Reading mode: Light Dark

Help! My E-10 fails to deliver the goods...

Go to last post
hey jono,

i guess i did not get it......

what i think i got was.....yea, there is more noise. yea, the image is "flat". but that is what is to be expected.

was that the message?

again, not being adversarial (had to look up that word......engineers cannot spell by nature) but still wondering.

joe
Jono Slack said:
whatever

I hope you'll learn to love it like the rest of us

kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Joe said:
what about these pics for a comparison??

http://www.pbase.com/joeg11/e10_c2100

keep in mind....i to mean no malice, i am just sitting back
wondering why i bought the e-10, hoping someone can explain it to
me.

joe
Gerald M. Payne said:
This appears to be a completely unfair comparison, on at least two
fronts...

A. The E-10 has the Nikon beat 1.96 : 1 on total pixels or 1.4X's
as many pixels in each dimension... which alone indicates a
definite advantage for the E-10, further the E-10 lens is sharper,
and this can be demonstrated from resolution targets in various
reviews. The E-10 should win hands down. It's not even a fair
contest. If you want to see the Nikon win something lets talk
noise... :-) Those relatively larger sensors on 2MP cameras do
have a real advantage there compared to 3.3MP sensors of the same
physical size.

B. The shots simply aren't framed the same. The FOV is much wider
on the E-10 shot... The Nikon shot is using 2MP to cover only
about 2/3 the width of the image the E-10 is framing which has the
effect of making the Nikon appear to have the equivalent of more
than a 4MP sensor... (Math: 1600 = 2/3X, X=2400... so in effect,
the 2MP sensor has the apparent resolution of a 2400x1800 sensor
used to frame the same image as the E-10 did...) So much for
objection A...

As Jono said, you are in fact turning the comparison upside down
and granting the 2MP more pixels per square foot of subject than
the E-10 and then further compounding that in your comparison
crops...

I'd say that Jono had it knocked from the start. The areas of
comparison are "unfair", the E-10 sample should contain 1.96
"times" as many total pixels as the Nikon sample. The focus issue
is the other problem. The E-10 has a much shallower DOF and
sharpness falls off much more quickly outside that DOF even at F5.6
or so. So choosing an off center or off point of focus area for
comparison is a problem.

To do a comparison of this sort without having the same person
frame the same scene and focus on the same spots with a tripod to
eliminate any chance of motion blur is rather pointless. Further,
it's rather irresponsible to say the E-10 failed to deliver the
goods when it seems more likely that the tester failed to deliver
the goods... We shouldn't be so quick to blame the tools. :-)

I think you have to admit this isn't a fair comparison.(in more
than one way, 2MP vs. 4MP isn't exactly fair.) If it was, the
selected areas would have to be as follows: the E-10 sample would
have to be 1.4 X's wider and 1.4X's higher in pixels than the Nikon
sample... (2240/1600 = 1.4X's, as does 1680/1200...)

I hope my points have been made. I'd very much like people to do a
bit more research before they make such inflammatory statements
concerning a piece of equipment. Frankly, it makes those with
legitimate concerns about a product look like they belong in the
same category as those who don't research carefully what they're
presenting. In fairness, that's because those who read such
comparisons don't often do the work to check them either...

Excal, this isn't meant to knock you, but I think this sort of
thing does us a disservice as a group. I intend no malice. I
think if you went back out to the same spot with a print of the
Nikon image and framed the same image with the E-10 you see the
difference if you compared the SAME area from each print or file...
Preferrably the area at the point of focus, not off center.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Frank,

Good observation - the stone path/road doesn't even show in the Nikon pic! Plus there is more shot to the left in the E10. So you would probably wish to zoom-in to make the comparison!

Was there a Haze filter used on either camera? Did you do any PS post processing? I did quite a bit of testing before setting my Contrast/Sharpness to the lowest settings (using a tripod, fixed lighting, etc). To my uneducated eye, it appeared that I did not lose any information by choosing these settings (I could get the same or better post-results with PS as compared to trying to process the picture in camera).

My 2c,
Brent
Frank B said:
What are the focal lenghts of the two pictures and the distance
from the subject? It looks as if the E-10 was taken at either a
wider focal length and/or further distance than the Nikon. If so
they simply can not be compared. The Nikon would have magnified
the image relative to the E-10 and so would be sharper and show
more detail.

Frank B
Excal said:
Ok, I'm confuzed and concerned. I went out shooting the other
night with a friend of mine who has an old Nikon 2x zoom 2mp
Coolpix (800). I had the E-10. It was about 2 hours before
sunset. The trouble is, his pictures were way sharper than mine
with the E-10? This shouldn't be! Has my E-10 got a fault, or did
I do something wrong?

Below is an example (by no means the only one). Original picture,
then a crop and then a 200% upsample of a crop of the crop. Notice
how the Nikon 800 sheep is sharper than the E-10's... :(

Cheers
Excal

Olympus E-10 = ISO 80, AF, 1/125, f6.3, 9.0mm, 0.0 Exp Bias, Ap
Priority, Centre Meter, No Flash

Nikon E800 = ISO 100, AF, 1/147.9, f6.5, 10.4mm 0.0 Exp Bias,
Normal, Multi-Segment, No Flash

E-10 image below...



Nikon 800 image below...



--
Excal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ok, focal length info etc. is ni the original mail (with all the other Exif info). I picked this example, because just about everything that would affect the sharpness is pretty similar. But it's not alone - most of the shots showed a lack of sharpness compared with the Nikon 800.

Some are saying it's not fair because it wasn't a tripod type test shot with exactly the same settings, and I do intend to compare in this way when I get a chance. But... I don't expect to see the E-10 win when I do. To reiterate an earlier response, the crops below the main image are 1 pixel to 1 pixel, and the larger crop of the crop, is simply a 2x bicubic blow up. No post processing has been done to either. No filters were used on either - just the raw cameras.

The replies to this are interesting, and even if it's not a totally scientic test, one learns a lot from the ideas people come up with. Yes, it is totally unfair and the Nikon 800 should loose something chronic, which is why I'm so bothered. I think so far, the possible explanations (which I will test out soon more scientifically) are:-

1) Small CCD = more DOF = appears sharper (like stopping down)
2) SOFT may actually degrade the image - I'll do a RAW and see if it does
3) JPEG compression causing it? The RAW will show I guess

4) The E-10 may suffer from unsharpness at wide angle - I'll try different focal lengths and see if 50mm or higher is sharper

5) Focus may be off (maybe hyperfocal distance) - I'll bracket an AF and MF to see and try to get a really contrast thing to focus on in the test.

Any other ideas? This has been really useful.

On the up side, I think the E-10 colours blow the Nikon 800 away for realism - the Nikon 800 grass looked too much of a mucky yellow/brown to me! :) Unfortunately, a later shot of some hay bails looked nicer on the Nikon because of it, but I would say not quite so close to the real colours.

Cheers
Excal
Brent Lossing said:
Good observation - the stone path/road doesn't even show in the
Nikon pic! Plus there is more shot to the left in the E10. So you
would probably wish to zoom-in to make the comparison!

Was there a Haze filter used on either camera? Did you do any PS
post processing? I did quite a bit of testing before setting my
Contrast/Sharpness to the lowest settings (using a tripod, fixed
lighting, etc). To my uneducated eye, it appeared that I did not
lose any information by choosing these settings (I could get the
same or better post-results with PS as compared to trying to
process the picture in camera).

My 2c,
Brent
Frank B said:
What are the focal lenghts of the two pictures and the distance
from the subject? It looks as if the E-10 was taken at either a
wider focal length and/or further distance than the Nikon. If so
they simply can not be compared. The Nikon would have magnified
the image relative to the E-10 and so would be sharper and show
more detail.

Frank B
Excal said:
Ok, I'm confuzed and concerned. I went out shooting the other
night with a friend of mine who has an old Nikon 2x zoom 2mp
Coolpix (800). I had the E-10. It was about 2 hours before
sunset. The trouble is, his pictures were way sharper than mine
with the E-10? This shouldn't be! Has my E-10 got a fault, or did
I do something wrong?

