Lens Evolution: A Better Camera For Your Phone / PPC?

[Jon Westfall]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050522/ca_pr_on_bu/micro_camera_lens' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...cro_camera_lens</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Quebec researchers have created a new lens they say could revolutionize photography by allowing the smallest cameras to take crystal-clear zoom photos. The new lens, five times thinner than a sheet of paper, can zoom and focus with no moving parts, potentially eliminating the distortion caused by digital zoom and the bulky glass of conventional optical lens."</i><br /><br />Who hasn't been psyched to get a phone with a camera (or PPC) with camera feature, thinking that they will now be able to capture all those moments we wish we had our digital cameras for? Probably not many. To most, the camera in cameraphone was a nice feature, until they saw the pictures produced by it. I can count on 1 hand the amount of times I've used the camera in my iPAQ 6315, and probably only took about a dozen pictures on my i-mate pocket pc when I had it. The painful truth is, the cameras aren't that good, but with this new lens under development, we may see some improved quality in the future. After all, what good is a camera that takes pictures we aren't proud to show off!

[bbarker]

[i]"...The new lens, five times thinner than a sheet of paper....
I wonder how they do that. Let's see...one-half thinner than a piece paper makes sense, but wouldn't one times thinner -- or 100 percent thinner -- be thin air? And what would five times thinner end up being?

[ctmagnus]

The paper is thin to begin with, so five times thinner is one-fifth as thick as the already thin paper. ;)

(btw, one-half thinner would seem to me to mean half as thin, ie, twice as thick.)

[bbarker]

The paper is thin to begin with, so five times thinner is one-fifth as thick as the already thin paper. ;)

(btw, one-half thinner would seem to me to mean half as thin, ie, twice as thick.)
It's petty, of course, but my point is that 50% thinner would be half as thick, 99% thinner would be 1% as thick, and 100% thinner would be zero thickness. So you couldn't ever get to 5 times thinner. "One-fifth as thick" would be the way to say what's intended, not 5 times as thin, or 500% as thin. Am I wrong?

[ctmagnus]

imo this is a case of semantics. we're likely both right, depending on the point of view taken.

[bbarker]

You're right, but sometimes it's fun to argue semantics instead of doing real work.

[Jonathon Watkins]

You're right, but sometimes it's fun to argue semantics instead of doing real work.

:wink: So does PPCT = Pedants Pick Compelling Topics?

I still would prefer my PPC not to have any optics in then though.....

[bbarker]

You're right, but sometimes it's fun to argue semantics instead of doing real work.

:wink: So does PPCT = Pedants Pick Compelling Topics?

I still would prefer my PPC not to have any optics in then though.....
I agree. Infinitely thin optics would be okay, though...

[Jonathon Watkins]

Infinitely thin optics would be okay, though...

I was meaning that I don't want any camera in a PPC. :wink: I like taking my PPC everywhere and there are increasing numbers of places that stop you from taking cameras in.

[bbarker]

That was my point. I don't want a camera on my PPC either. A lense that's 5 times thinner than paper would not exist -- hence, no camera. Perfect.

[Jon Westfall]

Can anyone explain to me how a perfectly lovely post on thinning lenses has gotten so horribly dragged off topic to "Anti-Cameras" and "You say it wrong I say it right" arguments???

Geesh people, I spent some quality time writing up that post. Time I could have spent creating an Off Topic post entitled "Lets Fight" apparently.

Just Kidding... its stuff like this that makes this site great. But before a Mod comes in and catches us, lets try to get back to the benefits of cameras :)

[ctmagnus]

lets try to get back to the benefits of cameras :)

Um, they take better pictures than non-camera enabled devices? :p

Seriously, though, I recently bought a Pentax Optio S5n and I must say that 5Mp is very nice, especially in that size. With a camera of that size and quality, I'm still firmly in the two-device camp.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Can anyone explain to me how a perfectly lovely post on thinning lenses has gotten so horribly dragged off topic to "Anti-Cameras" and "You say it wrong I say it right" arguments???

Umm, we *are* on topic. The best thinning lens is one that does not appear, i.e. many of us prefer out PPCs without cameras.

... lets try to get back to the benefits of cameras :)

The benefits of cameras are many. The benefits on cameras on PPCs are few and they are often a hindrance. :P

[chuck.kahn]

After all, what good is a camera that takes pictures we aren't proud to show off!

http://photos5.flickr.com/4953022_1db06209bd_m.jpg

I purchased the external (aka non-built-in) 1.3MP SDIO hp photosmart mobile camera a year ago. I bring it with me everywhere (in the included belt hoster). I have taken thousands of pictures with it. And I've recently discovered the joys of geotagging (http://www.geobloggers.com/index.cfm?username=Chuck%20Kahn&amp;t=k).

I look forward to camera advances in the Pocket PC world, especially in light of hp not updating my camera's drivers beyond PPC 2002. I also look forward to Pocket PC photographers sharing their work in the Pocket PC Photography (http://www.flickr.com/groups/pocketpcphotography/) Group on Flickr.

Happy snapping!

http://photos3.flickr.com/5028400_7053f6571d_m.jpg http://photos3.flickr.com/5028350_d237ad1dfb_m.jpg http://photos1.flickr.com/3965881_27836cda91_m.jpg