-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Apple patents a pentaprism
- Thread starter Hithertoo
- Start date
Heritage Cameras
Veteran Member
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne
Veteran Member
[No message]
harcourtfenton
Forum Enthusiast
[No message]
pgb
Veteran Member
Isn't that what 3 chip colour video cameras have been doing since colour TV and still do today,
RGB capture ?
It's Foveon with 3 sensors and without the issues.
RGB capture ?
It's Foveon with 3 sensors and without the issues.
Yes... it's what your monitor does and TV sets and your printers... RGB colors separated out into channels. It's not that ingenious really and yes I posted the thread title as click bait also but... That aside.
The Russians were doing three colour, colour photos as early as 1910. This is just the digital version.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html
http://www.boredpanda.com/historical-color-photography-russia-sergey-prokudin-gorsky/
etc... that's why some of these photos have a sort of "3D effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
They realised if you captured 3 colour black and white slides you could go back and make an additive color negative out of it and project it in full colour after the fact.
The Russians were doing three colour, colour photos as early as 1910. This is just the digital version.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html
http://www.boredpanda.com/historical-color-photography-russia-sergey-prokudin-gorsky/
etc... that's why some of these photos have a sort of "3D effect"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky
They realised if you captured 3 colour black and white slides you could go back and make an additive color negative out of it and project it in full colour after the fact.
Last edited:
AlbertTheLazy
Veteran Member
harcourtfenton
Forum Enthusiast
Now there's something I didn't know about him. Interesting.
The novelty of it isn't in the splitting of colors but apparently how they do it. IE, "we found a new way to do this".
Apparently this patent was awarded so it looks like it was novel enough to convince the patent office. I'd like to see the claims, need to find the actual patent.
Last edited:
pgb
Veteran Member
That's true and it's also new for stills bar Foveon but they make it sound like they invented RGB capture.
Last edited:
...but, unfortunately, they happen to already have launched a product line called, by sheer coincidence, NEWTON.
Anyway, I think it's worth noting that said prisms are NOT the part labeled deflector 20 on the drawing the OP posted, but rather the light splitter 2 assembly on the bottom of the optical stack, which is the "cube of triangular prisms" itself:
(from the same source as the O.P.'s)
This means the concept here is NOT "folded optics" (periscope, anyone?) like the zooming lenses inside the 2002 Dimage X pictured above (yep, that minolta was a first!) and virtually any current waterproof/shockproof P&S.
It's about a Newtonian way of splitting light...
Anyway, I think it's worth noting that said prisms are NOT the part labeled deflector 20 on the drawing the OP posted, but rather the light splitter 2 assembly on the bottom of the optical stack, which is the "cube of triangular prisms" itself:
(from the same source as the O.P.'s)
This means the concept here is NOT "folded optics" (periscope, anyone?) like the zooming lenses inside the 2002 Dimage X pictured above (yep, that minolta was a first!) and virtually any current waterproof/shockproof P&S.
It's about a Newtonian way of splitting light...
Last edited:
harcourtfenton
Forum Enthusiast
The patent office don't check if it works or even if it's possible. They've been granting patents for completely impossible things for rather a long time. These include the famous "recursive compression" patent ( something any vaguely competent engineer should know is fairy dust ) and innumerable patents for perpetual motion machines.
A patent proves nothing.
And if the patent office cared about "novelty" I'm pretty sure we d
wouldn't have so many patent law suits been won.
It proves that the patent office judged the item patentable. What did you think it proved?
I hate to break your bubble, but the patent office cares very much about novelty. It's one of the criteria they use for judging. It's not their job to check to see if it works, only that it fulfills certain criteria. They're not a manufacturing or engineering firm.
From wiki:
The patent laws usually require that, for an invention to be patentable, it must be:
- Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection
- Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new)
- Non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law)
- Useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law)
Last edited:
harcourtfenton
Forum Enthusiast
The patent offices ( everywhere ) have demonstrated their almost complete and total inability to do the job they are intended to do.
They have become little more than a source of income for lawyers, and, pardon my cynicism, I've never believed the lawyers intended anything else.
Many decisions handed down by patent offices and courts ruling on patent disputes have simply no credibility with engineers. They live in a fantasy paper universe. The late Terry Pratchett's Disco
world has as much reality. It is at least consistent, unlike the patent offices.
Any office that can allocate a patent on a process which is fundamentally impossible mathematically cannot be other than flawed deeply. Farcical is the only conceivable term.
If you choose to believe otherwise that's your problem.
My personal belief is that they have out lived their usefulness.
They have become little more than a source of income for lawyers, and, pardon my cynicism, I've never believed the lawyers intended anything else.
Many decisions handed down by patent offices and courts ruling on patent disputes have simply no credibility with engineers. They live in a fantasy paper universe. The late Terry Pratchett's Disco
world has as much reality. It is at least consistent, unlike the patent offices.
Any office that can allocate a patent on a process which is fundamentally impossible mathematically cannot be other than flawed deeply. Farcical is the only conceivable term.
If you choose to believe otherwise that's your problem.
My personal belief is that they have out lived their usefulness.
And what is that?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Companies create useful patents all the time.
Specifically what are you referring to? IE, you must have some instances and examples that support this claim.
I detect a heavy dose of hostility and cynicism. First you say that novelty has nothing to do with it, but then I showed you that it is one of the primary criteria. So I suspect you're grinding the proverbial axe. And if so, I'm guessing there is something specific about this whole process that bothers you.
harcourtfenton
Forum Enthusiast
You showed nothing. You presume a great deal.
My aren't you the mighty unpleasant one - working hard to get kicked off again are we? You have issues, go work them out somewhere else.
Another one ignored.
Last edited:
Allan Olesen
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,391
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,586
For still images, the concept of splitting different wavelengths out to several digital sensors is not new either. Minolta's first DSLR did exactly this.
But it was one green, one green and one blue/red sensor.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum