Jon Stern

Jon Stern

Lives in United States Mountain View, CA, United States
Works as a Electronics Engineer
Joined on Apr 21, 2003

Comments

Total: 65, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

The "6 models" were all the same until the very final step of the assembly process, when the distance between the "film can" and the sensor was locked down. It was all achieved by simply cutting the sensor flex cable to the length required for a particular model, sticking it down and applying the top metal "flag" cover. Oh, we also had a different-colored vinyl label that was applied to the "film can" for each of the six variants. Interestingly, most of the major SLRs were covered by just three of these configurations.

This approach allowed close to complete production and inventorying of the EFS-1. When orders for different models came in we would have been quickly able to configure them (in a few minutes); perform final test; package; and then ship.

I won't say much about "Silicon Film EFS10-SF", as I had little involvement after the closure on 9/14/2001. I don't really consider that to be part of the real Silicon Film history.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:06 UTC as 40th comment

Re: 8) William Patton never accepted the position of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SFI. In a nutshell it was not going to work for the time. Plus Silicon Film saw that they needed to create 6 different models to cover most of the cameras available. Everything was looking bad for the EFS-1.

The William Patton ("General" Patton, as we called him) incident was a funny one. The staff was introduced to him and never saw him again. This was not long before we finally ran out of cash and closed our doors (the week of the 9/11 attacks). I don't think this affected the outcome, it's just a strange footnote in the history.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:06 UTC as 41st comment

Re: 7) several key employees on the EFS-1 project left SFI further hampering the development process

We were struggling towards the end. As mentioned above, the dot com bubble bursting had it close to impossible to get VC funding for tech companies (how ironic given that just a few years earlier we were being asked if we could see a way of putting a dot com angle on the business by some investors who would then have been interested). We had to downsize to preserve cash in Sping of 2001 (or thereabout). None of the people let go were deemed essential for the development process.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:05 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies

Re: 6) SFI and ISC had scrapped the initial design of the EFS-1 and were scrambling to develop a new prototype

False. The orignal ~3x factor in EFS-1 was known to have limited market appeal. I was already leading the development of the next version to address this and enable a larger market acceptance. We already had functional sensors of a 4MP, ~29mm x 19mm sensor for the next product running in the lab.

I'm laughing at this one because somehow a positive (that we were working on a better gen. 2 product) has been perverted in to us scrapping EFS-1.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:05 UTC as 43rd comment

Re: 5) EFS-1 technology presented potential patent conflicts with those already registered by Kodak

False. Kodak's patent had a later filing date than ours, and while it included some claims we didn't have, they were not useful (we didn't need to infringe on them).

Incidentally, we had an extremely good relationship with Kodak. In large part thanks to one of our board members, Tom Kelly, having formerly been a senior manager at Kodak (he led the team that developed what was marketed as the "Apple Quicktake"), and our CEO Ken Fey having been responsible for setting up Kodak's point-and-shoot production in China.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:05 UTC as 44th comment

Re: 4) an internal design review was conducted in May, 2001 with all the top officers of SFI, ISC and all of the suppliers for the EFS-1 that were owed millions of dollars. [Snip due to DPReview character limits]

There's some fairness in this. We were short of ceramics for the sensor package, but already had prototypes for a lower-cost, more easily sourced design. Supply would have been limited until we could ramp that up fully.

We were not taking orders because we were not ready to ship. Our approach was to slowly ramp, in large part because money was tight in 2001 after the dot com crash. We were running on our cash reserves and pre-MP funding was almost impossible to find in a technology-hostile investment climate. The strategy set out by the executive team was to get to limited, volume mass production and product launch, knowing that raising funding for MP ramp would them be much easier.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:04 UTC as 45th comment

Re: 3) the current design of the EFS-1 was extremely difficult to produce. Specifically, it took hundreds of engineering hours to produce one unit with a success rate of about one unit in three working;

We were hand-building the prototypes without the final mass production tooling and it was slow (I don't know where hundred of engineering hours comes from!) and we had a low yield. This was of concern to me, but mostly from the perspective of MP schedule and ramp.

Anyone who has been involved in real mass production knows that assembly cycle time and yield go through a steep, early learning curve. There were no fundamental issues with our assembly process, which was a lot simpler than DSLRs of the time.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:03 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply

Re: 2) these design problems would prevent the unit from passing the required FCC and CE certifications necessary to publicly release the product

I love how that rumor with a grain of truth became an internet fact.

We did have some issue with some of our FCC pre-screens at one point (anyone who has ever done this kind of work knows how frustrating that process can be). This was when downloading from the (e)port to a PC over USB. We modified some of the filters on the board, but still we were having intermittent fails. Eventually we found that we only failed when using a USB cable without a ferrite chock. Switching over to that type of cable resolved this issue.