Below is an example (by no means the only one). Original picture,
then a crop and then a 200% upsample of a crop of the crop. Notice
how the Nikon 800 sheep is sharper than the E-10's... :(

Cheers
Excal

Olympus E-10 = ISO 80, AF, 1/125, f6.3, 9.0mm, 0.0 Exp Bias, Ap
Priority, Centre Meter, No Flash

Nikon E800 = ISO 100, AF, 1/147.9, f6.5, 10.4mm 0.0 Exp Bias,
Normal, Multi-Segment, No Flash

E-10 image below...



Nikon 800 image below...



--
Excal
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
One other thought I've just had, which if anybody knows I would love to hear from... Could lens flare (whether visible on the final image like it is in this example) or not visible, cause a soft focus like I'm seeing? Would the lens hood have helped?

Thanks again
Excal
 
Joe,

I thought the question was pretty well answered in the thread you started, but I'll put in my two cents.

I think it comes down to what your aims are in buying a particular camera...

If your requirements run to what appear for the most part as "snapshots" where you'd like everything in focus and feel there is no need to take your photography further to where you can selectively employ DOF, or lack thereof, to your advantage then it seems that the 2100 shots are well suited for that. I was pretty happy with my first two digicams that possessed little or no ability in that regard. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to be realistic. I've taken many "snapshots" and find them to often be just what one desires, but they don't pop the subject out at you the way an image with controlled DOF can. My apologies to others who prefer great DOF for other reasons such as landscapes, etc. I realize this could be taken as a shotgun blast and it's not intended that way. I'm always enthralled by Jono's efforts and who could be a bigger proponent of DOF than he? The trouble with him is that he possesses that damned ability to make the average and mundane interesting. :-) [Do you do portraits Jono? I've always wanted to look less mundane... :-) ]

If you want faster AF which is usually more reliable, greater resolution for larger more detailed prints, a camera which provides an accurate TTL optical viewfinder(no parallax) and better demonstrates what will be in focus, offers multiple power options, fast manual zoom, a high quality line of add-on teleconverters, allows for two general types of storage, provides a superior lens, and offers a possibly more advanced photographer more creative options then I suspect the E-10 would be to your liking. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd normally expect anyone looking to spend over four or five hundred on a camera to have some idea why they'd wish to do so and how to exploit it to their purposes? I'd think, if nothing else, the greater image quality and resolution when making 8"x10s or larger would sell many people... If you want the snapshot look where everything is focus, you can easily switch to Aperture mode and close it down to something over F5.6, or so, and get lots of DOF with suitably slower shutter speeds, of course.

Does that make any headway? I think we're so used to seeing snapshots where everything is usually in focus because of all those cheap point and shoot cameras with infinity focus that we don't see why a photograph with minimal DOF can highlight a subject rather than looking flat(without depth).

By the way Joe, I grok electrons and logic both digitally and syntactically, what kind of engineering do you do? Just idle curiosity. Always good to know who to ask what sort of a question... :-)
 
Excal, Yes, lens flare, especially the high degree shown in the E10 photo, is a sure killer of both contrast and sharpness. I am surprised that no one mentioned the obvious here. You really do need to reshoot this test and tighten up on the comparable angle, time, position and focal length(s) in use. I think you will be pleasantly surprised! Regards, Jim N'AZ PS, Use a tripod too!
Excal said:
One other thought I've just had, which if anybody knows I would
love to hear from... Could lens flare (whether visible on the
final image like it is in this example) or not visible, cause a
soft focus like I'm seeing? Would the lens hood have helped?

Thanks again
Excal
Click to expand...
 
Hi Excal,

being a non-technical I would expect the flare to soften the image but not cause a focus problem - and a lens hood is always worth using. (If nothing else it softens theimpact when you compete for the "I dropped my camera" entries

I have only read two other posts so I hope I am not repeating other comments - looking at the framing of your two images I see the E-10 has a very definite line of contrast - the path in the mid foreground - if you or the camera selected that inadvertently as the prime area of focus it would stand to reason that all things beyond it would not be as well focused as if it were set to the infinity setting - just another possibility contributing to the apparent discrepancy - are you sure of your focal point in the two images-- silly question of course you are!

Ron Co
http://www.yp-connect.net/~macman

\.. Could lens flare (whether visible on the
excal said:
final image like it is in this example) or not visible, cause a
soft focus like I'm seeing? Would the lens hood have helped?

Thanks again
Excal
Click to expand...
 
Excal,

Do us all a favor and go back and read my post or Jono's posts among others...

If a 4MP camera is framed on the same size scene as a 2MP camera there will be half as many pixels present in any equal comparison of image detail from the 2MP to the 4MP image if you compare the same amount of IMAGE, not pixels! Ie, 1/16th of an image, etc. Or the sample cropped from the E-10 at native resolution will have to contain 1.4Xs as many pixels in each dimension for the crops to be equal. To compare them "equally" you'd need to magnify, not interpolate, the smaller crop from the 2MP camera to 1.4X's the magnification you're using to view the image from the E-10. Ie view one at 100% and the 2MP's crop at 140%.

You violated that rather heavily and gave the 2MP the approximate resolution of an 8MP camera by taking a much wider 4MP shot and then comparing a crop of it with a 2MP shot on a "pixel by pixel" basis by interpolating one of the samples larger. Your comparison is so far off as to be completely pointless can't you see that? It's so darned simple. Further, you cropped different areas of the scene for comparison... THEY aren't even the same sheep, how can they be compared? It's apples and oranges in too many ways.

Not only that, one crop is from nearer the center of one image which is where the focus point likely was, and you compared it to another from an image where the sample comes from nowhere near the likely focal point.

Surely you can see how that'd affect comparisons? This just isn't that difficult to fathom.

Why not just go out and duplicate an image from the Nikon with your E-10, but insure the e-10 is focused on the spot you're going to crop to compare and then print both images at the same size on paper and see which looks sharper at the point of focus? To be fair, because of the relative sizes of the CCDs, you'll likely have to set the E-10 for F8 or higher to approximate the F5.6 on the Nikon if you're going to compare the entire scene or objects outside the DOF. Even that may not be enough, the smaller CCD camera has more inherent DOF. If you want landscapes, set the E-10 to F11 and use a tripod. It has been suggested by some that F11 would be about equivalent to F22 on a 35mm lens.

Personally, I think you have to realize that if the scenes are framed the same you'll have twice as much info in an image with 4MP as with 2MP so the detail is there... Whether it appears "sharp" in it's raw form is subjective as the 2MP image will certainly be more blocky with more abrupt transitions which may seem to demonstrate more apparent sharpness, but actually depict less detailed info.
 
Hi Joe

Hmm well - as far as the yea the image is 'flat' - yes, I do agree (incidentally have you tried changing the settings to high contrast and high sharpening and had a look?)

Did anyone say there was more noise?

as for adversarial - seemed like a perfectly civil reply to me!

I think my basic feeling about it is that if Jaja can take shots like that (and Bert In Canada, and loads of others) - then it's okay - I also recognise that I had a similar response in contrast to my 3030 (which I don't use at all now).

I'd just like you to like your camera!

finally, I'd like to say that bad speeling is not the prorogitave of enginners.

kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Joe said:
i guess i did not get it......

what i think i got was.....yea, there is more noise. yea, the
image is "flat". but that is what is to be expected.

was that the message?

again, not being adversarial (had to look up that
word......engineers cannot spell by nature) but still wondering.

joe
Jono Slack said:
whatever

I hope you'll learn to love it like the rest of us

kind regards
jono slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Joe said:
what about these pics for a comparison??

http://www.pbase.com/joeg11/e10_c2100

keep in mind....i to mean no malice, i am just sitting back
wondering why i bought the e-10, hoping someone can explain it to
me.

joe
Gerald M. Payne said:
This appears to be a completely unfair comparison, on at least two
fronts...

A. The E-10 has the Nikon beat 1.96 : 1 on total pixels or 1.4X's
as many pixels in each dimension... which alone indicates a
definite advantage for the E-10, further the E-10 lens is sharper,
and this can be demonstrated from resolution targets in various
reviews. The E-10 should win hands down. It's not even a fair
contest. If you want to see the Nikon win something lets talk
noise... :-) Those relatively larger sensors on 2MP cameras do
have a real advantage there compared to 3.3MP sensors of the same
physical size.

B. The shots simply aren't framed the same. The FOV is much wider
on the E-10 shot... The Nikon shot is using 2MP to cover only
about 2/3 the width of the image the E-10 is framing which has the
effect of making the Nikon appear to have the equivalent of more
than a 4MP sensor... (Math: 1600 = 2/3X, X=2400... so in effect,
the 2MP sensor has the apparent resolution of a 2400x1800 sensor
used to frame the same image as the E-10 did...) So much for
objection A...

As Jono said, you are in fact turning the comparison upside down
and granting the 2MP more pixels per square foot of subject than
the E-10 and then further compounding that in your comparison
crops...

I'd say that Jono had it knocked from the start. The areas of
comparison are "unfair", the E-10 sample should contain 1.96
"times" as many total pixels as the Nikon sample. The focus issue
is the other problem. The E-10 has a much shallower DOF and
sharpness falls off much more quickly outside that DOF even at F5.6
or so. So choosing an off center or off point of focus area for
comparison is a problem.

To do a comparison of this sort without having the same person
frame the same scene and focus on the same spots with a tripod to
eliminate any chance of motion blur is rather pointless. Further,
it's rather irresponsible to say the E-10 failed to deliver the
goods when it seems more likely that the tester failed to deliver
the goods... We shouldn't be so quick to blame the tools. :-)

I think you have to admit this isn't a fair comparison.(in more
than one way, 2MP vs. 4MP isn't exactly fair.) If it was, the
selected areas would have to be as follows: the E-10 sample would
have to be 1.4 X's wider and 1.4X's higher in pixels than the Nikon
sample... (2240/1600 = 1.4X's, as does 1680/1200...)

I hope my points have been made. I'd very much like people to do a
bit more research before they make such inflammatory statements
concerning a piece of equipment. Frankly, it makes those with
legitimate concerns about a product look like they belong in the
same category as those who don't research carefully what they're
presenting. In fairness, that's because those who read such
comparisons don't often do the work to check them either...

Excal, this isn't meant to knock you, but I think this sort of
thing does us a disservice as a group. I intend no malice. I
think if you went back out to the same spot with a print of the
Nikon image and framed the same image with the E-10 you see the
difference if you compared the SAME area from each print or file...
Preferrably the area at the point of focus, not off center.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gerald,

thanks for the response.

by the way it is electrical engineering by schooling, however i do mostly manufacturing and plant engineering.

currently i am the manager of plant operations for a large hospital.

joe
Gerald M. Payne said:
Joe,

I thought the question was pretty well answered in the thread you
started, but I'll put in my two cents.

I think it comes down to what your aims are in buying a particular
camera...

If your requirements run to what appear for the most part as
"snapshots" where you'd like everything in focus and feel there is
no need to take your photography further to where you can
selectively employ DOF, or lack thereof, to your advantage then it
seems that the 2100 shots are well suited for that. I was pretty
happy with my first two digicams that possessed little or no
ability in that regard. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to
be realistic. I've taken many "snapshots" and find them to often
be just what one desires, but they don't pop the subject out at you
the way an image with controlled DOF can. My apologies to others
who prefer great DOF for other reasons such as landscapes, etc. I
realize this could be taken as a shotgun blast and it's not
intended that way. I'm always enthralled by Jono's efforts and who
could be a bigger proponent of DOF than he? The trouble with him
is that he possesses that damned ability to make the average and
mundane interesting. :-) [Do you do portraits Jono? I've always
wanted to look less mundane... :-) ]

If you want faster AF which is usually more reliable, greater
resolution for larger more detailed prints, a camera which provides
an accurate TTL optical viewfinder(no parallax) and better
demonstrates what will be in focus, offers multiple power options,
fast manual zoom, a high quality line of add-on teleconverters,
allows for two general types of storage, provides a superior lens,
and offers a possibly more advanced photographer more creative
options then I suspect the E-10 would be to your liking. Not to
put too fine a point on it, but I'd normally expect anyone looking
to spend over four or five hundred on a camera to have some idea
why they'd wish to do so and how to exploit it to their purposes?
I'd think, if nothing else, the greater image quality and
resolution when making 8"x10s or larger would sell many people...
If you want the snapshot look where everything is focus, you can
easily switch to Aperture mode and close it down to something over
F5.6, or so, and get lots of DOF with suitably slower shutter
speeds, of course.

Does that make any headway? I think we're so used to seeing
snapshots where everything is usually in focus because of all those
cheap point and shoot cameras with infinity focus that we don't see
why a photograph with minimal DOF can highlight a subject rather
than looking flat(without depth).

By the way Joe, I grok electrons and logic both digitally and
syntactically, what kind of engineering do you do? Just idle
curiosity. Always good to know who to ask what sort of a
question... :-)
Click to expand...
 
Argh, not more engineers! FYI...I do low-level firmware on 3G mobile base stations. Oh the joy... ;)

Excal
Joe said:
thanks for the response.

by the way it is electrical engineering by schooling, however i do
mostly manufacturing and plant engineering.

currently i am the manager of plant operations for a large hospital.

joe
Gerald M. Payne said:
Joe,

I thought the question was pretty well answered in the thread you
started, but I'll put in my two cents.

I think it comes down to what your aims are in buying a particular
camera...

If your requirements run to what appear for the most part as
"snapshots" where you'd like everything in focus and feel there is
no need to take your photography further to where you can
selectively employ DOF, or lack thereof, to your advantage then it
seems that the 2100 shots are well suited for that. I was pretty
happy with my first two digicams that possessed little or no
ability in that regard. I'm not trying to be a snob, I'm trying to
be realistic. I've taken many "snapshots" and find them to often
be just what one desires, but they don't pop the subject out at you
the way an image with controlled DOF can. My apologies to others
who prefer great DOF for other reasons such as landscapes, etc. I
realize this could be taken as a shotgun blast and it's not
intended that way. I'm always enthralled by Jono's efforts and who
could be a bigger proponent of DOF than he? The trouble with him
is that he possesses that damned ability to make the average and
mundane interesting. :-) [Do you do portraits Jono? I've always
wanted to look less mundane... :-) ]

If you want faster AF which is usually more reliable, greater
resolution for larger more detailed prints, a camera which provides
an accurate TTL optical viewfinder(no parallax) and better
demonstrates what will be in focus, offers multiple power options,
fast manual zoom, a high quality line of add-on teleconverters,
allows for two general types of storage, provides a superior lens,
and offers a possibly more advanced photographer more creative
options then I suspect the E-10 would be to your liking. Not to
put too fine a point on it, but I'd normally expect anyone looking
to spend over four or five hundred on a camera to have some idea
why they'd wish to do so and how to exploit it to their purposes?
I'd think, if nothing else, the greater image quality and
resolution when making 8"x10s or larger would sell many people...
If you want the snapshot look where everything is focus, you can
easily switch to Aperture mode and close it down to something over
F5.6, or so, and get lots of DOF with suitably slower shutter
speeds, of course.

Does that make any headway? I think we're so used to seeing
snapshots where everything is usually in focus because of all those
cheap point and shoot cameras with infinity focus that we don't see
why a photograph with minimal DOF can highlight a subject rather
than looking flat(without depth).

By the way Joe, I grok electrons and logic both digitally and
syntactically, what kind of engineering do you do? Just idle
curiosity. Always good to know who to ask what sort of a
question... :-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You're welcome. I hope it was received as intended.

I design/build/program/troubleshoot computer controlled industrial control systems for batching/mixing primarily in concrete block plants. But, general mechanical/electronic/electrical engineering goes hand in hand.
 
Jono Slack said:
The E10 sheep had been drinking
Click to expand...
That certainly explains it! I'm not as sharp when I drink either. Of course, some would be bound to enquire how much less sharp could I possibly get? :-)

I think Excal tried to pull the wool over our eyes by comparing different sheep...

Excal, are you a wolf in sheep's clothing? :-)
 
hey....that is pretty wild.

do you live in the u.s.?

if you do i would almost bet you are familiar with allen/bradley plc equipment.
Gerald M. Payne said:
You're welcome. I hope it was received as intended.

I design/build/program/troubleshoot computer controlled industrial
control systems for batching/mixing primarily in concrete block
plants. But, general mechanical/electronic/electrical engineering
goes hand in hand.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I know what PLCs are, but avoided them like the plague. :-)

Why do I need a relatively expensive microcontroller running ladder logic with expensive custom I/Os when I can buy a relatively cheap I/O card for a PC and let it do the work? :-) My systems run a multi-threaded windowing environment and have been doing all the graphical interface and the precision timed stuff since the 386DX40 came out -with clock cycles to spare... :-)

Less chance of failure, due to less components. Matter of fact, my prototype was sold to a plant in Ohio, installed in 1993 and has never had a major board level problem, although they did lose the hard drive once. :-) Not bad for a prototype. ;-) I'd say they've maybe been down a total of 12 hours in 8+ years. Can I cook or what?

Prior to designing the current system, I lost count of how many times PLCs were found laying around block plants because of lightning damage, etc. On top of that they always pulled the whole unit and replaced it at great cost while we sent out a board after diagnosing over the phone... :-)

I seriously considered PLCs, but couldn't see the added cost when the PC could do the work, and the reliability of the PLCs I'd seen was doubtful. I'd like to redesign the whole thing to run with a barebones laptop using a serial or USB link to a microcontroller running the I/O racks directly. I use plug-in I/Os like Gordos & Potter Brumfield sell and a PC A/D card with timer/counter chip. The rest is custom to interface with the sensing needs of a plant. I'd really like to find an affordable color LCD interface and run both the user interface and the plant with a microcontroller. :-) The fewer parts the better.

blah blah blah... Can't shut me up. :-)
 
12 hrs in 8 years - that's only 3 sigma... pah! Five 9's would mean your a chef!
Gerald M. Payne said:
Yeah, I know what PLCs are, but avoided them like the plague. :-)

Why do I need a relatively expensive microcontroller running ladder
logic with expensive custom I/Os when I can buy a relatively cheap
I/O card for a PC and let it do the work? :-) My systems run a
multi-threaded windowing environment and have been doing all the
graphical interface and the precision timed stuff since the 386DX40
came out -with clock cycles to spare... :-)

Less chance of failure, due to less components. Matter of fact, my
prototype was sold to a plant in Ohio, installed in 1993 and has
never had a major board level problem, although they did lose the
hard drive once. :-) Not bad for a prototype. ;-) I'd say
they've maybe been down a total of 12 hours in 8+ years. Can I
cook or what?

Prior to designing the current system, I lost count of how many
times PLCs were found laying around block plants because of
lightning damage, etc. On top of that they always pulled the whole
unit and replaced it at great cost while we sent out a board after
diagnosing over the phone... :-)

I seriously considered PLCs, but couldn't see the added cost when
the PC could do the work, and the reliability of the PLCs I'd seen
was doubtful. I'd like to redesign the whole thing to run with a
barebones laptop using a serial or USB link to a microcontroller
running the I/O racks directly. I use plug-in I/Os like Gordos &
Potter Brumfield sell and a PC A/D card with timer/counter chip.
The rest is custom to interface with the sensing needs of a plant.
I'd really like to find an affordable color LCD interface and run
both the user interface and the plant with a microcontroller. :-)
The fewer parts the better.

blah blah blah... Can't shut me up. :-)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top