying is that coming up with an idea about what to do requires a different talent and set of skills than an idea about how to do it.
The OP has come up with an idea for which he got roundly slammed because he didn't suggest how the idea should be implemented. And most of the people who did the slamming apparently didn't know either. The difference is, the idea did not even occur to them. ;)
...
As for Clark, he was a hard scientist himself, and according to this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke):
...
Thanks Marko, for confirming the stated fact that Clarke didn't invent a satellite. But using Wikipedia for that...:(
You see, I've never understood the fuss about his "invention" (thanks goodness wikipedia didn't use the word here :) ) of the "telecommunications relays". I mean, the first satellites needed to have a rudimentary communication with the Earth stations anyway (remember Sputnik's beeps?) . Without it they would be as good as a dead dog up there. The fact that there must be some kind of telecommunication between the Earth and the satellite was just obvious to the satellite's inventors. That this communication could then be the reason of the satellite itself is not such an innovation in itself. Just another use for a satellite. Anyway, so much for the fuss of it...
Actually, putting all that stuff on a view camera seems to be a waste of time and material. Would it not be better just to have a laptop tethered to a digital camera (a specialty one with movements)? Then one has an even larger screen to look at...make all the adjustments with the digital camera via the laptop, compare results on the laptop and then once everything is set right, transfer those settings onto the view camera (degrees of tilt and swing, focusing distance, f/stop. etc).
Thus one laptop and digital camera could work with all the different formats one might have...instead of having to buy a set-up for one's 8x10 and one for the 7x17, etc.
Then when one finds that all this fancy stuff is totally unnecessary and only gets in between the photographer and the Seen, one can leave all that fancy stuff at home and still have a simple LF camera to work with.;)
Vaughn
Thanks Marko, for confirming the stated fact that Clarke didn't invent a satellite. But using Wikipedia for that...:(
You see, I've never understood the fuss about his "invention" (thanks goodness wikipedia didn't use the word here :) ) of the "telecommunications relays". I mean, the first satellites needed to have a rudimentary communication with the Earth stations anyway (remember Sputnik's beeps?) . Without it they would be as good as a dead dog up there. The fact that there must be some kind of telecommunication between the Earth and the satellite was just obvious to the satellite's inventors. That this communication could then be the reason of the satellite itself is not such an innovation in itself. Just another use for a satellite. Anyway, so much for the fuss of it...
If you don't understand, you don't understand, not much can be done about it.
But you seem awfully worked up about something. What exactly is your point?
If you don't understand, you don't understand, not much can be done about it.
But you seem awfully worked up about something. What exactly is your point?
If you don't understand, you don't understand, not much can be done about it. But you seem awfully worked up about it.
Polly wants a cracker? ;)
You folks haven't stopped to consider the threat to charming large format anecdotes this proposal would bring. If the back of your camera really DOES have a TV on it then the rubes who see you shooting and say, "Hey he's got a little TV under there!" will no longer be amusing. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?
mandoman7
3-Mar-2009, 16:44
For some reason, I've noticed that the easier it gets to make photos, the worse the general quality gets.
JY
And if it happens, someone will happily find a reason for grumbling and complaining about it, usually those with no need, no means, or simply no wit... :D
And just to put things in perspective, a handful of famous predictions:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"But what...is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of DEC
And, of course, the favorite:
"640 K ought to be enough for anyone"
- Bill Gates, 1981
Maris Rusis
3-Mar-2009, 17:27
Interesting idea but definitely count me out both technically and philosophically.
I have become so conservative that the only photography I care about is the version that works by collecting stuff that used to be part of the subject matter and steering that stuff into a sensitive surface to cause marks. If I do things right the mark infested surface I get is actually a picture of the real-world thing that sent stuff in the first place.
The one-step physical directness of the photographic process is where the "tingle factor" comes from; for me at least. And there are no sensors, no pixels, no data, no memory, no image files, no processor, no printer, no monitor, and no external energy inputs; not even electricity.
Maybe there is joy in photographing monitor displays of electronic files but it does seem to be a second rank experience compared to directly confronting physical reality itself.
Joe Forks
3-Mar-2009, 18:48
OK, back to the original idea which I believe has some merit.
The issue is not the engineering (yes that would need to be done) but market considerations. A large format market would never support the development costs so one needs to find a broad consumer application that one could ride on.
Ok, this thing could replace "peep-holes" on your front door. On the inside you have the LCD panel, on the outside you have the lens. You have a much better idea of what is outside before you open the door.
On my 810 film camera with LCD focusing panel I'd also like LED readouts calibrated to show the amount of movements in either mm, cm, or inches. I'd also like to recall those numbers in memory in case I need to reproduce a shot.
Struan Gray
4-Mar-2009, 01:19
For small formats it is arguable you need the precision that a motorised mount can give, and the magnification offered by some kind of digital sensor fed to a screen. For 8x10 it seems a bit pointless. The ground glass is already a high-quality viewing screen; a low power loupe gives you all the magnification you need to focus; and, critically, the angles and distances involved in real-world movements are large enough to be set by hand.
However, I think it is only a matter of time before someone makes a small-format view camera with motorised movements and a video-rate readout of the focal plane imaging chip. Beasts like the Linhof M69 and the Sinar P3 already look like laboratory optics mounts, and such mounts have been available in motorised versions for years. Admittedly, the currently available motors require mains power, but for still life studio work that's not going to be a problem, and high-end architecture shoots can fit in a power source amid all the other gubbins.
Andreas B
4-Mar-2009, 04:55
And just to put things in perspective, a handful of famous predictions:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
Fictional.
"But what...is it good for?"
- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip
Fictional.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of DEC
Quote mining. In the way the word computer is meant here, it still holds true today.
And, of course, the favorite:
"640 K ought to be enough for anyone"
- Bill Gates, 1981
Also fictional.
Zero out of four. As the kids say these days: Epic fail.
This one would clearly fall into the "no wits" category.
Gotta love these characters who tend to come out of nowhere lately, have one or two postings in the history, come down on you with such elaborate assuredness and never show up again when the "discussion" is over.
Come on, this can't possibly be your best shot, you should be able to dream up something less obvious. Or get a life.
:rolleyes:
Andreas B
4-Mar-2009, 12:58
Come on, this can't possibly be your best shot, you should be able to dream up something less obvious. Or get a life.
Your were trying to bolster your point by quotes. All of them either fake or botched in meaning. In that light, you shouldn't be the one berating others for their debating methods.
If you want my opinion on the original proposal: It aims to replace a well proven, simple device (the ground glass) with a giant image sensor (which doesn't exist) and a just as big LCD. Adding weight, adding the requirement for a (likely big) power source, adding the requirement to produce parts that are way beyond anything existing (the image sensor) with the price tag that comes with that, only to put all that aside when you finally make the picture on film. That's not a great idea, that's a Rube Goldberg contraption.
More to the point, I'm disagreeing with the glorification of those who have all those great "ideas" and nothing more. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Having ideas that can be made to work, and making them work, is an entirely different thing.
While we're quoting people:
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
— Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Your were trying to bolster your point by quotes. All of them either fake or botched in meaning. In that light, you shouldn't be the one berating others for their debating methods.
Actually, no, I wasn't trying to bolster my point by quotes. I was trying to lighten up the needlessly overheated atmosphere by using that little thing called humor. I work in a computer-related field hence my choice of computer-related humor.
Had I really wanted to bolster my argument by using someone else's account of yet other people's words, I'd use one of the countless engineer "quotes". ;)
If you want my opinion on the original proposal: It aims to replace a well proven, simple device (the ground glass) with a giant image sensor (which doesn't exist) and a just as big LCD. Adding weight, adding the requirement for a (likely big) power source, adding the requirement to produce parts that are way beyond anything existing (the image sensor) with the price tag that comes with that, only to put all that aside when you finally make the picture on film. That's not a great idea, that's a Rube Goldberg contraption.
We are all entitled to our opinions and indeed everybody has one, as the old saying goes. The fact that your opinion is different than mine does not necessarily mean that either of us is right or wrong, it simply demonstrates that each one of us indeed has an opinion...
My take on the idea is a bit different - instead of questioning the OP's idea based on currently available technology and its specifications and cost, I chose to question the conclusion. After going through all that trouble to remake a 19th century device into a 21st century one, I see no point in sticking equally 19th century sensor in the back. Why not replace that too?
More to the point, I'm disagreeing with the glorification of those who have all those great "ideas" and nothing more. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Having ideas that can be made to work, and making them work, is an entirely different thing.
The thing is, you don't know if the idea is or could potentially be feasible unless and until you try it. My point is that coming up with an idea takes a very different skill set than making an idea work.
While we're quoting people:
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
— Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Ah yes, the Little Prince, one of my favorite childhood books. A bit ironic choice though in the light of this discussion for de Saint Exupéry didn't invent that principle either - he simply phrased it well. Some also call it the KISS Principle while others call it Bauhaus, depending on one's angle of view and education.
John Whitley
4-Mar-2009, 18:48
lol - it's a great idea, but in reality this thing would cost thousands and thousands of dollars and only do slightly more than a piece of ground glass and a bubble level! :D
The display technology will soon be light, cheap, and durable using an "e-ink" type display, preferably touch-enabled.
I can't imagine an 8x10 CCD? I mean, even a low resolution one. It would cost millions of dollars to produce - one in a thousand would be acceptable.
Blink and it'll be here. RED has already announced a full 6x17 format sensor, price estimated to be 55,000 USD, if I recall correctly. We'll see when that sensor actually appears in the marketplace, but just a little while ago it would have been impossible to produce at any price. Consider that large flat-panel HD displays are readily available now that would have been similarly impossible just a few years back.
While we're dreaming, I expect that the bit that will remain expensive would be the engineering surrounding the camera's movements -- make 'em servo controlled. Pick a few points on screen, and camera AF goes to work keeping those areas in sharp focus. Use touch gestures, swiping, pinching, twisting, etc. for precise control of front and back movements with immediate visual feedback. No loupe needed; just double-tap to zoom in and pan around, double tap again to return to the composition view.
OTOH, computational imaging techniques may render such a beast moot. Single-lens digital capture may one day be seen as very limiting, and going multi-lens would avoid the need for a huge monolithic sensor and offer greater creative flexibility in post.
Nathan Potter
4-Mar-2009, 20:23
Another possibly big advantage of using an active focusing screen (such as LCD low cost type) would be to optimize movements and focus point. Pixel output could be used with appropriate processing algorithms to determine Circle Of Confusion sizes anywhere on the focusing screen. I'm getting a bit intrigued by this.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Wayne Crider
4-Mar-2009, 20:43
Your thinking about the new iLargeFormatCamera from Apple. It also incorporates a GPS, makes phone calls to tell the wifey you'll be late and you can access this forum for last minute searches thru the internet. The GG image turns with a finger movement. One of the best parts is using Goggle Earth for image searches and them getting directions to get there.
JBrunner
4-Mar-2009, 21:14
Judging from the recent performance of the high end electronics in a couple of airplanes, and every computer I have ever owned, I'll take my camera without, thanks.
Some people are good with computers and some are better suited for shovels. There is a perfect tool for everybody out there.
P.S.
As the irony would have it, reading about the more recent of these two accidents, it appears that the computer was functioning flawlessly but was being fed erroneous data by a faulty altimeter (usually an analog instrument).
aphexafx
4-Mar-2009, 23:37
I was a student 10 years ago, and I try to always think of myself as a student. That's what keeps the work inventive...
Thanks for the kind words, and your attitude is inspiring. I very much dig your work as well, especially your experimental stuff. Absolutley fantstic. Never quit experimenting and never quit learning!
Cheers.
aphexafx
4-Mar-2009, 23:45
Some people are good with computers and some are better suited for shovels. There is a perfect tool for everybody out there.
P.S.
As the irony would have it, reading about the more recent of these two accidents, it appears that the computer was functioning flawlessly but was being fed erroneous data by a faulty altimeter (usually an analog instrument).
:)
G Benaim
5-Mar-2009, 01:34
I'm not sure what one gains over a ground glass, other than right-side-up viewing (and that one is debatable). Can someone explain the advantages?
aphexafx
5-Mar-2009, 02:29
I'm not sure what one gains over a ground glass, other than right-side-up viewing (and that one is debatable). Can someone explain the advantages?
The idea is for a lightweight interactive digital proofing system for LF cameras that would replace a standard GG/back.
Exposure calculation (with visual verification) on a backlit LCD would, for one thing, equalize things like low light and allow you to better visualize what you are attempting to photograph, especially in conditions that make GG hard to use. Even very dim scenes could be sampled for a short duration in order to render an image for easy analysis.
Contrast/edge detection could help you define focus. Film simulation could help you preview what the scene will look like on film for any given exposure with a histogram and highlight/shadow warnings tuned to your film to boot. Parallel edges and alignment could be verified computationally, etc.
Example: You might specify (pen, tap, etc.) two or more points that you wish to be in focus and stop your lens down to your working aperture and let the device accumulate an exposure (or a shorter rough equivlent). You could then verify your DOF visually or automatically using edge detection, etc.
It could even use "onion skinning" and allow you to see changes to your view as compared to another: perfectly align scene elements during special effect multi-exposures with complex masking and lighting. Preview soft-focus and diffraction effects. Make sure your working aperture is not rendering your diffraction screen in a distracting manner. Make sure your ND grad is rendered well at your working aperture.
Basically a big digital live "Polaroid" (with perks) to experiment with, free of charge and delay, in order to define your exposure, which would then be made to film in the traditional manner.
I am all for tradition and good old skill, but in a studio this type of device would be absolutely fantastic for product and other commercial type work where technical specifics are mandatory and time is valuable.
For field/location work, add GPS and a digital level to record location notes and camera position for later compositing. Hell, add a pen interface and take notes right on your screen. It is a great concept.
Some people are good with computers and some are better suited for shovels. There is a perfect tool for everybody out there.
I guess the next time I need to dig a hole, I'll try to use my keyboard.;)
It is an interesting idea, not a significant advantage over a gg for landscape work, except for a very small percentage of circumstances...composing and focusing in very low light being the major one. Checking depth of field at very small f stops that are usually too dark to see anything on the gg even in good light is another advantage.
But I can see it would be a big hit for those who love computer gadgetry and also have deep pockets. Personally, I never saw a lot of need to proof with Polaroids, nor with digital cameras, so I see this idea as sort of like the idea of having one's car talk to you...I'd rather not have my car tell me what to do...the beeping is bad enough.
Vaughn
I guess the next time I need to dig a hole, I'll try to use my keyboard.;)
I don't know, as a keyboard person myself, I am not sure how efficient that would be. When it comes to digging holes, I prefer to hire one of the shovel experts. They are much more proficient at it than I am, not to mention cheaper... ;)
I'd rather not have my car tell me what to do...
Yeah, real men have wives for that. :p
...
The thing is, you don't know if the idea is or could potentially be feasible unless and until you try it. My point is that coming up with an idea takes a very different skill set than making an idea work.
...
You speak as somebody who has not the faintest idea about any scientific work and engineering, indeed.
It is before you try an idea that you scrutinize it in the light of the scientific knowledge and its feasibility. Only when you come to the conclusion that the idea is feasible, you try it. Or you think that people sent up there the ISS for billions of $ just to "try it"? Without knowing if it is feasible or not? :rolleyes: You take engineers for fools. You have no idea about what you say:rolleyes:
And to make an idea work you have to have a plenty of your own ideas on how to make it work. Without it you cannot invent anything. Ask engineers...
But of course, you know engineers who can make work just any idea without being able to dream up anything on their own... A strange species, those...:rolleyes:
You speak as somebody who has not the faintest idea about any scientific work and engineering, indeed.
It is before you try an idea that you scrutinize it in the light of the scientific knowledge and its feasibility. Only when you come to the conclusion that the idea is feasible, you try it. Or you think that people sent up there the ISS for billions of $ just to "try it"? Without knowing if it is feasible or not? :rolleyes: You have no idea about what you say:rolleyes:
So all those catastrophes and failed launches and lost satellites, and the initial focusing system failure on the Hubble and so many other mishaps including the very recent satellite collision were all a result of a calculated decision stemming from someone's careful and deliberate brainstorming session where they chose just the right idea among so many? Yeah, space is a big place, losing a satellite is easy enough, but colliding the two of them really takes some effort, eh?
Please, tell me some more about how science and engineering really work. This is getting better than Jay Leno... :D
P.S. A science degree and a few years of architecture study here. What you got?
And to make an idea work you have to have a plenty of your own ideas on how to make it work. Without it you cannot invent anything. Ask engineers...
Wasn't it just what I said? An idea on how to make something work?
...:rolleyes:
If you're not careful with all that eye rolling, you might get dizzy. I still don't get what are you so worked up about??
Nathan Potter
5-Mar-2009, 07:51
Your thinking about the new iLargeFormatCamera from Apple. It also incorporates a GPS, makes phone calls to tell the wifey you'll be late and you can access this forum for last minute searches thru the internet. The GG image turns with a finger movement. One of the best parts is using Goggle Earth for image searches and them getting directions to get there.
That's been my point exactly. A lot of the enabling LOW COST technology already exists for the digital previewing back as it was dreamed about. A lot of intriguing features have been discussed in this thread.
I've been talking about low cost implementation based on as much enabling technology as possible already available. Low res screens based on flat panel technology can very clearly be produced in 4X5 format for under $100.00 in mass production. However it would be critical to find high volume alternative uses and make use of the low cost flat panel fab process.
The utility of such a device for LF preview purposes is a different kind of question and one that drives marketing people nuts. One can see why from the responses here.
Let me say something about engineers since I've managed good sized groups of technical people in the microfabrication industry. The range of talent from scientist down to the lowly technician is astounding. Each individual has a particular kind of ability and I've found that those abilities cross both educational and experience boundaries. Idea people and innovators can be found that span the gamut from scientist to technician. In fact the thought reminds me of a janitor I once had. Evidently he had been watching a precision plating operation on a second shift. I ran into him one evening and he stopped me to show me a design he had come up with for a plating rack for square glass substrates. He had researched the whole issue of uniformity quite thoroughly so I hired him on the spot (needed help anyway). He went on to build prototypes of the design and become one of the most invaluable of the plating personel. :) :) :)
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 08:09
Some people are good with computers and some are better suited for shovels. There is a perfect tool for everybody out there.
P.S.
As the irony would have it, reading about the more recent of these two accidents, it appears that the computer was functioning flawlessly but was being fed erroneous data by a faulty altimeter (usually an analog instrument).
It may have been an analog altimeter, but that doesn't mean it wasn't electronic or whatever. IIRC these are radio altimeters. Analog doesn't mean much besides non-digital.
Anyway I'm all for fancy ideas and exploring ones creativity in any endeavor. I guess for me it boils down to a personal philosophy in that I have always been more interested in being a photographer than anything else and I generally find the more doodads and junk that are going with me on a camera package the less of a photographer I can be. I go out with the big camera specifically to engage in a simple, ruthlessly brutal, yet soothing activity, and batteries aren't part of that philosophy. (Ok, one of my meters has meter has a battery, but I pretend it doesn't)
Don't get me wrong, I love geewhiz, but I doubt the device would find a market, that said, most fortunes are built by ignoring the naysayers :). Cool noodle.
To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable". Digital essentially means binary which means less noise. My point was that the error was in altimeter (which happened to be non-digital) rather than in the flight computer, which performed as designed.
If pre-electronic (or even pre-electric) is your cup of tea, this may not be the most convenient century to live in. Might as well get used to it. Inventing a time-travel gadget would be out of question, since it would have to be based on a computer... :D
Me, I prefer to drive rather than ride or walk to where I am going even though my car has a computer in it. Several computers in fact. Used to have cars with no computers and would never go back to those.
Don't get me wrong, I love geewhiz, but I doubt the device would find a market, that said, most fortunes are built by ignoring the naysayers :). Cool noodle.
Speaking of doubts, naysaying and predictions - similar things were being said about digital cameras in general and DSLRs in particular only a few years ago and look where we are now... To put things in perspective, Canon d30 - a 3 MP DSLR was released some 8 years ago and cost $3000. A 1 GB CF card cost $500 at the same time. Today, a 21 MP FF Canon can be had for 3/4 of that amount and a 16 GB card for about 20%.
It is much less a question of technical possibility as it is a game of marketing and numbers. If enough people needed or wanted such a large digital format, I have no doubt we could see an affordable version of it in our lifetime.
I think the point about the faulty altimeter is that the jet was on auto-pilot and that piece of digital wonder (the auto pilot) has gotten to be depended on too much to the point that even though the flight crew knew there was faulty info being fed into it, they assumed it would still work properly (as in "not crash the plane").
So instead of Ted Orland's "Expose for the secrets, develop for the surprises.", we will tend to get a lot of "Expose by digital display, develop for uniformity." Users will be depending on limited computing power, hardware limitations, and the parameters set up by the programmers to visualize the final image -- instead of depending on the far superior computing power and imagination of one's own brain.
Vaughn
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 10:46
To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable". Digital essentially means binary which means less noise. My point was that the error was in altimeter (which happened to be non-digital) rather than in the flight computer, which performed as designed.
If pre-electronic (or even pre-electric) is your cup of tea, this may not be the most convenient century to live in. Might as well get used to it. Inventing a time-travel gadget would be out of question, since it would have to be based on a computer... :D
Me, I prefer to drive rather than ride or walk to where I am going even though my car has a computer in it. Several computers in fact. Used to have cars with no computers and would never go back to those.
You seem to think I am a Luddite, which isn't true, I work with some pretty state of the art camera systems, all of which are more complicated and more prone to problems than the systems they replaced in my experience. Also you seem to be confusing electronic with digital, which wasn't my point at all. No camera with electronics is as reliable or offers the opportunity for creative intuition as a traditional view camera. Its simple math, and simple control, and has nothing to do with my cup of tea, except that I like to concentrate on photography, and like the technical part of it evolved to a set standard that meets my needs without having to re-up and re-learn every 2 years or so, or more likely, constantly. I'd rather have the technical part in the bag, and be a photographer 24/7.
For me, it is a matter of what I prefer to concentrate on. It does seem to be a strange philosophy in "photography" these days. I certainly don't begrudge invention, and I find this an interesting concept, but I doubt it will have the level of interest that will make it a viable product for mass consumption. DSLR's had a huge consumer base who didn't know a stop from a hole in the ground waiting for the next best thing, and the megapixel race still bears that out.
Anyway, I'm not here to rain on the parade, just saying that personally I wouldn't be that interested in one more gadget I don't need to part me from my money and distract me from actually photographing things. I think that is one of the biggest problems facing many photographers, divorcing themselves from magic bullets and figuring out that a proper exposure properly developed and well printed as the result of from something well seen is the real magic bullet, and all the tech in the world won't get you there.
I think the point about the faulty altimeter is that the jet was on auto-pilot and that piece of digital wonder (the auto pilot) has gotten to be depended on too much to the point that even though the flight crew knew there was faulty info being fed into it, they assumed it would still work properly (as in "not crash the plane").
But the point is that "that piece of digital wonder" as you call it did work properly. It was the result of human error in judgement combined with faulty piece of "non-digital wonder" that brought that plane down.
I am willing to bet that human errors in depth perception and the rate of speed downed many more airplanes than all the flight computers combined.
So instead of Ted Orland's "Expose for the secrets, develop for the surprises.", we will tend to get a lot of "Expose by digital display, develop for uniformity." Users will be depending on limited computing power, hardware limitations, and the parameters set up by the programmers to visualize the final image -- instead of depending on the far superior computing power and imagination of one's own brain.
Vaughn
I am old enough to remember old-fashioned science professors making this very argument against routine use of computers in science under the pretext that it will dumb down the students and make them too reliant on computer brain instead of their own. Had they had it their way, there'd still be no microbiology and genetic engineering as we know it today. No CT scans and no MRI either. Many other scientific disciplines would either be severely held back or wouldn't exist as we know them.
In fact, computers are just instruments designed to automate repeatable mental tasks and liberate our brains for truly creative thinking. A mental shovel, to continue using the same metaphor if you will. Just like the real shovel digs no holes by itself, neither does this mental one think on its own. If human users fail to do their role - as they did in the case of that plane, we shouldn't blame the tools.
You seem to think I am a Luddite, which isn't true, I work with some pretty state of the art camera systems, all of which are more complicated and more prone to problems than the systems they replaced in my experience. Also you seem to be confusing electronic with digital, which wasn't my point at all. No camera with electronics is as reliable or offers the opportunity for creative intuition as a traditional view camera. Its simple math, and simple control, and has nothing to do with my cup of tea, except that I like to concentrate on photography, and like the technical part of it evolved to a set standard that meets my needs without having to re-up and re-learn every 2 years or so, or more likely, constantly. I'd rather have the technical part in the bag, and be a photographer 24/7.
For me, it is a matter of what I prefer to concentrate on. It does seem to be a strange philosophy in "photography" these days. I certainly don't begrudge invention, and I find this an interesting concept, but I doubt it will have the level of interest that will make it a viable product for mass consumption. DSLR's had a huge consumer base who didn't know a stop from a hole in the ground waiting for the next best thing, and the megapixel race still bears that out.
You seem to be confusing one's preference with the facts of the matter. A camera, any camera, is just an inanimate piece of equipment, a tool for the task. It has no mind of its own and it depends entirely on what is going on within 12 inches behind it. It's main and only function is to keep the light sensitive material on one end dark and let the controlled amount of light at the specified moment in time through the other end. It has nothing to do with creativity or intuition - those are the user functions, not camera functions.
If I consider you a Luddite, that's only because you come across that way in your own words. Look up a definition of the term, then compare with what you just said above and you'll see that you were paraphrasing Nedd Ludd himself almost verbatim. I am just noticing the pattern. ;)
So all those catastrophes and failed launches and lost satellites, and the initial focusing system failure on the Hubble and so many other mishaps including the very recent satellite collision were all a result of a calculated decision stemming from someone's careful and deliberate brainstorming session where they chose just the right idea among so many?
...
Oh no, "all those catastrophes and failed launches" etc. were just trials to see if the ideas are feasible at all or not... :) How otherwise could we know?? :( Let's have a try guys, to see if the idea could work - let's shoot it up, we shall see... Ups, it didn't work. Engineering à la the brave engineers who cannot dream up an idea but they can realize them all...
To me, "electronic" means less moving parts which in turn means "more reliable".
....
Oh! What moves is less reliable than what is electronic. Simple as that. Yet another big truth about engineering...
The problem is that when you defend nonsense you can do it only with more of the nonsense. Some more in the collection? :rolleyes:
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 12:02
You seem to be confusing one's preference with the facts of the matter. A camera, any camera, is just an inanimate piece of equipment, a tool for the task. It has no mind of its own and it depends entirely on what is going on within 12 inches behind it. It's main and only function is to keep the light sensitive material on one end dark and let the controlled amount of light at the specified moment in time through the other end. It has nothing to do with creativity or intuition - those are the user functions, not camera functions.
If I consider you a Luddite, that's only because you come across that way in your own words. Look up a definition of the term, then compare with what you just said above and you'll see that you were paraphrasing Nedd Ludd himself almost verbatim. I am just noticing the pattern. ;)
Your point about a camera being an inanimate object is exactly my point, we do agree in a round about way. Why complicate what works? Unless someone suffers from a visual or cognitive impairment, how is looking at a video display an improvement over viewing and focusing the light that makes the exposure? Why would I want to push more buttons, carry more stuff, think about more things, twiddle more dealios in the field, when I could simply put my head under the cloth and look? It doesn't seem to serve much purpose except to be another crutch in the quest to buy ones way into being any good. I'm definitely not a Luddite, simply a focused person. If some technology comes along that truly improves my ability to concentrate on the matter at hand, I will adopt it. I haven't seen that to be the case, mostly things developed to urge me to be a consumer. Dream up a need, reinforce the need, offer the solution, make the sale. Not being a consumer doesn't make a Luddite. Mostly I prefer to have the craft part of things to be and remain second nature. If one prefers one can do what one may, and it is simply my preference that my inanimate objects stay that way:p . I prefer as little as possible in my way, and viewing the composition on the ground glass is direct as it gets. The simple and direct nature of LF is quite simply a distillation, whereas I find the other direction to be a dilution, and most gadgets and gimmickry weighed on photographers these days serve only as a diversion from the matter at hand, to the point now where even cameras themselves are now overcomplicated gizmos built to be everything to everyone, offering easily attainable average results to average photographers and requiring vast machinations of ancillary hardware and software for exceptional results by a good photographer. (As an aside, I think having the image upside down has done more for many photographers sense of composition than all the formula in the world, but of course that is subjective as anything else you or I have written here.)
Oh no, "all those catastrophes and failed launches" etc. were just trials to see if the ideas are feasible at all or not... :) How otherwise could we know?? :( Let's have a try guys, to see if the idea could work - let's shoot it up, we shall see... Ups, it didn't work. Engineering à la the brave engineers who cannot dream up an idea but they can realize them all...
Does the name Hindenburg ring a bell somewhere behind all that hyperventilation?
The fact that hydrogen is explosively flammable and that helium is not never occurred to the genius who came up with an idea to design a lighter-than-air flying machine! Oops, a bunch of people burned to death...
How about Titanic? That particular genius thought 1,200-seat lifeboat capacity was plenty for a ship that takes 3500 people. Oops, 1,500 people dead.
Or perhaps Apollo 1? Three people dead because the hatch was designed to open only inwards. Oops.
All examples of great forethought and creative prowess... Plenty more in recent history.
Oh! What moves is less reliable than what is electronic. Simple as that. Yet another big truth about engineering...
The problem is that when you defend nonsense you can do it only with more of the nonsense. Some more in the collection? :rolleyes:
No, but that's why you're here, following me around and yapping at every turn.
Dude, go get a life!
aphexafx
5-Mar-2009, 12:21
Everyone who is spending their time posting here arguing for traditional methods and simpler cameras: Can you imagine for a minute that there are other areas in photography besides wheat fields and mountian-scapes? That’s fantastic, please, move on. The OP wanted to discuss his idea and also the progression of technology for LF photography...
To put it the other way: the real question is not: why try something new. It is: why not?
What's the worst that can happen? It's not like it's going to somehow replace film, now, is it? ;)
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 12:28
To put it the other way: the real question is not: why try something new. It is: why not?
I'd rather waste my time being a photographer, using what works. ;)
aphexafx
5-Mar-2009, 12:30
Seriously, go hammer yourself together a big camera made of redwood and canvas if it makes you feel grand, meanwhile I think those of us who are able to embrace progressive technology into our workflows would be just ripped to the tits to be able to chat about it... ;)
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 12:38
Everyone who is spending their time posting here arguing for traditional methods and simpler cameras: Can you imagine for a minute that there are other areas in photography besides wheat fields and mountian-scapes? That’s fantastic, please, move on. The OP wanted to discuss his idea and also the progression of technology for LF photography...
I generally photograph people. You are quite right however on the other point, and I assume Marko will be around to deride anything remotely positive about film in many threads to come;) . My apologies to the OP for my part in the diversion. Carry on.
Does the name Hindenburg ring a bell somewhere behind all that hyperventilation?
The fact that hydrogen is explosively flammable and that helium is not never occurred to the genius who came up with an idea to design a lighter-than-air flying machine! Oops, a bunch of people burned to death...
How about Titanic? That particular genius thought 1,200-seat lifeboat capacity was plenty for a ship that takes 3500 people. Oops, 1,500 people dead.
Or perhaps Apollo 1? Three people dead because the hatch was designed to open only inwards. Oops.
All examples of great forethought and creative prowess... Plenty more in recent history.
No, but that's why you're here, following me around and yapping at every turn.
Dude, go get a life!
Indeed, it was well known to the Hindenburg's engineers that helium is not inflammable. Didn't you know it? Contrary to your idea of engineering they didn't just "try" hydrogen to see if it is inflammable or not and if the idea of using hydrogen is feasible. As true engineers they knew it before. The hydrogen was used because helium was so expensive as to be unavailable in their time. Didn't you know it?
Is it known to you that name calling is not allowed in posts on this forum? Or do you just try to beef up your special ideas about engineering with name calling? :rolleyes:
As I said - nonsense you can defend only with more nonsense, never with correct logic. That logic is also used in true engineering...:)
aphexafx
5-Mar-2009, 13:05
I generally photograph people. You are quite right however on the other point, and I assume Marko will be around to deride anything remotely positive about film in many threads to come;) . My apologies to the OP for my part in the diversion. Carry on.
JBrunner, just to be clear, no offence to you personally was intended from my posts above. :)
You have made some good points, Marco...and have stretched a few points, too, but then so have I. And I have tried (but failed) to include the probability that there are those who will master any tool and be able to use them creatively.
And, of course, have dissenting opinions brandied about is a good thing -- otherwise one ends up with such things as wars, labor saving devices that just take up space, and that sort of things.
Tools, by their design, determine how one uses them. The shape of the blade and type of handle of a shovel will determine how one digs the hole. The more specialized the tool, the less versitile it becomes. So I will leave it at that before I dig too deep of a hole! Thanks for the exchange!
Vaughn
[...] and I assume Marko will be around to deride anything remotely positive about film in many threads to come;)
You know what people say about assumptions and those who make them, right? ;)
I'd rather waste my time being a photographer, using what works. ;)
I don't doubt. But then, why are we having this conversation? Who's deriding whom here? Seriously, what's wrong with APUG? There's enough anti-technology bitching going on over there to cover several life times, why do you have to bring it here? Is it just to shoot down a discussion you claim you're not interested in?
You have made some good points, Marco...and have stretched a few points, too, but then so have I. And I have tried (but failed) to include the probability that there are those who will master any tool and be able to use them creatively.
And, of course, have dissenting opinions brandied about is a good thing -- otherwise one ends up with such things as wars, labor saving devices that just take up space, and that sort of things.
Tools, by their design, determine how one uses them. The shape of the blade and type of handle of a shovel will determine how one digs the hole. The more specialized the tool, the less versitile it becomes. So I will leave it at that before I dig too deep of a hole! Thanks for the exchange!
Vaughn
Thank you for being civil and reasonable, always a pleasure to talk with someone like that, even if we do not necessarily agree.
And yes, it is so much better to confront ideas than people. Ideas do get stretched in the discussion and there must be at least something valid about those that do not break in the process... :)
Marko
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 13:32
You know what people say about assumptions and those who make them, right? ;)
I don't doubt. But then, why are we having this conversation? Who's deriding whom here? Seriously, what's wrong with APUG? There's enough anti-technology bitching going on over there to cover several life times, why do you have to bring it here? Is it just to shoot down a discussion you claim you're not interested in?
I said I probably wouldn't be interested in the product, but I am actually interested in the discussion, which I will most likely continue to follow. An opinion isn't anti anything. I'm not however interested in your agenda, which is always adversarial, and has little do do with anything other than dragging up your cherished grindstones. I'd like to see the subject continue on topic.
"troll bait rejected"
Indeed, it was well known to the Hindenburg's engineers that helium is not inflammable. Didn't you know it? Contrary to your idea of engineering they didn't just "try" hydrogen to see if it is inflammable or not and if the idea of using hydrogen is feasible. As true engineers they knew it before. The hydrogen was used because helium was so expensive as to be unavailable in their time. Didn't you know it?
Ok, so let me see if I, being so clueless and nonsensical that I am, understand this correctly: they chose to hang a hundred or so people underneath a huge, hydrogen-filled flying contraption even though they knew that hydrogen is flammable? And they did it simply because the safe substitute was too expensive?
Truly ingenious!
Except maybe for a small, nagging question: didn't it occur to them that it might not be such a great idea after all?
Didn't it occur to you that this was the real question I was asking?
As I said - nonsense you can defend only with more nonsense, never with correct logic. That logic is also used in true engineering...:)
As you have just so aptly demonstrated...
JBrunner
5-Mar-2009, 13:40
If the sensor was of adequate resolution to judge focus as a ground glass, why wouldn't you simply use use the sensor to record the image? How would this be that much different in actual application to a scanning back and a laptop?
(The real flaw with the Hindenburg was the aluminum powdered paint, not the hydrogen)
If the sensor was of adequate resolution to judge focus as a ground glass, why wouldn't you simply use use the sensor to record the image? How would this be that much different in actual application to a scanning back and a laptop?
(The real flaw with the Hindenburg was the aluminum powdered paint, not the hydrogen)
Yes, that's the real question. The only difference I can see is that it would in effect be a single-shot sensor, not a scanning back, which would be even better.
(Without the hydrogen, the Hindenburg wouldn't have burned. Alumin(i)um powder acted as a catalyst, not as fuel.)
Ok, so let me see if I, being so clueless and nonsensical that I am, understand this correctly: they chose to hang a hundred or so people underneath a huge, hydrogen-filled flying contraption even though they knew that hydrogen is flammable? And they did it simply because the safe substitute was too expensive?
Truly ingenious!
Except maybe for a small, nagging question: didn't it occur to them that it might not be such a great idea after all?
Didn't it occur to you that this was the real question I was asking?
As you have just so aptly demonstrated...
Do you really feel so superior to the Zeppelin engineers as you speak? Really? You take them for fools? The huge hydrogen things made a real history in aviation, like it or not. Fools according to you?:rolleyes: Never ending your collection...
Actually, yes, I do. That's the least I would consider anybody who can't be bothered to consider the implications and consequences of his grand ideas, especially when people die because of it. As well as anybody who sees nothing wrong with that.
And I also feel immensely bo(the)red by your incessant ranting. Please, enough of this silliness, go get a life or something. Game over, as far as I'm concerned. Go harass somebody else.
Actually, yes, I do. That's the least I would consider anybody who can't be bothered to consider the implications and consequences of his grand ideas, especially when people die because of it. As well as anybody who sees nothing wrong with that.
And I also feel immensely bo(the)red by your incessant ranting. Please, enough of this silliness, go get a life or something. Game over, as far as I'm concerned. Go harass somebody else.
You consider yourself superior to Zeppelin engineers... Congratulation, that, hopefully, was the last one from your collection.
I am not sure, but I am willing to bet there was a bunch of Nationalism and oneupmanship also involved in the decision-making process with the Zeppelins...enough, anyway to overcome the more conservative safety-minded (and suspeciously less than desired patriotic) engineers.
Not too dissimilar to scientists (such as fisheries biologists) making recommendations, then the legislators making the decisions based on what's best for the local contributions, I mean economy.
Vaughn
I am not sure, but I am willing to bet there was a bunch of Nationalism and oneupmanship also involved in the decision-making process with the Zeppelins...enough, anyway to overcome the more conservative safety-minded (and suspeciously less than desired patriotic) engineers.
...
Vaughn
Actually, it was. Not dissimilar to the Kennedy's highly proclaimed patriotic reasons when he "started" the man to the Moon project. Nothing bad with that. Zeppelins had an excellent safety record up to the H. catastrophe. If I'm not mistaken the record was much better than for airplanes in that time! And its construction was on such a high level that when a new Zepp was done, 10 years ago or so, in Switzerland (?) its engineers didn't change it in a great detail, except for materials. Quite the contrary - they marveled over the achievements of their predecessors in many details. The classical engineering reached an excellent level long before we were born. Unfortunately, helium was out of reach in that time, were it not, they would embrace it and the Zepp era would probably be not interrupted up to our time, when it was again rediscovered. Amazing things, human ideas in engineering...
Well, you know what they say; Eventually all internet discussions about digital displays on the back of large format cameras eventually break down into bitter arguments about the Hindenburg disaster. I see it all the time, it's such a shame.
aphexafx
5-Mar-2009, 16:18
^ lol :D
Struan Gray
6-Mar-2009, 02:03
In the 1930s helium in large enough quantities to fill an airship was only available from one source - the USA government - and they placed an embargo on supplying the strategic gas to Germany. The Hindenburg was originally designed to use Helium, on the assumption that the embargo would be lifted, but was then re-designed to use Hydrogen when it became clear that that wasn't going to happen.
You can spin this any way you like (Govt. interference in the free market leading to tragic deaths anyone?), but nobody who has read even as little as the Wikipedia article blames the design engineers for lack of vision.
And. FWIW. I see no difference whatsoever between my personal artistic creativity and my scientific and engineering creativity. I do see a difference between technically-minded people who think in pictures and those who think in symbols (the former tend to take photographs, the latter make music), but the 'Two Cultures' myth is largely the pet of innumerate humanities students looking for an excuse to avoid math.
Thanks Struan, for clarifying that point. Little did I know that there was some hurdle with the helium. Embargoes are often double edge swords. It would be highly paradoxical if the victims of the catastrophe were also American passengers...
Indeed, as I just checked the passenger list on that tragic flight, at least 5 killed were American citizens, not counting the one from the airport crew perished there too. How sadly paradoxical!
Struan Gray
6-Mar-2009, 05:53
Thanks Struan, for clarifying that point. Little did I know that there was some hurdle with the helium.
There still is :-)
Although you can buy helium gas and liquid from a number of industrial gas suppliers, most of it comes from the same Texan wells as in the 1930s. For a few weeks after 9/11 supplies were severely restricted and the prices jumped considerably. Russia and China have both been working hard to secure their own supplies.
In the 1930s helium in large enough quantities to fill an airship was only available from one source - the USA government - and they placed an embargo on supplying the strategic gas to Germany. The Hindenburg was originally designed to use Helium, on the assumption that the embargo would be lifted, but was then re-designed to use Hydrogen when it became clear that that wasn't going to happen.
You can spin this any way you like (Govt. interference in the free market leading to tragic deaths anyone?), but nobody who has read even as little as the Wikipedia article blames the design engineers for lack of vision.
And. FWIW. I see no difference whatsoever between my personal artistic creativity and my scientific and engineering creativity. I do see a difference between technically-minded people who think in pictures and those who think in symbols (the former tend to take photographs, the latter make music), but the 'Two Cultures' myth is largely the pet of innumerate humanities students looking for an excuse to avoid math.
I brought the question before and our resident troll chose to ignore it or simply did not understand it.
I fail to understand how someone who consciously decide to use so explosively flammable material in such quantities enclosed in a catalytic material to commercially fly around a bunch of civilians could possibly not be blamed for lack of vision? How could it not occur to them that a catastrophe was going to happen sooner rather than later? Could they not foresee the outcome?
I agree that the original design and the idea behind it was great, but when the only materials you have available are those that are certain to kill your users, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't, take much vision to shelve the project as non-feasible.
Speaking of myths, many scientists and engineers believe that since they know everything there is to know about the world and how it functions, they can solve any problem and create anything anybody could possibly want or need. But there must be at least one good reason why we still have doctors, graphic designers and such professions. The best one I can think of is that deep down they are the same humans as everybody else around them, capable of great ideas but also liable to tunnel vision and making mistakes.
The line about humanities students who hate math is an obvious example of this last fact - it is a great idea and effective comeback, but you must have overlooked the post where I said I had a science degree and a few years of formal engineering education... :)
This hopefully concludes the Hindenburg discussion in all its glory and bitterness. Shall we now proceed to Titanic? :D
Nathan Potter
6-Mar-2009, 07:59
Helium gas is recovered from deep natural gas wells as Struan says, mostly in Texas. Natural sources closer to the earths surface have dissipated into space over eons of time so there are finite quantities left deeper within the earth. I used a lot of He in liquid form in the past when I was involved in superconducting device research. When liquified it can be stored in a vacuum jacketed dewar where the equilibrium temperature is at 4.2 degrees Kelvin. So it is a very useful and easy to use medium to evaluate the properties of any superconductor whose transition temperature is above 4.2 degree K. - niobium for example which becomes superconducting at about 9.2 degrees K. IIRC the liquid form is around 900 times the mole weight of the gas. I think we paid (in the 90's) about $5.00 per liter for the liquid in 30 liter dewars from local gas suppliers. I believe our source was, however, from Louisiana wells. I'd hate to pay the current cost for filling a large dirigible.
BTW a Swede, Kammerling Onnes sp., was the first to discover the superconducting state owing, I believe, to him being the first to liquify helium - the 1911 date sticks in my mind. The study of the superconducting state is one of the most fasinating in physics due to the macroscopic manifestation of a paired electron single wavefunction over a measurable breadth of material.
Well, more than anyone ever wanted to know. :) :)
Nate Potter, Austin Tx.
Struan Gray
6-Mar-2009, 08:28
a Swede, Kammerling Onnes
Kammerlingh Onnes was Dutch.
We sell LHe for $10 per liter at today's exchange rates, but you have to supply your own jar :-)
Alan Davenport
6-Mar-2009, 09:05
You guys are funny.
I happen to know a fair number of engineer types in various fields from architecture to CS and being engineers they all have one thing in common: They can engineer anything ONCE they are provided with the idea or a vision. But I wouldn't be waiting for them to dream something up on their own, except maybe for the architects.
...
...
Speaking of myths, many scientists and engineers believe that since they know everything there is to know about the world and how it functions, they can solve any problem and create anything anybody could possibly want or need.
...
This hopefully concludes the Hindenburg discussion in all its glory and bitterness. Shall we now proceed to Titanic? :D
I hope this one from your collection is the last of your ideas about engineering. Or is it...:rolleyes:
...:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: Never ending your collection...
that, hopefully, was the last one from your collection.
I hope this one from your collection is the last of your ideas about engineering. Or is it...:rolleyes:
... continues (smiley limit)
:rolleyes:
[...]
:rolleyes:
[...]
:rolleyes:
Some more in the collection? :rolleyes:
...
:rolleyes:
Pssst... Your record broke a while ago... Looks like a bad case of tired material to me. Happens when the load exceeds fatigue limit.
I'm not telling you how to do your engineering, but you obviously need to either reduce the load or use better material...
el french
7-Mar-2009, 01:15
When was the last time anyone on this thread rode in a car? It seems there's an extremely explosive substance being carried around in it. Are all of the car designer's idiots because they're exposing millions of people to a possible death by explosion.
p.s. I think the OP's idea is interesting even if not affordable with current technology.
This thread has been blown out of any proportion. There's absolutely no need to keep beating the already dead horse.
I almost feel sorry for trying to express my opinion about the original topic and I definitely regret falling for a troll and thus contributing to butchering what could otherwise have been a very interesting discussion. If this makes the trolls among us happy, well, at least someone derived some satisfaction from all this, however sick.
If anybody feels like they absolutely have to keep hacking at the non-issues raised here in order to sleep better come next night, feel free to PM or email me instead of dumping it all here.
There. I hope this finally stops the madness.
:mad:
timparkin
8-Mar-2009, 09:40
Do you like this picture of my kitten?
Tim
p.s. Sorry for being slightly off topic
p.p.s Sorry for lack of picture
p.p.p.s Sorry...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.