As for CE, the first version of our firmware would have failed CE testing because it didn't have a safe recovery from a crash (that required removal of the batteries). This was not a fundamental issue though. It just needed some new code that the executive management decided to de-prioritize until after the US launch.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 47th comment

It's always interesting to read outsider's views on Silicon Film (especially those that quote me). Typically there are a number of errors.

Re: 1) the EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws

Not true. There were many challenges that others could not forsee ways of over-coming (that included Canon's engineers when they reviewed the idea back in ~99). However, we had a really talented group of engineers and by a mixture of creative thinking and clever engineering, we managed to over-come all of these "insurmountable" flaws.

If Oliver Duong cares to list all of these flaws, I'd be happy to address them line by line.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 22:01 UTC as 48th comment
On Is this the new Leica 'Mini M'? news story (370 comments in total)

Whatever happened to DPReview's policy of not re-printing rumors? Was this abandoned because it was seen as having become an irrelevant gesture, or because there was a realization that rumors are good for site traffic, advertising revenue, and visits to the Gear Shop?

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2013 at 19:58 UTC as 149th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X100S first-look preview news story (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

starwolfy: Sure that sounds like an amazing re-born for the X100, now called X100S for Steroid.
Too bad Fuji didn't agree fixing my sticky aperture problem that occured with my X100...for free.

They fixed mine for free too. I didn't even bother to show proof of warranty I just checked the box on the form.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 20:25 UTC
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X100S first-look preview news story (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

princewolf: As a black x-100 owner, I'm crazy jaleous!!

I fail to see what your ethnicity has to do with it!

I'm a white X100 owner and I'm still jealous.

;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2013 at 20:23 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon 1 V2 Preview Samples news story (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

cruser2469: Sad. Nikon fanboys don't even like this camera. An absolute waste of time and money by Nikon. It's comical to watch them roll this thing out.

I watched "The Hobbit" the other day. [SPOILER ALERT] I thought all the trolls got turned to stone?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 3, 2013 at 02:40 UTC

This would be a good contribution to the digital back had it been filed 12 years ago. Today it is irrelevant.

At Silicon Film, we investigated digital backs in addition to working on our digital film cartridge (I think I even have a patent relating to it - must check), and we worked with Leica in the early stages of the Modul-R digital back development for their R9 SLR.

Today, there are so many compelling DSLRs (from a price and performance standpoint) that this just doesn't make business sense. The window of opportunity has long closed.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2012 at 15:06 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
On Curiosity rover takes high-resolution self-portrait on Mars news story (161 comments in total)

What? No duck face?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2012 at 19:56 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

armanius: Oh mine ... Just when I thought the V1 was ugly, because it looked like a Tetris block ... And I though that the K01 was ugly too. The V2 is hands down the ugliest camera in the world!!

Worse than the Marc Newson Pentax K-01? Surely not!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 05:51 UTC
On Fashion Shoot: Tips from a Pro article (82 comments in total)

I didn't notice that this was written by Martin Evening until I saw the model at the bottom of the first page. She's the same one as on the cover of his Lightroom 3 book (that photo appears on page 2) and I recognise her because she looks enough like my wife to pass for being her sister!

By coincidence, my wife has her own fashion design business, so this article is very much of interest to me, as I often serve in the capacity as photographer for her clothes. Thanks Martin!

What I'd like to see next is an article on posing for fashion photography.

EDIT: I'd also like to hear how many wardrobe imperfections should be sorted out in real time, versus in PP. Interrupting the flow always seems like a bad idea, but then it can be so much faster to fix a loose thread during the shoot than in PP (for every shot).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2012 at 07:07 UTC as 38th comment

Call them the future of compact cameras!

Despite what some of the snobs commenting here seem to think, we are moving towards a world where access to in-device post-processing and social sharing are going to be essential features for a point and shoot (compact) cameras.

Without this ability, the category is going to find itself increasingly supplanted by smartphones. The smartphone industry sees imaging as a key function and is gradually improving performance.

Even as a large sensor junkie I find myself often taking pics with my DSLR/X100 and then with my iPhone so that I can edit the photo immediately in Snapseed and share it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 22:50 UTC as 58th comment
On Just Posted: Hands-on Canon EOS 6D preview news story (590 comments in total)
In reply to:

RX100: Imagine the reaction if the 6D was the 5D MkIII!

How on Earth did you end up editing a 10-word comment 3 times?

Especially when it was an "imagine a hypothetical different version of history" post that didn't really say much.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2012 at 21:56 UTC

It should be understood that the use of a clear pixel is to make up for the shortcomings of tiny pixels (1.12µm). This is not going to give improved low light performance over the previous generation (1.4µm). It's simply going to avoid too much of a degradation.

That's why they say "heighten sensitivity without compromising its high resolution". It means they can improve versus a sensor with the same number of pixels in the same sensor area. This is needed because the 1.1µm pixel node with normal RGB pixels (Bayer cell) has been poorly received due to disappointing low light performance.

Full Disclosure: I work for Aptina. A rival sensor company.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2012 at 01:17 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
Total: 65, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »