--- Mortimer Snerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heehee. How long do you think it takes a resonably
> fast microcontroller to take 16Mpxl of data from a
> sensor and do any manipulation (compression,
> sharpening) and THEN fling it onto mass storage?
> This
> is clearly going to take a pretty powerful processor
> with some high energy requirements. :-)
<snip>
> PS This is the main reason I think the "digital
> film"
> concepts we've been taunted with the past couple
> years
> can't possibly work... where they hell do you put
> the
> batteries to make it work? ;-)
Well, such a camera would come with a battery pack
included. So it would have the size of a 1vHS. New
processors etc can reduce the power cosumption so that
such a solution becomes reasonable.
Admitedly, getting the data out is a problem. That's
why I was wondering about the fps and max. sequence.
Nevertheless, there are lots of options. For example
if you need high fps you can work with just 4Mpixel
output. In order to still get a good SNR you can do an
average of four pixel which is very simple and fast.
Battery life and processing speed can be improved by
using specialized (co-)processors. So instead of using
a general purpose DSP to do jpeg compression you can
use an ASIC to do that. Also many new DSP now come
with lots of control functions for motors, interfaces,
etc which might make it possible to get rid of an
additional processor. Power consumption of newer chips
was reduces even more. etc. etc.
I agree that for now the above is pushing the limits
for a non-studio camera but it's not impossible.
Robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
