EVF vs OVF continued...

[bionet]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.

Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter pilot uses an OVF?

Thus, what you should be asking is why you still get the same meager 235K VF or LCD as on a cheap compact even in quite expensive cameras. Probably because the market doesn't demand better ones sternly enough?

 

[Jay Turberville]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.

Your interpretation of what people seem to know isn't a very good one.

Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Having a device exist and having it exist at a price point that is affordable are two different things. Furthermore, a higher resolution sensor makes additional demands on the sensor in order to get more data. The typical sensor in live preview mode is not sending out a full resolution image. It typically skips lines. So getting a higher resolution EVF to market isn't a slam dunk just because someone somewhere makes one. There has been at least one high resolution EVF that made it to market at consumer prices.

Thus, what you should be asking is why you still get the same
meager 235K VF or LCD as on a cheap compact even in quite expensive
cameras. Probably because the market doesn't demand better ones
sternly enough?

That's probably part of it. And the other part is that digital camera development is actually still rather immature.

BTW, there is another source for those "teaser" images. So it may be a legit teaser from Olympus.

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/cp/olympus/index.jsp

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[bionet]

Your interpretation of what people seem to know isn't a very good one.

Thanks =). But talking about science fiction is really exaggerated.

Having a device exist and having it exist at a price point that is
affordable are two different things.

Of course, but you might agree that there is something wrong with apparently dirt cheap 235K VFs and LCDs, given the price of the cameras they are used in, and the lack of anything above them even in products for several thousand bucks. In the case of SLR preview screens, there isn't even a fast readout required.

And the other part is that digital camera development is actually still rather immature.

That's true. I think most DSLRs are quite a strange breed with their digital technology put on top of outdated design principles and often also controls.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

If the sensor skips lines as it provides the Live Preview image, then I can see how it would keep noise in check by alternating the skipped lines...but if we are to take a full sensor sample for the live preview, then we will have a bunch of hot spots...how do we get rid of that without dark frame subtraction?

People keep mentioning sensors heating up in live preview mode, but
there is scant little evidence that this is much of a problem to
solve. Just about everything I've been able to dig up shows that
sensors draw very little power. Consequently, they can generate
very little heat. Perhaps your concern is that the sensor might
absorb heat from adjacent components?

--

Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

 

[Jay Turberville]

If the sensor skips lines as it provides the Live Preview image,
then I can see how it would keep noise in check by alternating the
skipped lines...but if we are to take a full sensor sample for the
live preview, then we will have a bunch of hot spots...how do we
get rid of that without dark frame subtraction?

The sensors draw very little current and hence don't generate much heat. Every time I've been able to find data on modern sensor it turns out they draw something like 100mW of power.

Now the more lines that get sampled, the greater the potential for the sensor to need to draw more power. But that just means more power than in the high frame rate low resolution modes. But those modes may already be drawing much less than the 100mW that seems to be typical for these sensors. The 100mW number comes fromt the supply current and I would think that would be the maximum current draw.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Sarbu Alexandru-Cristian]

Maybe, but you start with an EVF which is worse than the worst
optical reflex viewfinder.
Let's get real, the EVFs are nowere near OVFs and this
magnification stuff is cumbersome.

Such blanket statments just keep these discussions going in
circles. Nowhere near in what sense? It is important to define
the specifics.

Specifics which were already defined. Again, we were talking about magnification - that means resolution.

So if vibration and noise are your
criteria, TTL OVFs are nowhere near EVFs.

That's why some people uses rangefinders

EVFs are nowhere near the OVFs in clarity and in finder delay. But
those are hardly the only criteria worth considering.

Agreed. But for some, those are very important. You can overcome the mirror slap, the noise is not always a big issue - but an unusable viewfinder is a pain in the...

This won't change in the near
future, and until then you must accept that OVFs are a better
solution.

For some things, yes they are. For others, no they aren't. And as
I keep harping, the OVFs in most DSLRs are noticably inferior to
those in past SLRs. As a class, they could stand some significant
improvement.

