https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/

On 2021-10-28, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/

Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
top of the food chain.

On 2021-10-28 10:47, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-28, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
>
> Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
> Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
> concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
> top of the food chain.

"Belong"? That's a pretty emotional statement. The only way to lead is
to innovate and make sales.

Also your food chain analogy is just wrong.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 13:37:38 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-10-28 10:47, Incubus wrote:
> > On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
> >
> > Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
> > Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
> > concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
> > top of the food chain.
> "Belong"? That's a pretty emotional statement. The only way to lead is
> to innovate and make sales.
>
> Also your food chain analogy is just wrong.
Nikon and Canon HORRIBLY dragged their feet on mirrorless.

On 2021-10-28, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2021-10-28 10:47, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-28, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
>>
>> Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
>> Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
>> concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
>> top of the food chain.
>
> "Belong"? That's a pretty emotional statement. The only way to lead is
> to innovate and make sales.

Which they did from 1959 until circa 1986 and then again with the DSLR.

> Also your food chain analogy is just wrong.

Not really.

On 2021-10-28, RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 13:37:38 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2021-10-28 10:47, Incubus wrote:
>> > On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
>> >
>> > Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
>> > Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
>> > concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
>> > top of the food chain.
>> "Belong"? That's a pretty emotional statement. The only way to lead is
>> to innovate and make sales.
>>
>> Also your food chain analogy is just wrong.
>
> Nikon and Canon HORRIBLY dragged their feet on mirrorless.

Nikon moreso. However, they understand better than Sony what
photographers need.

On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 15:47:51 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
>
> Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
> Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
> concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
> top of the food chain.

My EOS M6 has the an option of using a electronic shutter, and it;s usefull as it doesn't make such
a loudish noise when opertated, BUT certain other functions aren't availble when this is selected noticably
not being able to use the Hi or low frame rates (FPS) when using 'drive' , plus a few others things I've forgotten.
Another was something about distortion of fast moving objects such as propellors.
But I'm not sure how this compares to a mechanical shutter.
I thought about doing a test with my fan heater, but unfortunanly it's a dyson so is effectively fanless
from a photograhy POV. Guess I'll have to wait for a helicopter to fly over
Or a drone of course , who do we know with a drone that could pop over to London for 1/2 an hour or so for me to run a test ;-)

On 2021-10-29, Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 15:47:51 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
>>
>> Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
>> Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
>> concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
>> top of the food chain.
>
> My EOS M6 has the an option of using a electronic shutter, and it;s usefull as it doesn't make such
> a loudish noise when opertated, BUT certain other functions aren't availble when this is selected noticably
> not being able to use the Hi or low frame rates (FPS) when using 'drive' , plus a few others things I've forgotten.
> Another was something about distortion of fast moving objects such as propellors.
> But I'm not sure how this compares to a mechanical shutter.
> I thought about doing a test with my fan heater, but unfortunanly it's a dyson so is effectively fanless
> from a photograhy POV. Guess I'll have to wait for a helicopter to fly over
> Or a drone of course , who do we know with a drone that could pop over to London for 1/2 an hour or so for me to run a test ;-)

I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.

Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
> I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.

I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 08:01:26 UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 15:47:51 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> > On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
> >
> > Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
> > Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
> > concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
> > top of the food chain.
> My EOS M6 has the an option of using a electronic shutter, and it;s usefull as it doesn't make such
> a loudish noise when opertated, BUT certain other functions aren't availble when this is selected noticably
> not being able to use the Hi or low frame rates (FPS) when using 'drive' , plus a few others things I've forgotten.
> Another was something about distortion of fast moving objects such as propellors.
> But I'm not sure how this compares to a mechanical shutter.
> I thought about doing a test with my fan heater, but unfortunanly it's a dyson so is effectively fanless
> from a photograhy POV. Guess I'll have to wait for a helicopter to fly over
> Or a drone of course , who do we know with a drone that could pop over to London for 1/2 an hour or so for me to run a test ;-)

Nikon may have figure out a way to minimized that effect.

On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 12:37:52 UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
> > I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> > etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.
> I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
> sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.
> --
> Alfred Molon

No global shutters in consumer cameras as of yet.

On 10/29/21 12:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast
> readout sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.

First fully global shutter will come on Canon R1 when it
gets released...

On Friday, 29 October 2021 at 15:34:26 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-29, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 15:47:51 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-28, RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > https://petapixel.com/2021/10/28/nikon-unveils-the-z9-45-7mp-120fps-8k-and-no-mechanical-shutter/
> >>
> >> Nikon have just pissed all over Canon and Sony with this release.
> >> Although I'll be sticking with my D3 where having a pro body is
> >> concerned, I really hope this puts Nikon back where they belong at the
> >> top of the food chain.
> >
> > My EOS M6 has the an option of using a electronic shutter, and it;s usefull as it doesn't make such
> > a loudish noise when opertated, BUT certain other functions aren't availble when this is selected noticably
> > not being able to use the Hi or low frame rates (FPS) when using 'drive' , plus a few others things I've forgotten.
> > Another was something about distortion of fast moving objects such as propellors.
> > But I'm not sure how this compares to a mechanical shutter.
> > I thought about doing a test with my fan heater, but unfortunanly it's a dyson so is effectively fanless
> > from a photograhy POV. Guess I'll have to wait for a helicopter to fly over
> > Or a drone of course , who do we know with a drone that could pop over to London for 1/2 an hour or so for me to run a test ;-)
> I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.

On TV sometimes you can see a cars headlights flicker on and off.
There's an anti flicker option on my EOS 6 mkII but I haven;t used it yet, maybe it auto adjusts.

I did a small 4K video at home and I have LED lights and didn;t notice any flicker.

students built one of these so I filled the result at home easier than taking my camera to work.
https://youtu.be/AUE2CH9uZNc

On 2021-10-29, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
>> I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
>> etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.
>
> I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
> sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.

I can't imagine they would release if it fast moving things are a
problem given that it is designed for fast moving things.

On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 13:53:31 UTC, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-29, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
> >> I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> >> etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.
> >
> > I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
> > sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.
> I can't imagine they would release if it fast moving things are a
> problem given that it is designed for fast moving things.

I guess it depends on how fast a thing is actually moving as to whether it affects the final image.
But it's only 120 fps my 6 yearv old iphone can do 240 fps lower resolution sure.

fastest shutter speed is 1/32000 fast but not so incredable that nothing will be have motion blur.

On Nov 2, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
(in article<8ec0fee5-b272-42a7-98ed-6c522f266726n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 13:53:31 UTC, Incubus wrote:
> > On 2021-10-29, Alfred Molon<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
> > > > I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> > > > etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.
> > >
> > > I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
> > > sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.
> > I can't imagine they would release if it fast moving things are a
> > problem given that it is designed for fast moving things.
>
> I guess it depends on how fast a thing is actually moving as to whether it affects the final image.
> But it's only 120 fps my 6 yearv old iphone can do 240 fps lower resolution sure.
>
> fastest shutter speed is 1/32000 fast but not so incredable that nothing will be have motion blur.

The issue isn’t motion blur that is the problem with an electronic shutter.
The problem is the rolling shutter effect as we are yet to see a global shutter in a pro, or consumer camera.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter>

As for high frame rates of 120 fps, or 240 fps that is a video concern rather than a stills photography issue.

....and here is what rolling shutter can look like with an electronic shutter image. Check thehummingbird wing tip.
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-9d3QSvv/0/5bfddd31/O/i-9d3QSvv.jpg>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Tuesday, 2 November 2021 at 14:48:57 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2021, Whisky-dave wrote
> (in article<8ec0fee5-b272-42a7...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 13:53:31 UTC, Incubus wrote:
> > > On 2021-10-29, Alfred Molon<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Am 29.10.2021 um 16:34 schrieb Incubus:
> > > > > I think newer sensors don't have the issue with propellors, rotor blades
> > > > > etc. I don't know how LED lighting will work.
> > > >
> > > > I think the Z9 doesn't have a global shutter, only a fast readout
> > > > sensor. Fast moving things could be a problem.
> > > I can't imagine they would release if it fast moving things are a
> > > problem given that it is designed for fast moving things.
> >
> > I guess it depends on how fast a thing is actually moving as to whether it affects the final image.
> > But it's only 120 fps my 6 yearv old iphone can do 240 fps lower resolution sure.
> >
> > fastest shutter speed is 1/32000 fast but not so incredable that nothing will be have motion blur.
> The issue isn’t motion blur that is the problem with an electronic shutter.

I think the problem will have the same effect but the term shutter is at fault here, which is why there is confusion in terms.

> The problem is the rolling shutter effect as we are yet to see a global shutter in a pro, or consumer camera.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter>

My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
even with the fastest proccessor we have today.

