[stormcloud]

The point is having more room to do more things. I don't like living in small houses.

Code:

Point & Shoot			==		Notebooks

SLR-like				==		Laptops

DSLR (aps-c)			==		Desktops

DSLR (Full-Frame)		==		Workstations

Medium-Format DSLR		==		Servers

Large-Format Digital		==		Enterprise Servers

Not everyone wants a workstation! Not only do I want a workstation, I want one with multiple processors, like my AMD liquid-cooled quad-socket motherboard. Now that's what I'm talking about!

But then again, how many people do you know who could even conceive of doing something like this? And yeah, it's mine!


Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao
And just more of my art. I just shot this tonight.

as a matter of fact i have used custom workstations for years - but they ahve no relevance to cameras - i can build a computer up from scratch no problem all need is a screwdriver - they are designed that way to be compatible - unless you get out the old soldering iron out and a load of transistors and make your motherboard - then write your own operating system - this hack job is never going to work

even if you take the chip and image processor and place them in an old camera it wont have a clue what to do with them - it would need a custom firmware for it and thats assuming that by some miricle the icb in the camera happened to be able to handle the chips - which almost certainly wont even have the same socket arangment let alone connecting to the right things even if it did fit in the socket

[Blue]

if im nt wrong lens and sensor have some precision measurement to make

So do processors, hard drives and RAM.

[Blue]

as a matter of fact i have used custom workstations for years - but they ahve no relevance to cameras - i can build a computer up from scratch no problem all need is a screwdriver - they are designed that way to be compatible - unless you get out the old soldering iron out and a load of transistors and make your motherboard - then write your own operating system - this hack job is never going to work

even if you take the chip and image processor and place them in an old camera it wont have a clue what to do with them - it would need a custom firmware for it and thats assuming that by some miricle the icb in the camera happened to be able to handle the chips - which almost certainly wont even have the same socket arangment let alone connecting to the right things even if it did fit in the socket

I think his analogy at more to do with usage and was actually fairly good in that regard. That said, I'd like to see you make a processor with just a screw driver, or even a mother board for that matter. Those boards are soldered up with wave solder machines etc.

[stormcloud]

I think his analogy at more to do with usage and was actually fairly good in that regard. That said, I'd like to see you make a processor with just a screw driver, or even a mother board for that matter. Those boards are soldered up with wave solder machines etc.

i ment that you can assemble a computer from parts with nothing but a screwdriver - because all the parts are made on a single standard and they use drivers to make them speak to each otehr correctly

that is not the case with what are supposed to be sealed non interchangable components of a dslr camera

[Blue]

i ment that you can assemble a computer from parts with nothing but a screwdriver - because all the parts are made on a single standard and they use drivers to make them speak to each otehr correctly

that is not the case with what are supposed to be sealed non interchangable components of a dslr camera

You mean like a dSLR body from a company, a lens from the same company or 3rd party, flash, memory card etc. . . .

[bunegg]

if it will ever work u wun be posting here

[Shingoshi]

I think his analogy at more to do with usage and was actually fairly good in that regard. That said, I'd like to see you make a processor with just a screw driver, or even a mother board for that matter. Those boards are soldered up with wave solder machines etc.

I've actually already taken a camera apart. Things like the LCD screens seem to have common interfaces. But that is unimportant in my situation. Because if I stick with the existing components that Kodak still has available, I can switch over to the monochrome sensor of the same family as the color one. That's true for any company that makes sensors. As ALL color sensors start out as MONOCHROME without a Bayer filter. Or if possible, I may simply be able to remove the Bayer filter and instantly see a relative increase in my resolution, while losing all of the disadvantages of shooting color. Since every MONOCHROME sensor is using every pixel only for the production of the MONOCHROME image. So that Kodak 760 with it's measly 6 MegaPixels, suddenly now performs like a camera with 18 MegaPixels.

i ment that you can assemble a computer from parts with nothing but a screwdriver - because all the parts are made on a single standard and they use drivers to make them speak to each otehr correctly

that is not the case with what are supposed to be sealed non interchangable components of a dslr camera

You're assuming the parts are not interchangeable. If that were always the case, every company would have to redesign each and every camera whenever they introduced a newer model. The cost of doing that would be prohibitive. So parts from a single company are very likely to work from one unit to another.

But since I have now settled on getting the Hasselblad, none of this is of concern to me now. Because I will only have to buy a new back to change sensors if needed. And the special thing about the Hasselblad, is that most chip makers made square sensors. And they are almost always of higher resolution. Additionally, manufacturers often sell complete board cameras (with all necessary circuitry included!) without a body for installation per the customer's choice. So I am really taking the high road here and not looking back. The camera I intend to get is the 500EL/X.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

---

Last edited by Shingoshi; 11-27-2009 at 05:02 AM.

[knoxploration]

Because if I stick with the existing components that Kodak still has available, I can switch over to the monochrome sensor of the same family as the color one.

Apart from the fact that the camera's firmware won't know you've made that switch, and hence will still believe it is shooting with a Bayer-filtered sensor.

You *could* just buy the monochrome 760M version of the camera, though. That would make much more sense than trying to switch sensors, since you'd have to buy two cameras (you're not going to obtain the monochome variant of the sensor anywhere without it already being in a camera body, and that body is almost certainly going to be a Kodak already).

Or if possible, I may simply be able to remove the Bayer filter and instantly see a relative increase in my resolution, while losing all of the disadvantages of shooting color.

The very fact you believe it is possible to remove the Bayer filter shows exactly how little chance you have of accomplishing this. Read up:

Color filter array - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(The section you want is "Manufacture of the CFA". The color filter is an integral part of any modern DSLR sensor, and cannot be removed - it is deposited directly onto the surface of the image sensor. Even on older (1980s) sensors where that wasn't the case, the filter glass was physically glued to the sensor surface.

But since I have now settled on getting the Hasselblad, none of this is of concern to me now.

You change which camera you're buying more often than some people change underwear. One week ago it was the SLR/N. Then it was the DCS 760. Now it's a digital back for a Hasselblad. What'll it be tomorrow - left over NASA stock for one of Hubble's cameras?

You can't really expect anybody to believe this...

[Kunzite]

I think his analogy at more to do with usage and was actually fairly good in that regard. That said, I'd like to see you make a processor with just a screw driver, or even a mother board for that matter. Those boards are soldered up with wave solder machines etc.

Make??? Did Singoshi said anything about making his own sensor? You know, in one of these multi billion $$$ microprocessor fab he has?
No, he's talking about using supposedly available parts, so we're not talking about making ICs, but about assembling and solving compatibility issues. The analogy is to put the processor on it's slot on the mainboard, not making both of them. And guess what, you have only 2 options: either they're compatible (sometimes a BIOS update is required), either they aren't; and you'll have to give up.
And btw, when you put a processor on it's slot on the mainboard, you just push it in place (then, a simple restrain system will do the rest). There is no requirement for the processor to be precisely positioned (let's say within the micron) in the computer's case. If the sensor physical dimensions and/or the sensor plate is not 100% identical, guess what will happen...

[Blue]

Make??? Did Singoshi said anything about making his own sensor? You know, in one of these multi billion $$$ microprocessor fab he has?
No, he's talking about using supposedly available parts, so we're not talking about making ICs, but about assembling and solving compatibility issues. The analogy is to put the processor on it's slot on the mainboard, not making both of them. And guess what, you have only 2 options: either they're compatible (sometimes a BIOS update is required), either they aren't; and you'll have to give up.
And btw, when you put a processor on it's slot on the mainboard, you just push it in place (then, a simple restrain system will do the rest). There is no requirement for the processor to be precisely positioned (let's say within the micron) in the computer's case. If the sensor physical dimensions and/or the sensor plate is not 100% identical, guess what will happen...

I didn't say Singoshi was "making" processors. Stormcloud was the one that confused assembling a computer with making one, and implied the computer analogy wasn't valid because people can assemble there on computer system at home. I merely pointed out that we "assemble" our camera systems based on bodies, lenses, flashes and other camera accessory. I was referring to stormcloud's comment on assembling computer systems and reminding him that there is a difference in putting together motherboards and video cards than actually making them. For the record, before going back to college, I used to wave solder computer boards for a company that made custom p.c. boards. Your discussion about processors forgets that laptops etc. have typically had processors soldered to the board. You also forget that "making" the processor itself is more complicated as is cooling it. I guess you haven't studied how the internals of a hard drive works either. Those things are absolutely amazing feats of science and engineering. Furthermore, when we get a lens from the camera maker or a third party, that lens spacing as been worked out for the bodies. Something for flashes. Then there are people who adapt other mounts to different bodies.

I'd say the computer analogy was pretty good. Some computer parts are compatible with multiple platforms with varying functionality just like camera parts are. For example, FA lenses vs. some DA lenses. Like most analogies, they are never going to be perfect because they compare totally different things.

[Kunzite]

Well, my point is, since making components (cameras or computers) is out of the question - I sort of know one can't make a hdd with what tools one might find in a kitchen ; so a valid analogy can refer only to assembling components. If that's what you're saying, we agree on that.
What's different: in the cameras there is much less standardization, both from hardware and software point of view. One can't just change the sensor with a different one, install a driver and have everything works, like one would do with a graphic board for example. And if we're talking about lens mounts... how about making hardware designed for Canon EF to work with a Nikon F mount? With metering, AF and so on... it's a better analogy than just replacing a DA with an FA lens on your K-mount DSLR
I think Singoshi is very much underestimating the amount of work required, and the cost as well.

[Shingoshi]

Digital cameras now have more in common than their film predecessors did. Because of the extensive use of electronics, many of the subsystems in cameras are going to be used in many models, even from different manufacturers. Why, because camera manufacturers typically aren't chip makers. And all of those ICs have to be made by other companies. And all of those components will then be Off-the-Shelf parts. Essentially, there's actually much less to change than you have thought of. The only real place where difficulty would exist, is in the interfaces chosen by a particular company for the circuits they use. However, because most of the components have been acquired from other companies, for the majority of them, they will have the same interface.

So the bottom line is, not much of what you say has any validity at all. And while I am temporarily shelving the Kodak acquisition, I will return to it after I've gotten a lens for my Hasselblad. Because while no one here caught it, the relative increase in resolution from a color sensor would have to be increased by a factor of 4 to match the effective resolution of a MONOCHROME sensor. So instead of the Kodak being "stuck" with only 6 MegaPixels, in reality it would be performing like a camera with 24 MegaPixels. Now I'm just going to wait for some Knoxhole to tell me how that much resolution is something to scoff at. And that can be readily accomplished by simply removing the Bayer filter (if in fact that's a simple venture). But as I've stated, I'm satisfied with my present decision and will greatly enjoy the results of it. At least I won't be sitting around discussing and dreaming about vaporware.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[ryan s]

As ALL color sensors start out as MONOCHROME without a Bayer filter. Or if possible, I may simply be able to remove the Bayer filter and instantly see a relative increase in my resolution, while losing all of the disadvantages of shooting color. Since every MONOCHROME sensor is using every pixel only for the production of the MONOCHROME image. So that Kodak 760 with it's measly 6 MegaPixels, suddenly now performs like a camera with 18 MegaPixels.

So the bottom line is, not much of what you say has any validity at all. And while I am temporarily shelving the Kodak acquisition, I will return to it after I've gotten a lens for my Hasselblad. Because while no one here caught it, the relative increase in resolution from a color sensor would have to be increased by a factor of 4 to match the effective resolution of a MONOCHROME sensor. So instead of the Kodak being "stuck" with only 6 MegaPixels, in reality it would be performing like a camera with 24 MegaPixels.

Can't keep your "numbers" straight? Even posted during the same day.

I thought you were staying away from here, anyway?

Here's 2 simple questions. Any answer over 2 lines long means you have failed the quiz...
1. If it's soooooo easy to swap sensors/chips/guts of cameras...why haven't people (or even manufacturers, save Ricoh) done it? As in...keep the same body, upgrade the sensor as time goes by?
2. Why swap a sensor when you could just buy the whole body?

I think you'll find questions 1 & 2 quite intertwined

[Shingoshi]

Can't keep your "numbers" straight? Even posted during the same day.

I thought you were staying away from here, anyway?

Here's 2 simple questions. Any answer over 2 lines long means you have failed the quiz...
1. If it's soooooo easy to swap sensors/chips/guts of cameras...why haven't people (or even manufacturers, save Ricoh) done it? As in...keep the same body, upgrade the sensor as time goes by?
2. Why swap a sensor when you could just buy the whole body?

I think you'll find questions 1 & 2 quite intertwined

Kodak already did that repeatedly with their DCS series. They had no less than four different cameras based on the same identical Nikon F5 body. And their upgrades consisted of the simple exchange of sensors from one level to another.

There's your answer in two lines.

And I really have better things to do than this. I just had my offer for one of the two cameras I was considering, ACCEPTED! So one thing is for certain, there will be a Hasselblad in my future.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

EDIT: Oops! I came back and added a third sentence to my answer. I guess that will now just befuddle your capacity of comprehension. Oh wait, I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't use multisyllabic words with you either. Oh well. The limitations of some.

[ryan s]

Kodak already did that repeatedly with their DCS series. They had no less than four different cameras based on the same identical Nikon F5 body. And their upgrades consisted of the simple exchange of sensors from one level to another.

There's your answer in two lines.

And I really have better things to do than this. I just had my offer for one of the two cameras I was considering, ACCEPTED! So one thing is for certain, there will be a Hasselblad in my future.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

EDIT: Oops! I came back and added a third sentence to my answer. I guess that will now just befuddle your capacity of comprehension. Oh wait, I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't use multisyllabic words with you either. Oh well. The limitations of some.

Wait..."based on the same body" is not the same as "swappable sensors."

Funny how I've never seen a Kodak SLR in person...in a store...offered for sale new since, what, 2003?

If Kodak SLRs are the "be all, end all" why did you pass on one?

Edit: Your little comment at the end clearly shows your maturity level. Just an FYI: It should be "capacity for comprehension" since I do not have a definable capacity for something, eg a glass or bucket. Somewhat like fewer/less.