That's cost cutting. Glad my Pentax have a decent viewfinder (for an APS-format camera). But the 'pro' full frame cameras (you know about which brand I'm talking) have very good viewfinders.

If you want to compare an autofocus camera with a manual one... you can't. Some light must reach the AF sensors, and that (the passive, phase-detection AF) is another reason to keep the reflex viewfinders.

But I agree, an orientable LCD would be really nice. Maybe you
should ask for a DSLR with such a thing (and live preview ofc, one
could switch between this and standard optical viewing)?

That could be an excellent combination if implemened well. But
strangely enough, I have found that asking for camera designs that
I like hasn't resulted in a lot of action by camera makers. Go
figure.

I wonder what's the effect for those big sensors. If they work continuously they may overheat, and that means noise.
Btw: check the Canon 20Da

Alex Sarbu

 

[Jay Turberville]

I wonder what's the effect for those big sensors. If they work
continuously they may overheat, and that means noise.
Btw: check the Canon 20Da

People keep saying this. Why would the sensor overheat? The larger sensors draw the same current as the smaller sensors (of similar resolution). The smaller sensors aren't overheating. Neither is the sensor in the Sony R1.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Sarbu Alexandru-Cristian]

I wonder what's the effect for those big sensors. If they work
continuously they may overheat, and that means noise.
Btw: check the Canon 20Da

People keep saying this. Why would the sensor overheat? The
larger sensors draw the same current as the smaller sensors (of
similar resolution). The smaller sensors aren't overheating.
Neither is the sensor in the Sony R1.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Ofc, R1 has solved this issue. And the R1's sensor is noisier, but it's also smaller and with a higher resolution than - let's say - the Canon 8MP one, so we can't draw a conclusion. And btw the Canon sensor can't work well in this mode. What I'm trying to say is that it's not impossible to do a large sensor with live preview, but it's not as easy as a firmware update.

"Overheat" it's an oversimplification You won't burn if you touch the sensor, it won't melt down, they'll just be somewhat warmer.

Alex Sarbu

 

[CharlieDIY]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Thus, what you should be asking is why you still get the same
meager 235K VF or LCD as on a cheap compact even in quite expensive
cameras. Probably because the market doesn't demand better ones
sternly enough?

Have you checked prices on these lately? Military gear is designed on a basis that is very close to cost is no object, as is medical gear. I'm not evne sure that the HUD technology involved in military aircraft would be easy, simple, or cheap, to fit into a DSLR. With a combat aircraft, there's a lot of room to stuff CPUs and similar gear. In a camera the size of my Pentax *istD, there is little room. If the device is as small as a baseball, it will fit in the aircraft. It will not fit in my camera. With most medical gear, size is just about totally irrelevant, so devices may be as large as needed.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

...but I am not so sure that what you said about the 100mW has anything to do with certain pixels getting hot over a 5 second period of time. Dark frame subtraction seems to be necessary for loger exposures...

Please tell me (if you know) why this is a non issue with live preview.

--

Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end, the faster it goes.

 

[BobTrips]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Thus, what you should be asking is why you still get the same
meager 235K VF or LCD as on a cheap compact even in quite expensive
cameras. Probably because the market doesn't demand better ones
sternly enough?

Have you checked prices on these lately? Military gear is designed
on a basis that is very close to cost is no object, as is medical
gear.

With electronics present prices are not an indication of future prices. Just a few years ago your dSLR, actually a less capable version, cost $30,000.

The first pocket calculators were several hundred dollars. Now you can get a more capable calculator for a couple of bucks.

Military gear is generally low volume production, very heavy on R&D, and there has to be a huge amount factored in that's designated to be funneled to the politicos to maintain their support.

I'm not evne sure that the HUD technology involved in
military aircraft would be easy, simple, or cheap, to fit into a
DSLR. With a combat aircraft, there's a lot of room to stuff CPUs
and similar gear. In a camera the size of my Pentax *istD, there is
little room. If the device is as small as a baseball, it will fit
in the aircraft. It will not fit in my camera. With most medical
gear, size is just about totally irrelevant, so devices may be as
large as needed.

What we're talking about is keeping the viewfinder screen about the same size as current EVFs and simply increasing the resolution.

Yes, it will require more processing, thus, more processor. But that part of the hardware is still being covered by Moore's Law.

(And, yes, I know it isn't really a law.)

(I'm trying to make harder for you to nitpick. ;o)

--
bob

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

 

[BobTrips]

...but I am not so sure that what you said about the 100mW has
anything to do with certain pixels getting hot over a 5 second
period of time. Dark frame subtraction seems to be necessary for
loger exposures...

Please tell me (if you know) why this is a non issue with live
preview.

The number of hot pixels on a 'usable' sensor is going to be quite small.

If it is necessary to use dark frame subtraction to disregard the signal coming from a handful of pixels one is not going to see that on the EVF.

Think 12 hot pixels randomly distributed over a 1 megapixel field.

Only in the event of a large number of hot pixels located very closely together would one have a portion of the EVF (and image) where noticeable detail was lost.

--
Life is like a roll of TOILET PAPER; the closer you get to the end,
the faster it goes.

And TOILET PAPER is like life. After it's been used some of it stinks, some doesn't....

--
bob

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

 

[exp1orer]

...how many military and medical equipments are being sold with that hi-grade EVF? that's one reason why the cost is high. of you put that in a camera that sells for 200,000 units a month, will the price be the same as the one mentioned in military and medical equipments? and price of electronics reduces overtime. how much was the price of a 2mp P&S camera 7 years ago compared to 8mp nowadays?

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Thus, what you should be asking is why you still get the same
meager 235K VF or LCD as on a cheap compact even in quite expensive
cameras. Probably because the market doesn't demand better ones
sternly enough?

Have you checked prices on these lately? Military gear is designed
on a basis that is very close to cost is no object, as is medical
gear. I'm not evne sure that the HUD technology involved in
military aircraft would be easy, simple, or cheap, to fit into a
DSLR. With a combat aircraft, there's a lot of room to stuff CPUs
and similar gear. In a camera the size of my Pentax *istD, there is
little room. If the device is as small as a baseball, it will fit
in the aircraft. It will not fit in my camera. With most medical
gear, size is just about totally irrelevant, so devices may be as
large as needed.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

--
exp1orer
my gallery: http://www.pbase.com/explorer

 

[CharlieDIY]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Yes, but...futures again. I know what digital cameras cost a decade or so ago, so I know that my $1600 Pentax was a good buy. And I also know that technology will eventually bring on an EVF that most photographers, including pros, will find acceptable. I very much doubt much miltech will be involved, but one never knows.

I'm still waiting to hear how the designers are going to handle the extra power requirements. As I noted in another thread--or maybe earlier in this one--I am truly enamored with getting 800 to 1500 shots from what are essentially hopped up AA batteries. Keeping a huge EVF (the EVF is going to be huge, even though you may see only a small image) fed is going to eat battery power. No one yet knows how much, but...it will eat power, and quite possibly a lot.

No EVF camera that I know of, even with today's fairly spare pixel count, can compare with DSLR battery life.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[exp1orer]

...but you are accepting the EVF with have much room for improvement. have you read the recent news about the new battery technolgy that could last for years? have you read new technolgy about similar light emiting organic materials (as replacement ofr LCD or EVF) that uses only a fraction of the capacity of the current LCDs?

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Yes, but...futures again. I know what digital cameras cost a decade
or so ago, so I know that my $1600 Pentax was a good buy. And I
also know that technology will eventually bring on an EVF that most
photographers, including pros, will find acceptable. I very much
doubt much miltech will be involved, but one never knows.

I'm still waiting to hear how the designers are going to handle the
extra power requirements. As I noted in another thread--or maybe
earlier in this one--I am truly enamored with getting 800 to 1500
shots from what are essentially hopped up AA batteries. Keeping a
huge EVF (the EVF is going to be huge, even though you may see only
a small image) fed is going to eat battery power. No one yet knows
how much, but...it will eat power, and quite possibly a lot.

No EVF camera that I know of, even with today's fairly spare pixel
count, can compare with DSLR battery life.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

--
exp1orer
my gallery: http://www.pbase.com/explorer

 

[BobTrips]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Yes, but...futures again. I know what digital cameras cost a decade
or so ago, so I know that my $1600 Pentax was a good buy. And I
also know that technology will eventually bring on an EVF that most
photographers, including pros, will find acceptable. I very much
doubt much miltech will be involved, but one never knows.

I'm still waiting to hear how the designers are going to handle the
extra power requirements. As I noted in another thread--or maybe
earlier in this one--I am truly enamored with getting 800 to 1500
shots from what are essentially hopped up AA batteries. Keeping a
huge EVF (the EVF is going to be huge, even though you may see only
a small image) fed is going to eat battery power. No one yet knows
how much, but...it will eat power, and quite possibly a lot.

No EVF camera that I know of, even with today's fairly spare pixel
count, can compare with DSLR battery life.

The resolution will be huge. Not the physical size of the EVF.

As for power draw, my K-Minolta which had an EVF got ~ 500 shots per charge. That's not much below your 800 shot range.

Batteries improve.

Processor power demands decrease.

Be patient young grasshopper.

--
bob

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

 

[BobTrips]

I find it surprising that no one here seems to know about the
existing high-resolution EVFs. I had googled about this a few
months ago and quickly found 2 companies that manufacture such
micro screen products in the 2 MP (1600x1200) range.
Of course, in military and maybe medical applications, these VFs
have been in use for even longer, or do you think a jet fighter
pilot uses an OVF?

Yes, but...futures again. I know what digital cameras cost a decade
or so ago, so I know that my $1600 Pentax was a good buy. And I
also know that technology will eventually bring on an EVF that most
photographers, including pros, will find acceptable. I very much
doubt much miltech will be involved, but one never knows.

I'm still waiting to hear how the designers are going to handle the
extra power requirements.

From this Canon site...

http://www.canon.com/technology/display/

"Heralded as the new generation of high-quality large flat-screen display, the SED (Surface-conduction Electron-emitter Display), jointly developed by Canon and Toshiba Corporation, is almost ready for practical application. Its greatest feature is the ability to produce vivid color images that surpass conventional types of display. Also, the SED delivers exceptional overall image quality—fast video-response performance, high contrast, high gradation levels—and low power consumption.

The advent of digital Hi-Vision broadcasting and the broadband network era, along with next generation DVDs, digital cameras and digital video camcorders, is expected to fuel the spread of high definition, high-quality next-generation content."

The interesting thing about science fiction these days is that sometimes as quickly as the sci fi book gets written the imagined technology hits the market....

--
bob

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Since pixel density is a serious limiting factor in increasing the resolution of the EVF, it may turn out to be more economical to make the EVF higher resolution by making it bigger.

E.g. you can make a 1200*900 EVF by using a 600ppi 2.5" screen whilst the KM A2's 0.44" EVF must have had a pixel density of 1800ppi to achieve its 640*480 resolution...

(the 2.5" screen would double as a nice LCD, too...)

 

[Jay Turberville]

...but I am not so sure that what you said about the 100mW has
anything to do with certain pixels getting hot over a 5 second
period of time. Dark frame subtraction seems to be necessary for
loger exposures...

I think you need to differentiate between a 5 second exposure and the mere fact that a sensor is on for five seconds making many (possibly hundreds) exposures. Those are two different situations.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[BobTrips]

...but I am not so sure that what you said about the 100mW has
anything to do with certain pixels getting hot over a 5 second
period of time. Dark frame subtraction seems to be necessary for
loger exposures...

I think you need to differentiate between a 5 second exposure and
the mere fact that a sensor is on for five seconds making many
(possibly hundreds) exposures. Those are two different situations.

Are you guys aware of the fact that people are taking 2 hour exposures with their Canon 20D?

And that they are satisfied with their results?

--
bob

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips