I wonder for the viewfinder application specifically. Rather than trying to make a teensy screen (although if you make LED's on a silicon wafer that shouldn't be so bad). do a scanned optical setup with lasers/LED's you can get little crystals that vary their refractive index with audio frequency or perhaps a piezo electric mirror system might work. That should let you get pretty much whatever resolution you need. Stack several systems if the scan rate is too low. Apptech wrote: >> It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or otherwise), >> that would display on an electronic viewfinder >> the scene you are shooting, then you don't need a mirror at all. >> > > Religious debates are not allowed on PICList :-) > > ie this is a very very time honoured and debated subject liable to lead to > violence, bloodshed, death and war :-). > > For most of the life of digital cameras the optical path as superior to the > electronic one for various reasons. > It is now *PERHAPS* arguable that this is the case in the top line cameras. > I have 2 x what are now trailing edge Minolta DSLR's. > I have 2 x excellent prosumer fixed lens cameras (Minolta 7Hi, A2) > The A2 has a VGA display viewed through an eye level infinity effective > focus viewer. ie works like a DSLR but you view a tiny screen. The 7Hi has > the same arrangement but less resolution. Both have electronic magnification > allowing you to blow up part of the scene for focusing. I think the A2 is > solely 2X ma - but that's the equivalent of 1.3 MP at eye level. > The electronic system has vast advantages. BUT the optical DSLR system has > too. > I longingly wait the day when the camera makers finally get their act > together and roll both together properly. > > It is hard to beat the optical path system. Part of this is due to mother > hen syndrome and decades of herd experience. But my A2 is about as good as > most electronic systems (even much newer ones) and while better in many ways > than anoptical system, it does not replace it. > > Re some comment on refresh rates and action shots - My 7Hi has an almost > negative shutter lag - you have to try it to believe it. Viewfinder refresh > speed is never an issue. > > >> The >> sensor would be looking at the scene constantly, >> and displaying same on the electronic viewfinder. When the photo is >> like you want it, and you press the shutter release, >> you would be commanding the camera to "capture" the current scene and >> save it to memory. >> > > My 7Hi (arguably the best prosumer camera ever made all things > considered )(now ther's a religious statement)(eg as one example - having > almost 100 MB of RAM buffer internally makes a vast difference to some sorts > of shooting) ALSO has an mechanical shutter to go with the elctronic !!!. In > some modes it just does auto capture seamlessly - in most the whisper quiet > shutter can be heard at work. You can shoot in a quiet room and the shutter > isn't heard. > > >> However, if you are looking at an optical viewfinder, the the mirror >> would be necessary. But in that case, it would >> seem to me that you would want to see the scene as it actually is from >> the sensor point of view, so an optical viewfinder >> would sort of get in the way. >> > > There are ways that don't need a traditional mirro but they are not rare or > not used. eg imagine a rotating half disk at an angle to the light path with > a mirrored surface - balancing is a matter of engineering. Spin the disk and > shoot through the hole. Viewfinder gets to see half the light. Optical > challenges exist - es[pecially for the eye. Disk could be sped up and down > or stopped. Or spun up from rest to take a photo -still more gently than a > mirror. (Eye view via mirror - action - disc spins up from rest until sensor > fully open - shoot - disk is already spinning down to rest for eye. OR > continues to spin with eye seing flickering half level scene allowing > tracking of the yumping rallky car etc. Shots per second are solely sensor > and processing limited. Size is an issue - but few care too too much at top > level. As long as it hasn't got an integral vertical grip :-). > > > Russell. > > > > > > > >> If I have this all wrong, I'm sure someone (or many) will let me know, >> but it just seems to me that using the camera sensor >> and an electronic viewfinder would give the benefits of sn SLR without >> the mirror, and the corresponding potential shake from >> the mirror moving out of the way. >> >> Of course I'm not a camera mfg, so I may be full of it, I don't know. >> >> The main digital camera I have is a Fujifilm S1000FD. 10MP, 12x zoom, >> and many other features. Cost is about $250.00 USD. >> I usually operate this camera in full manual mode. The only exception is >> that there is no manual focus. It's always motor >> driven. But it does a very good job, and I am pleased with it's >> performance. Granted, it won't really compete with a good >> DSLR, but then is doesn't cost $1000.00 or more either. And I'm not a >> professional photographer, so this camera does what >> I need it to do at a reasonable cost. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist