[PLUG-TALK] Technology improvement choices (Was Re: [PLUG] Digital camera -- wrong choice?)

[Jason R. Martin]

[Moving to plug-talk to continue arguing]

On 5/28/06, Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a Canon A20, BTW.  Going off topic, the 2M pixel count is
> >fine on this older camera, I've rarely needed more.  OTOH, more
> >pixels use more power and memory.
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:18:52PM -0700, Jason R. Martin wrote:
> > A couple of things.  First, you are assuming that better battery life
> > is tied only to the MP count, and leaving out the improvements in
> > technology.  My new Canon A620 gets amazing battery life, despite the
> > 7.1MP.  It is also smaller, has a better display, boots incredibly
> > fast, takes pictures faster, and can take 640x480 movies at 30fps for
> > unlimited (except by card size) periods of time.
>
> Jason, you are assuming that you know what I am assuming, and that
> leads to madness.

Indeed.  My assumption was stupid, please accept my appologies.  I am
trying to argue with you, not insult you :-)

> What I *know* is that, *all other things being equal*, the power cost
> of storing and moving bits goes up with the number of bits, in a
> higher-than-linear fashion.  That is just physics - and I can show
> you detailed engineering calculations as to why this is so (I design
> chips).  Granted, the power and delay go down with improved technology,
> but I would rather take the improvements in longer battery life and
> lower shutter delay and bigger light buckets for the pixels, leading
> to better low-light sensitivity. Yes, cameras are getting better at
> the non-banner specs while they increase in pixel counts, but I would
> prefer a camera that gets A LOT better at the non-banner specs with
> no increase in pixel count.

I understand the issue.  Honda could use hybrid technology to improve
their gas mileage instead of give the Accord more horsepower, but they
serve the demands of the consumer, not the pure technologist.  65nm
process can reduce overall power consumption and heat output, or it
can fit more stuff on the chip.  What you would choose apparently
doesn't match what everyone else wants.

In the mean time, the battery life of cameras *has* improved, the
Accord hybrid *does* get better gas mileage, and the 65nm chips *do*
consume a lot less power.  Just not by the margins you might choose.
They have also improved the "banner" features of megapixels,
horsepower, and processing ability and/or transistor count.  From a
practical standpoint, my camera takes a heck of a lot of pictures
between battery charges, and my spare batteries spend a lot more time
sitting charged in the charging unit than they do in the camera.

> I'm sure many people are impressed by a simple big number for
> pixels, but I want fast and easy point and shoot, with long battery
> life and no 5-minute power-down nonsense, and I would like to be
> able to buy a camera with those parameters optimized.  I have never
> had a shot spoiled by being too grainy, and I have had hundreds of
> shots spoiled by blur, or lost by not getting the photos fast
> enough, or running out of memory.  As it is, I must take what
> I want (improved non-pixel-count performance) with a banner spec
> that makes my desired parameters worse than necessary.
>
> But then, big cars and big houses and big TVs and big bombs and
> bloatware programs don't impress me either.  Color me offbeat.

What color is offbeat anyway?

> Jason continues:
> > Second, the size of the image is adjustable on the camera.  While the
> > default is the largest size, you can certainly set it to take much
> > smaller pictures, including a mode that is designed for web-sized
> > images.
>
> Those modes save transfer time and memory area, but the camera is
> still moving all the pixels internally, and the light buckets on
> the imager are still smaller.  So the reduced pixel modes are
> slightly "less worse", but not as good as big-bucket pixels or
> smaller internal transfers.  Can you make these "smaller picture"
> modes persistent between camera power cycles, or is this just
> another setting you have to make at every power-up?

I believe the size setting is persistent, yes.  I am, of course,
speaking about my experience with my camera, YMMV.

> Keith continues
> > I hate waiting 10 seconds to turn the camera on, then turn off
> > the automatic flash, in the middle of a long event.
>
> Jason continues:
> > Again, the boot times of cameras is in the more in-depth reviews, just
> > not on the crappy consumer reviews.  The Canon A620 boots from off to
> > first image in 1.6 seconds.  Not sure what more you would want than
> > that.
>
> I want persistent state between power cycles.  True, the A20 camera
> goes from power button to lens extension in about 2 seconds, but then
> I have to turn off the $%$^# flash and re-adjust the zoom - it takes
> about 10 seconds to do all that.  This is especially annoying if the
> reason I am going though all this effort is because the camera decides
> to power down while I am waiting for the right shot.  Hence my concern
> about power; the folks who designed the camera were compensating for
> the huge power drain during the time the camera is imaging and
> displaying on the LCD.

Hmm.  Readjusting the zoom is something I hadn't thought of, and yes
it definitely resets itself every time the camera is turned off.
Interesting idea.  Of course, a DSLR wouldn't reset the zoom, but
that's a different category.  Other than the zoom, other settings are
persistent.  There's even a "My Colors" setting that I haven't played
with yet, but I gather you can set many of the settings permanently to
that mode and recall them at will.

The LCD, BTW, can be turned off and the viewfinder used in similar
fashion to 35mm point-and-shoots.  The battery life typically gets
multiplied by somewhere between 2x to 4x, depending on the model.
Except my old Fujifilm Finepix, which thought it was a good idea to
have an LCD, and a viewfinder that was another LCD.  Rediculous.  But
there were a lot of things wrong with that camera.

> Again, I would like a variety of camera that does what I want, not
> what 70% of the population thinks they want.  I look forward to the
> day that cameras start using imbedded Linux, so I can make one work
> to my tastes.  Most of my annoyances stem from firmware design
> choices.  I suspect I will be stuck with more pixels than I want
> until they start manufacturing them for the deeply poor parts of
> the third world, to go along with their $100 OLPC laptops.

Have you considered hacking the "disposable" digital cameras?  They
might fit some of what you're describing, and are quite cheap.

I'm not really disagreeing with your points, but I do think they
diverge from the requirements of the average populace.  Your
hypothetical camera, while interesting, would not likely sell very
well :-/

Jason