The Foveon X3 -- anyone remember this?
vitamin_D
wrote on 10/14/2002, 10:28 AM
Comments
wcoxe1
wrote on 10/14/2002, 10:57 AM
The output from the X3 is so radically different from existing outputs that it would require a major rework of the internal software from the various manufactures who would be adopting it. This has slowed things down. There are a few other technical difficulties, as well. It has NOT gone away, but it is not looming over us either.
The exact same thing is happening with the OLED, the supposed ultra cheap, ultra fantastic replacement for LCD. There are a few to appear in the next crop of camera and camcorder view screens (can't call them LCD plates), but only on very small screens.
They have been around since about 1964, but the practicality of production restricts manufacture. The main problem with the wonderful OLED plates (give off own light, will recharge their own battery when not on but exposed to light) is the fact that they are ORGANIC Light Emitting Diodes. Organic is good, right? Well, organic means that the stuff ROTS when exposed to moisture and oxygen. They have yet to be able to permanently seal the things.
Want to make a bloddy fortune? Devise a method of permanently sealing the OLED that doesn't destroy it in the process. Those 150 inch, roll up (coil) into the ceiling, 1/64 of an inch thick TVs for less than $1000 will appear overnight.
The X3 is looking good, but don't hold your breath for either of them. Sigma, primarily a lens company, is toying with production of an SLR using the X3, but I don't think they actually are selling it. Just a demo.
The exact same thing is happening with the OLED, the supposed ultra cheap, ultra fantastic replacement for LCD. There are a few to appear in the next crop of camera and camcorder view screens (can't call them LCD plates), but only on very small screens.
They have been around since about 1964, but the practicality of production restricts manufacture. The main problem with the wonderful OLED plates (give off own light, will recharge their own battery when not on but exposed to light) is the fact that they are ORGANIC Light Emitting Diodes. Organic is good, right? Well, organic means that the stuff ROTS when exposed to moisture and oxygen. They have yet to be able to permanently seal the things.
Want to make a bloddy fortune? Devise a method of permanently sealing the OLED that doesn't destroy it in the process. Those 150 inch, roll up (coil) into the ceiling, 1/64 of an inch thick TVs for less than $1000 will appear overnight.
The X3 is looking good, but don't hold your breath for either of them. Sigma, primarily a lens company, is toying with production of an SLR using the X3, but I don't think they actually are selling it. Just a demo.
Paul_Holmes
wrote on 10/14/2002, 2:55 PM
Wow! Exciting technology. Take a look at this page to see an example of how detailed it is and how nice the color looks.
SonyDennis
wrote on 10/14/2002, 3:29 PM
Here's the latest I know:
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-959038.html?tag=dd.ne.dht.nl-sty.0
You're going to see it in digital still cameras first, because they are pushing the pixel count. If you wanted RGB-per pixel in a DV camera, you could super-sample with existing 2 or 3 megapixel CCDs and then filter down. It would cost more, but probably not as much as the early Foveon chips.
I'm curious if any of the "and it takes stills too" DV cameras are super-sampling for DV. For example, the Sony TRV18 shoots less than a megapixel stills, the TRV25 shoots megapixel stills. I'm assuming this means it has a larger pixel-count CCD. Does it use those for DV, by filtering them down to 720x480?
///d@
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-959038.html?tag=dd.ne.dht.nl-sty.0
You're going to see it in digital still cameras first, because they are pushing the pixel count. If you wanted RGB-per pixel in a DV camera, you could super-sample with existing 2 or 3 megapixel CCDs and then filter down. It would cost more, but probably not as much as the early Foveon chips.
I'm curious if any of the "and it takes stills too" DV cameras are super-sampling for DV. For example, the Sony TRV18 shoots less than a megapixel stills, the TRV25 shoots megapixel stills. I'm assuming this means it has a larger pixel-count CCD. Does it use those for DV, by filtering them down to 720x480?
///d@
Paul_Holmes
wrote on 10/14/2002, 5:08 PM
I took the following quote from a review on the Sony TRV50, which I own:
(referring to pixels)
"For stills, the camera uses 1,390,000 of them, and for video, 970,000."
(referring to pixels)
"For stills, the camera uses 1,390,000 of them, and for video, 970,000."
wcoxe1
wrote on 10/15/2002, 12:20 PM
Super Sampling is exactly what is done. The reason the pixel count is higher for stills than for video is that the electronic image stabilization is off for still. A good chunck is reserved for electronic image stabilization in video even if it is turned off.
SonyDennis
wrote on 10/15/2002, 12:38 PM
Of course, electronic image stabilization border, why didn't I think of that.. thanks.
///d@
///d@
vitamin_D
wrote on 10/15/2002, 7:13 PM
Hey all -- thanks for the informative responses. OLED is a new one on me, however in one of those amusing moments where coincidence congregates around something in my life, check this out. Kodak has codev'd a working 15" OLED screen -- 3 years off for mass production, but look how thin it is!
- jim
- jim
wcoxe1
wrote on 10/15/2002, 7:27 PM
There is another post about OLED on this forum. Do a text search on OLED.
Word is out about a demo at Cambridge Labs. Interesting demo. Guy walked in with an 84 long 4" diameter mailing tube. Pulls out a roll of plastic with an electrical cord attached to one corner. Rolled the plastic sheet out flat, hung it on a wall (84" across), plugged it in. Punched a little touch sensitive patch on the corner, and it turned into a REALLY nice TV set.
Unfortunately, the process for sealing the organic compounds is not yet perfected. Don't rush out a buy a lot of mailing tubes.
Several camcorder manufacturers are supposedly coming out with up to 4" side screens for their next crop of camcorders. Can't call them LCD plates, but you know what I mean.
Word is out about a demo at Cambridge Labs. Interesting demo. Guy walked in with an 84 long 4" diameter mailing tube. Pulls out a roll of plastic with an electrical cord attached to one corner. Rolled the plastic sheet out flat, hung it on a wall (84" across), plugged it in. Punched a little touch sensitive patch on the corner, and it turned into a REALLY nice TV set.
Unfortunately, the process for sealing the organic compounds is not yet perfected. Don't rush out a buy a lot of mailing tubes.
Several camcorder manufacturers are supposedly coming out with up to 4" side screens for their next crop of camcorders. Can't call them LCD plates, but you know what I mean.
wcoxe1
wrote on 10/28/2002, 11:09 AM
News update, 28 October 2002
Technology News
Monday, Oct. 28, 2002
British Firms Join Up to Lead in Floppy TV Screens
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Two British companies said on Monday
they would join forces to become a world leader in the
technology of glowing plastics, which by 2005 should yield the
first roll-up computer screens and TVs.
Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) announced the
acquisition of the Oxford-based research activities of rival
Opsys, giving it control of another major method to create
organic light emitting diodes (OLED). Financial details were
not disclosed.
The two unlisted companies sell their know-how to major
electronics manufacturers, such as Seiko Epson, Philips, DuPont
and Siemens-owned Osram, some of whom have just opened
factories for the first generation of monochrome OLED displays
used in cell phones and razors.
As the technology matures it will be used for full-color
screens. CDT is taking on U.S. photo giant Eastman Kodak,
which is one of the pioneers of OLEDs. The Cambridge University
spin-off claims to have found a more efficient production
method, which effectively prints a special type of OLED on a
surface.
The market for OLEDs is expected to rise from just $85
million this year to $3 billion by 2007, according to a recent
survey of U.S. market research group DisplaySearch.
Hopes for the technology are high because polymers that
emit light do not require a backlight used for the current
generation of flat screen liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It
makes them energy efficient and much thinner -- so thin they
can be folded. Opsys, spun out of Oxford and St Andrews
Universities in 1997, uses new polymers, called dendrimers,
which are brighter and more energy efficient than CDT's
light-emitting polymers (LEPs). The two companies hope to blend
their technologies to improve the lifetime of the dendrimers.
CDT Chief Executive David Fyfe said he expects that by 2005
the technology will be mature enough, and the price per display
competitive enough, so that OLEDs will start replacing current
LCD full-color flat screens, which recently started replacing
70-year old cathode ray tube technology.
"The attraction is that (OLEDs) are much more energy
efficient. It doesn't generate as much heat and the light goes
only in one direction," he said.
Technology News
Monday, Oct. 28, 2002
British Firms Join Up to Lead in Floppy TV Screens
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Two British companies said on Monday
they would join forces to become a world leader in the
technology of glowing plastics, which by 2005 should yield the
first roll-up computer screens and TVs.
Cambridge Display Technology (CDT) announced the
acquisition of the Oxford-based research activities of rival
Opsys, giving it control of another major method to create
organic light emitting diodes (OLED). Financial details were
not disclosed.
The two unlisted companies sell their know-how to major
electronics manufacturers, such as Seiko Epson, Philips, DuPont
and Siemens-owned Osram, some of whom have just opened
factories for the first generation of monochrome OLED displays
used in cell phones and razors.
As the technology matures it will be used for full-color
screens. CDT is taking on U.S. photo giant Eastman Kodak,
which is one of the pioneers of OLEDs. The Cambridge University
spin-off claims to have found a more efficient production
method, which effectively prints a special type of OLED on a
surface.
The market for OLEDs is expected to rise from just $85
million this year to $3 billion by 2007, according to a recent
survey of U.S. market research group DisplaySearch.
Hopes for the technology are high because polymers that
emit light do not require a backlight used for the current
generation of flat screen liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It
makes them energy efficient and much thinner -- so thin they
can be folded. Opsys, spun out of Oxford and St Andrews
Universities in 1997, uses new polymers, called dendrimers,
which are brighter and more energy efficient than CDT's
light-emitting polymers (LEPs). The two companies hope to blend
their technologies to improve the lifetime of the dendrimers.
CDT Chief Executive David Fyfe said he expects that by 2005
the technology will be mature enough, and the price per display
competitive enough, so that OLEDs will start replacing current
LCD full-color flat screens, which recently started replacing
70-year old cathode ray tube technology.
"The attraction is that (OLEDs) are much more energy
efficient. It doesn't generate as much heat and the light goes
only in one direction," he said.
riredale
wrote on 10/28/2002, 1:15 PM
wcoxe1:
I don't know, I had always heard that some cameras did electronic image stabilization by electronically "shifting" the image window around on a CCD, while optical image stabilization was done with a variable prism in the optical path. My Sony TRV8 uses optical stabilization, and I was under the impression that all Sony camcorders did optical, as did Canon. Has Sony switched to the other method?
I don't know, I had always heard that some cameras did electronic image stabilization by electronically "shifting" the image window around on a CCD, while optical image stabilization was done with a variable prism in the optical path. My Sony TRV8 uses optical stabilization, and I was under the impression that all Sony camcorders did optical, as did Canon. Has Sony switched to the other method?
wcoxe1
wrote on 10/28/2002, 2:31 PM
It was my understanding that Sony ONLY had Optical in the VX 1000 and 2000, and in the TRV 900 and 950 consumer lines. All others, I understood, were electronic, not optical.