Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Now, More Pleasing Odor!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.




Digital camera / scanner combination for cheap high-res imaging.
  (+2, -1)
(+2, -1)
  [vote for,

The higher the resolution of a digital camera's CCD sensor, the more expensive it is. A camera the images from which approach the quality of chemical photographs (in terms of actual, not perceived, res.) is priced outside the budget of the casual user, and will be for some time. Suppose an ordinary Large-Format camera (the kind with the bellows and tripod) is taken, with a Scanner Assembly attached where the Large-Format film would normally go. The thin strip of CCD glides smoothly on motorized tracks as in a scanner, providing a DPI count that would not otherwise be dreamed of. Of course, the obvious drawback of the slow (~1 minute) exposure time would rule out tripodless photography, or the imaging of moving objects.
dsm, Feb 20 2001

Camera Scanner Reader http://www.nytimes....nology/13blind.html
Not exactly cheap, but this scanner/reader from Ray Kurzweil is too neat not to post somewhere on the Halfbakery. Not only does it scan, but it can then read out the scanned documents, invaluable for the hard of seeing. [DrCurry, Jul 13 2006]


       Have the CCD rotate about an axis (like a propeller.) Use the calculated "inscribed rectangle" as the image. This will give ~1 second exposures, with still very little CCD used, and high DPI.
dsm, Feb 20 2001

       This is how high-end digital cameras for tabletop (still-life) photography work. They cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. In principle, you could rip apart a scanner, ditch the light source, and mount it on the back of any view camera. Might have exposure time problems, though.   

       Propeller idea would I think leave you with radially varying spatial resolution and exposure (outer sensors moving much faster than central ones).
etmthree, Feb 08 2002

       A few years ago, I used a $600 HP scanner, that had excellent software, to perform digital photography, at a fraction of the cost of comparable camera systems. Using high optical resolution and "digital resolution," I could obtain very high-resolution images of very small objects.

your proposal should be feasible. I would try it myself, if I could rewrite driver software.
quarterbaker, Feb 08 2002

       Long exposure times have been the norm for very high end digital cameras.  Digital backs for medium and large format cameras often expose in three consecutive steps, one exposure for each of the R, G, and B color channels. As etmthree mentions, these are generally used for table-top work, especially for catalogs.  This is changing now with the advent of backs like the Leaf Cantera and others capable of single short exposures and very high color and luminance resolution.
bristolz, Feb 08 2002

       Actually, there are two variations of this notion that are quite baked, but in neither of them does the CAMERA itself move:   

       (1) In things like airport X-ray machines, the machine only X-rays a very narrow slice of the object at a time. As the object moves through the scanned line, a frame buffer captures it and moves the display horizontally.   

       (2) According to an article I just read today, many sporting venues are using a line-scan camera at the finish line which records IIRC 20,000 lines/second. People, cars, horses, etc. crossing the finish line will appear oddly distorted, but the shapes will still be recognizable enough to allow things like uniform numbers to be read. More significantly, someone examining a photo can tell the precise moment when any part of the person's body or vehicle crossed the finish line.
supercat, Feb 08 2002

       i saw a website where somebody did this. he took apart an old scanner and build i camera from the parts. i can´t remember the url though...
RaoulDuke, Oct 02 2003

       So would sufficent light be a problem? How do you light up the image on the film plane to be bright enough for the scanner? Might be a stupid question I don't know much about it. But it's very intriquing. Scanners are a dime a dozen at GoodWill. View-cameras on the other hand.... But if I could just score a good lens I think I could make the body, not complicated just expensive. Ok Iv'e rambled enough so about that site.
tedhaubrich, Jun 15 2004


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle