Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 29, 2013, 1:55 AM   #21
Senior Member
Wizzard0003's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085

Regarding one possibility that comes to my mind as to how the unit could know when
the shutter has fired:

The photosites of the sensor are basically nothing more than photo cells that produce
an electrical charge when stimulated by light... The software (firmware) reads the
intensity and duration of that charge and extrapolates it into a digital value... Then
combines the values of all the photosites and renders all that into a digital image...

The film advance sprocket signals the software to turn the sensor on (ready)... The
inside of the camera is completely devoid of light, not even a single photon (assuming
the camera back seals are intact and the shutter is in good condition and there are no
"light leaks")... When the shutter fires there will be a "spike" in the electrical output
from the sensors photosites... The software (firmware) could easily be written to only
record the values received during the spike and dismiss everything before and then
turn the sensor off (put it in stand-by) until signaled by the film advance sprocket to
set the sensor again to the "ready" state... To prevent the sensor from overheating
the software (firmware) automatically shuts down the sensor (stand-by) after about
5-8 minutes...

Even in the woods, at night, with overcast clouds and no moon there is more light
than what is inside the camera when the back and the shutter are closed... The
camera sensor is much more sensitive than the human eye... Even the smallest
infinitesimal amount of light will still be registered by the sensor and be considered
a "spike"... In other words it's more than absolutely nothing...

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2013, 2:25 AM   #22
Senior Member
Wizzard0003's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
Posts: 1,085

Originally Posted by JimC View Post

I've watched the full video twice, and I've also read through the comments. What I am missing?
At the end of the video is a slide show... In this slide show he indicates that he's worked
with software designers and they have told him that they can write software to do what it
is he wants to do... He's worked with hardware engineers and they've told him that they
can miniaturize the hardware that he needs so it will fit in the canister part of the frame he's
designed... He's worked with hardware manufacturers and they have told him that they can
manufacture the hardware designed by the hardware engineers but he would need to order
a minimum of 1000 units...

None of these people (software designers, hardware engineers or hardware manufacturers)
work for free... They expect to get paid for their efforts... If the inventor wants to take it to
the next step he needs to have the money to pay these people to do their thing so he can
take his idea to the next level...

The inventor is simply saying "I have an idea... I don't have the money to go forward with
the idea... If you would like to see something like this become a reality and you believe in
me and my idea please help me 'try' and get there"...

There are never any "guarantee's" that any product will ever make it to market, that's
what risk investment is about...

Ten years ago I couldn't stream a movie and watch it on my TV... Now I stream
all of my TV through Netflix and other online sources and it plays just about as
good as a DVD, not "exactly" but close and it gets better every day...

We now have "Smart Phones" that for all intent and purpose are mini computers
that we carry in our pocket... They are almost as powerful as laptops from ten years
ago, and in many ways even more so and, again, getting better every day...

Just because something wasn't possible yesterday doesn't mean that it's still impossible

I prefer to see the glass half full...

D7k with old/new glass and a few other things...

Last edited by Wizzard0003; Aug 29, 2013 at 3:10 AM.
Wizzard0003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2013, 1:43 PM   #23
JimC's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

The problem is that if the fund raiser page doesn't give enough convincing detail so that potential investors are comfortable that a workable design exists (I'm sure not convinced, as there are too many open issues on how it's supposed to work), then the needed funding is going to fall short of the desired goals.

At it stands right now, I'm not seeing enough detail about the design to feel comfortable with it, as the technical information about how it's going to work is just too vague and unconvincing (especially without a working prototype that resembles the final product -- as a piece of plastic that's supposed to house the sensor assembly when it's finished is just not enough for me).

So, without more [convincing] technical detail, I just don't think the funding needed for the device to be completed so that the next phase (production of a working device) will occur

It's the old "chicken and egg" or "cart and horse" argument. ;-)

If I were the fund raiser, I'd be a lot more specific about how it's going to work, with far more technical detail. Otherwise, I'm afraid that potential investors will view it as only a vague "wishful thinking" idea without any detailed technical design that would allow the manufacturer of a working device.

I've got a number of film cameras myself. So, sure, I would not mind having a solution that allows me to use a drop in digital solution instead of 35mm film.

But, given the detail (or rather, lack thereof) about the DigiPod so far, I'm not holding my breath that the fund raiser is going come up with a usable solution with acceptable image quality.

You can say that I've been looking at the glass as "half empty" versus "half full". But, I tend to be a realist; and I have yet to see anything that convinces me that the fund raiser for the DigiPod has a usable design. In fact, the opposite is probably the case (as the info I've seen so far leads me to believe that it's a very early idea versus a more mature design that's workable).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2013, 6:34 AM   #24
Scoot's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 86

The deadline has passed for the required sum of money and what's been offered is bordering on the miniscule.

I think we may conclude that the project is dead in the water - if it ever was genuine - and one may be forgiven for harbouring a sneaking suspicion that it could have been a con to part folks from their money.
Scoot is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:33 PM.