>
> As for high frame rates of 120 fps, or 240 fps that is a video concern rather than a stills photography issue.
>
> ...and here is what rolling shutter can look like with an electronic shutter image. Check thehummingbird wing tip.
> <https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-9d3QSvv/0/5bfddd31/O/i-9d3QSvv.jpg>

your humming birds are just deformed ;-)

My pigeons are perfect specimens of pigeonyness.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/51575096534/

>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:

> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.

Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
(at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.

> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.

An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period. It would require that
all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
(There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
scale of the sampling signal).

This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
independent of the processor speed.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2021-11-03, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
>> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
>
> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.

Damn. I thought it was a documentary, like The X Files.

>> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
>> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
>
> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period. It would require that
> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
> scale of the sampling signal).
>
> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
> independent of the processor speed.

This must surely have been solved with analogue CCD cameras for live
broadcast in the 1980s and earlier tube devices.

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:29:08 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
> > My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
> > I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.

No it's only mention regarding the Heisenberg compensator after the scientest got involved
in keeping the next generation series more credible from a technology POV.

> > You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
> > even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period.

Theoretically is not practically though.
Why use a shutter anyway ?

Better to sample each pixel for a nano second why have a shutter at all?

>It would require that
> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")

that signal would take a difernt time to reach each pixel, although you could possibley compensate
in a similar way to the Heisenberg compensator in star trek.

> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
> scale of the sampling signal).

Nano second is no longer that trival as light moves a whole foot every nano second electric current somewhat slower.

Trival but you'll need something similar to rotating mirrors to achieve it as did the ultra FPS camera used for photographing a light beam 'traveling'

>
> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
> independent of the processor speed.

The clock speed of the processor normally dictates the speed.
That why faster processors are used, we are pretty close to maxium presently at ~5Ghz
the way we increase so called speed is by adding more cores.

> --
> "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
> man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
> -Samuel Clemens

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 16:15:11 UTC, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-03, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> > On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >
> >> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
> >> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
> >
> > Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
> > (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.
> Damn. I thought it was a documentary, like The X Files.

Or like Fringe. otr battlestar Galatica

> >> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
> >> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
> >
> > An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
> > simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period. It would require that
> > all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
> > (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
> > scale of the sampling signal).
> >
> > This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
> > the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
> > independent of the processor speed.
> This must surely have been solved with analogue CCD cameras for live
> broadcast in the 1980s and earlier tube devices.

off loading the data is not problem that was solved in the long long ago in the before time,
by developing the image with magic chemicals ;-)

On 2021-11-03 12:24, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:29:08 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
>>> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
>> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
>> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.
>
> No it's only mention regarding the Heisenberg compensator after the scientest got involved

A Heisenberg compensator violates ....

> in keeping the next generation series more credible from a technology POV.

When I was a child I knew there was 0 technology credibility in ST. Han
Solo's "in 17 parsecs" line was more credible where heaps of silliness
comes in (and yes, they "compensated" for that goof in the space opera
"Solo".

>>> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
>>> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
>> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
>> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period.
>
> Theoretically is not practically though.

It's quite feasible. It's just more transistors, "traces" and passive
components. About 60 .. 120M more which is absolutely trivial in
today's chips, esp, a camera sensor.

> Why use a shutter anyway ?
>
> Better to sample each pixel for a nano second why have a shutter at all?

Depends on the shutter period. So even if the inter pixel sampling
interval is 1 ns, the exposure still needs to be much longer for a
viable (low noise) period.

>
>
>> It would require that
>> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
>
> that signal would take a difernt time to reach each pixel, although you could possibley compensate
> in a similar way to the Heisenberg compensator in star trek.
>
>> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
>> scale of the sampling signal).
>
> Nano second is no longer that trival as light moves a whole foot every nano second electric current somewhat slower.

In an electronic circuit the propagation is somewhat slower than that,
but devised correctly, you would get the sample trigger everywhere
needed with negligible delay wrt the shutter period (which is in the
many microseconds and slower domain).
>
> Trival but you'll need something similar to rotating mirrors to achieve it as did the ultra FPS camera used for photographing a light beam 'traveling'

You're way out there ...

>
>>
>> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
>> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
>> independent of the processor speed.
>
> The clock speed of the processor normally dictates the speed.

Capturing the image is completely independent of processor speed.

Processor speed goes to offloading, displaying, storing the image after
the fact.

> That why faster processors are used, we are pretty close to maxium presently at ~5Ghz
> the way we increase so called speed is by adding more cores.

Camera processors have no need to be very fast at all. Certainly not up
in the 5GHz range. Because: battery life.

>> --
>> "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
>> man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
>> -Samuel Clemens

Could you get a proper news reader?

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 2021-11-03 12:15, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-03, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
>>> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
>>
>> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
>> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.
>
> Damn. I thought it was a documentary, like The X Files.
>
>>> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
>>> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
>>
>> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
>> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period. It would require that
>> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
>> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
>> scale of the sampling signal).
>>
>> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
>> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
>> independent of the processor speed.
>
> This must surely have been solved with analogue CCD cameras for live
> broadcast in the 1980s and earlier tube devices.

Frame Transfer CCD. As I describe-ish above, but far coarser with a
frame rate of ~30 fps.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 16:40:03 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2021-11-03 12:24, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:29:08 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>
> >>> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
> >>> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
> >> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
> >> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.
> >
> > No it's only mention regarding the Heisenberg compensator after the scientest got involved
> A Heisenberg compensator violates ....

There's nothing wrong with a bit of violation between consenting adults.

> > in keeping the next generation series more credible from a technology POV.
> When I was a child I knew there was 0 technology credibility in ST. Han
> Solo's "in 17 parsecs" line was more credible where heaps of silliness
> comes in (and yes, they "compensated" for that goof in the space opera
> "Solo".

Hans solo wasn't in star trek and parsecs is a distanace not a speed I knew that too, and it's
why of the reaseans I think star wars is science fantasy and star trek is science fiction.
Some people can't tell the differnce between the two.
> >>> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
> >>> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
> >> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
> >> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period.
> >
> > Theoretically is not practically though.
> It's quite feasible. It's just more transistors, "traces" and passive
> components. About 60 .. 120M more which is absolutely trivial in
> today's chips, esp, a camera sensor.

But that won't do the job, the new macbooks M1 Max processor has 57 billion transistors
but it won't be able to sample a sensor fast enough for ever pixel to have the same timestamp.

> > Why use a shutter anyway ?
> >
> > Better to sample each pixel for a nano second why have a shutter at all?
> Depends on the shutter period. So even if the inter pixel sampling
> interval is 1 ns, the exposure still needs to be much longer for a
> viable (low noise) period.

Which is partially while you get a blur effect.

> >
> >
> >> It would require that
> >> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
> >
> > that signal would take a difernt time to reach each pixel, although you could possibley compensate
> > in a similar way to the Heisenberg compensator in star trek.
> >
> >> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
> >> scale of the sampling signal).
> >
> > Nano second is no longer that trival as light moves a whole foot every nano second electric current somewhat slower.
> In an electronic circuit the propagation is somewhat slower than that,
> but devised correctly, you would get the sample trigger everywhere
> needed with negligible delay wrt the shutter period (which is in the
> many microseconds and slower domain).

But not yet.

> >
> > Trival but you'll need something similar to rotating mirrors to achieve it as did the ultra FPS camera used for photographing a light beam 'traveling'
> You're way out there ...

if it;'s so easy to do with justa few million more transistors they;d have done it.

> >
> >>
> >> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
> >> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
> >> independent of the processor speed.
> >
> > The clock speed of the processor normally dictates the speed.
> Capturing the image is completely independent of processor speed.
>
> Processor speed goes to offloading, displaying, storing the image after
> the fact.

but you need the rest of the circuit to read all teh pixels at exactly the same time.
File could do that.

> > That why faster processors are used, we are pretty close to maxium presently at ~5Ghz
> > the way we increase so called speed is by adding more cores.
> Camera processors have no need to be very fast at all. Certainly not up
> in the 5GHz range. Because: battery life.

They;d need to be fast , processor in camera are getting faster.

> >> --
> >> "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
> >> man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
> >> -Samuel Clemens
> Could you get a proper news reader?

No.

> --
> "...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
> man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
> -Samuel Clemens

On 2021-11-03 12:57, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 16:40:03 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2021-11-03 12:24, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021 at 15:29:08 UTC, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-03 09:21, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My 'image' of a global shutter must be different then.
>>>>> I assumed a global shutter would suffer from Heisenberg princible just like in star trek.
>>>> Whatever happens in Star Trek wrt to the Heisenberg principle is likely
>>>> (at best) a misconstrued attempt at putting "science" into space opera.
>>>
>>> No it's only mention regarding the Heisenberg compensator after the scientest got involved
>> A Heisenberg compensator violates ....
>
> There's nothing wrong with a bit of violation between consenting adults.
>
>>> in keeping the next generation series more credible from a technology POV.
>> When I was a child I knew there was 0 technology credibility in ST. Han
>> Solo's "in 17 parsecs" line was more credible where heaps of silliness
>> comes in (and yes, they "compensated" for that goof in the space opera
>> "Solo".
>
> Hans solo wasn't in star trek and parsecs is a distanace not a speed I knew that too, and it's
> why of the reaseans I think star wars is science fantasy and star trek is science fiction.
> Some people can't tell the differnce between the two.
>
>>>>> You just can;t have such a sensor you can't sample ~30meg pixels instantaneously, presently anyway so I doubt Nikon has achived it
>>>>> even with the fastest proccessor we have today.
>>>> An array can theoretically be devised that samples all 30Mpixels
>>>> simultaneously for an arbitrary shutter period.
>>>
>>> Theoretically is not practically though.
>> It's quite feasible. It's just more transistors, "traces" and passive
>> components. About 60 .. 120M more which is absolutely trivial in
>> today's chips, esp, a camera sensor.
>
> But that won't do the job, the new macbooks M1 Max processor has 57 billion transistors
> but it won't be able to sample a sensor fast enough for ever pixel to have the same timestamp.

This is NOT a CPU issue. It is a devoted device sampling gate issue.
As long as you can get the signal to where it is needed the sample is
started (and ended when the sampling signal goes to the opposite state).

A strobe (sampling signal) is akin to the processor timing signals all
over a CPU chip. So while they won't be perfectly simultaneous, they
will be at close to 0 lag pixel to pixel. The device does not "address"
each pixel, each pixel receives the sample signal simultaneously (with
minor variation due to propagation - sub ns level).
>
>>> Why use a shutter anyway ?
>>>
>>> Better to sample each pixel for a nano second why have a shutter at all?
>> Depends on the shutter period. So even if the inter pixel sampling
>> interval is 1 ns, the exposure still needs to be much longer for a
>> viable (low noise) period.
>
> Which is partially while you get a blur effect.

Not at all. Rolling shutter is due to the CPU sampling one row at a
time; in turn each row being off loaded 1 pixel at a time.

What I'm describing is trigger the senor to sample all pixels at once
(frozen for the same exposure period), and then offloading the entire image.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It would require that
>>>> all pixel sites be triggered by a single sampling signal ("strobe")
>>>
>>> that signal would take a difernt time to reach each pixel, although you could possibley compensate
>>> in a similar way to the Heisenberg compensator in star trek.
>>>
>>>> (There may be a trivial propagation delay in the nano second or less
>>>> scale of the sampling signal).
>>>
>>> Nano second is no longer that trival as light moves a whole foot every nano second electric current somewhat slower.
>> In an electronic circuit the propagation is somewhat slower than that,
>> but devised correctly, you would get the sample trigger everywhere
>> needed with negligible delay wrt the shutter period (which is in the
>> many microseconds and slower domain).
>
> But not yet.

Of course "yet". It's just more costly to do.

>
>>>
>>> Trival but you'll need something similar to rotating mirrors to achieve it as did the ultra FPS camera used for photographing a light beam 'traveling'
>> You're way out there ...
>
> if it;'s so easy to do with justa few million more transistors they;d have done it.

$

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is independent of the time to offload the data which would define
>>>> the frame rate (or specifically the inter-frame delay). Thus
>>>> independent of the processor speed.
>>>
>>> The clock speed of the processor normally dictates the speed.
>> Capturing the image is completely independent of processor speed.
>>
>> Processor speed goes to offloading, displaying, storing the image after
>> the fact.
>
> but you need the rest of the circuit to read all teh pixels at exactly the same time.
> File could do that.

A DMA transfer of 30M pixels to a DMA array of some number would take
little time.

>
>>> That why faster processors are used, we are pretty close to maxium presently at ~5Ghz
>>> the way we increase so called speed is by adding more cores.
>> Camera processors have no need to be very fast at all. Certainly not up
>> in the 5GHz range. Because: battery life.
>
> They;d need to be fast , processor in camera are getting faster.

Again, image sampling ≠ image transfer / storage. It is an independent
of the CPU operation.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens