This discussion has triggered my earliest digital camera memories,
back when TV studios were still using tubes to image.
My camera was about the size of the Hubble, flew in orbits between 250
and 175 miles depending on requirements, and could image items on
earth as small as 40 inches (one meter +). In 1976. By the time I left
the project in 1987, it could image items as small as a loaf of sliced
American bread. Some said as small as a golf ball, but that's a
contrast thing, not resolution. You could tell if someone had a hat or
helmet on, and if their shirt was long sleeved or short.
The sensor consisted of three overlapping strips of CCD sensor about
2" long and 1/4 inch wide.
_________________
______________ _____________
Like that. They could image either in "still mode" or "strip mode". In
either case they were capturing the image as it crossed the sensors
and the satellite cruised by overhead. In strip mode you could take in
a 10 to 60 mile wide area (vertical or oblique) by as long as you
wanted. The bird was stabilized and pointed (positioned) quite rapidly
if need be by a series of Control Motion Gyros (CMG) that had brakes
on each. CMGs were spinning rapidly, and to reposition the satellite
the brakes were applied to one or more of the CMGs for a bit to start
the motion, then again to the opposite CMG to stop it. Six CMGs were
employed, in various orientations, though I believe three were
primary, and the other three were cut in as backups if one of the
primaries failed. Because it was in space, and weightless, it didn't
take as much energy as you think, but you were starting and stopping
several tons, and the laws of inertia still applied.
The latest generations are still up there, so always smile and wave
when you look up at the clouds
On Jun 1, 2009, at 13:03 , Adam Maas wrote:
Note that while Nikon had their chips fabbed elsewhere, they did
develop most of them in-house (By the release of the D100 Nikon had
been making DSLR's for over a decade). Pentax lacked the in-house
design team Nikon had and thus had to rely on outside sensor
development until the Samsung partnership.
Kodak would have been a poor choice, they haven't had a competitive
small format sensor since the DCS760 and that sensor was already
obsolete by the time the issues with the Phillips sensor became known.
-Adam
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Desjardins, Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the info.
The article in the original email cited lack of expertise or
investment as the big problem with the film to digital transition.
It seems to me that Pentax was trying to keep up but definitely
needed a partner in the electronics industry to make the sensors.
Maybe they should have tried Kodak. I do remember (now) that Canon
was in-house but that Nikon was getting their chips from elsewhere.
Canon's sensors have been in-house since the D30 in 2000, prior to
that they supplied bodies to Kodak for Canon-mount derivations of the
Kodak/Nikon DCS series bodies.
Nikon's a mix, they partnered heavily with Kodak on the Kodak-branded
DCS series (there were also a couple Canon-based DCS models) while
the
D1 series had Nikon-designed sensors custom-fabricated for them.
Their
first camera with a commercially-available sensor was the D100 in
2002, which was the launch camera for the Sony 6MP sensor and Nikon
almost assuredly had a 1 year exclusivity contract on that sensor.
The
*istD was the second camera to use that sensor and it was announced
just about exactly 1 year later. Nikon had a similar deal with the DX
10MP CCD sensor in the D200 (and later in the K10D, Sony A100 and
their derivatives).
-Adam
There wasn't a "safe" DX sensor at the time Pentax started work on
the
MZ-D. The Sony DX 6MP CCD sensor that would become the basis for so
many Pentax and Nikon DSLR's along with both the Konica Minolta
DSLR's
wasn't available until 2002. Frankly Pentax wasn't late to the
party,
excepting Contax's ill-fated N Digital, Pentax was the first of the
smaller makers to announce a DSLR and pretty much tied with
Olympus in
being the first to ship.
-Adam
---- Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
Mike,
I heard you, but just because Hasselblad tried and got tripped up
doesn't mean that they could have stopped the revolution.
That's kind
of like saying "If Longenes didn't have their head up their ass,
they
could have saved the mechanical watch industry." Eastman Kodak
had
the resources and the knowledge of what was on the horizon, and
they
were much better capitalized than Hassy. They lost a lot more
in this
revolution than a simple camera maker.
Regards, Bob S.
That's not ("stopped the revolution") what I'm saying.
Hasselblad was a _leader_ in the revolution until the company
owners/management, for reasons that seem at first glance to be
incredibly selfish, pulled the plug on the research and
development and spent the money on something else. Probably
themselves.
Companies have an institutional memory and like to do what
they know
how to do well. A major technological innovation can mean major
dislocations. Suddenly that expensive Swiss timepiece is
bested by a
$6 chip watch from Texas Instruments. Mechanical time pieces
became
an anachronism. So too with film cameras... Regards, Bob S.
Joseph McAllister
[email protected]
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
