Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#61

Post by IAmBroom »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #17
srean wrote: post #7

Any chemists or crystallographers out here? I recently got curious about whether nature solves the Bayer pattern problem and if so, how. Are there any 3 element crystalline compounds with the formula A_2BC with roughly same sized atoms for A, B and C ? If they have a 2D tiling that would nature's Bayer pattern.

Natured solved it in our eyes by doing non-uniform placements of rods and cones (rather than uniform fixed pattern) and then fixing it in “software”.

Yes! As an optical engineer, I heard endless complaints about how the camera doesn't "see" like our eyes do.

Even the 1990s cameras were far superior to a "static picture" from our eyes: color everywhere, instead of mostly in the fovea, no blind spot, etc.

What they lacked was: higher resolution wherever you chose to concentrate within the scene at one moment, jagged lines if they weren't perfectly aligned (your eyes correct near-lines to be LINES), and (in the 1990s) lower peak resolution.

(Weirdly, people used to argue that "digital would NEVER have better resolution than film, even though it was clearly trending upwards to and past that static goal...).

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#62

Post by IAmBroom »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #18
Zak wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something is terribly wrong with the patent system if anything about sticking the innards of a commercially-produced camera into a different-shaped metal case is patentable.

If Nintendo can patent game mechanics despite prior art, anything’s possible.

There's prior art (centuries old!) on Mickey Mouse's head.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#63

Post by criddell »

Zak wrote: post #15

The Panasonic GX series of cameras was very similar to what we see here, and prices for them remain elevated years past their discontinuation. I'm a little surprised they haven't introduced a new model in that lineup. The Fuji X-E5 also seems similar to this, though obviously with a different lens mount.

In December I bought a GX-85. I love it even though it's 9 years old and still uses micro-USB. I got a great deal on it - $300.

It doesn't seem like it would take a lot to keep this line going. Bump the sensor, change the USB cable, add GPS, etc... but keep the form factor.

I guess the market just isn't big enough.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#64

Post by criddell »

zokier wrote: post #28
_0xdd wrote: post #20

This is amazing. It's such a shame that Olympus and Panasonic have largely abandoned the small camera market within the M43 system. I really wish another manufacturer would step up and build something similar to the GX85, which is still one of my favorite walkaround cameras.

Fujis X-E5 seems on paper very comparable to GX85? https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?produ...

That looks amazing. I wish I could justify it (I'm a terrible photographer).

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#65

Post by properbrew »

buildbot wrote: post #30
s1mon wrote: post #13

As someone who's been doing mechanical product engineering for 30+ years, doing this as a first project is way more than jumping off the deep end. Impressive.

I’m just a hobbyist 3D user but I feel like I have good experience, been using Autodesk Inventor then Fusion since early high school… I saw the level of detail in the model and am shocked. If this is truly their first experience with CAD/CAM they are a natural. For example - here’s my home built camera. It’s massively more simplistic: https://blog.maxg.io/phase-one-swc/

It may be simplistic, but that's a cracking photo you've taken on it.

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#66

Post by aaronbrethorst »

buildbot wrote: post #30
s1mon wrote: post #13

As someone who's been doing mechanical product engineering for 30+ years, doing this as a first project is way more than jumping off the deep end. Impressive.

I’m just a hobbyist 3D user but I feel like I have good experience, been using Autodesk Inventor then Fusion since early high school… I saw the level of detail in the model and am shocked. If this is truly their first experience with CAD/CAM they are a natural. For example - here’s my home built camera. It’s massively more simplistic: https://blog.maxg.io/phase-one-swc/

Wow super cool. I’ve always wanted a Hasselblad SWC, but now I think I want what you built even more ;)

Re: I wanted a camera that doesn't exist, so I built it

#67

Post by cmxch »

amelius wrote: post #3

> the lens should be as centered as possible. I wanted to avoid that horrendous look of cameras with the lens as close to the left edge as possible (Sony a6000, I’m looking at you here). Funny, the things some people obsess about :)

The only thing really wrong about the Sony a6000 is the lack of weatherproofing. With even a 55-210 kit lens and maybe a good filter, you can still get amazing quality from far away - such as being able to pick apart finer architectural details of a monument that’s about 5-6mi away.
Post reply on HN