Page 52 of 52
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 8:57 am
by EC8010
We even used a DXC3000P camera (early CCD) for stills in our graphics area thirty years ago.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 10:16 am
by tggzzz
My introduction (in Jan 1996) to digital photography was somewhat unusual since it was designed to illustrate (literally!) the characteristics of digital photography. It was a panoramic photo of the Golden Gate bridge approaches in San Francisco.
By "unusual" I mean something I haven't seen since...
The photo was printed on one of the HP CAD printers and the height was the width of the printer, i.e. ~1m high. You could get to within 1m and still not see any pixellation. Notice I haven't mentioned the width, because I'm not sure how wide it was... Certainly it went around four walls of a medium-sized meeting room, so my best guess is ~20m wide.
It took >8 hours to print, basically overnight.
The camera was obviously custom, a slit which rotated in the same way film panoramic cameras rotate. I'm not sure of the sensor, but I guess a linear sensor taken from a photocopier.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 1:09 pm
by Zenith
I found this:
https://goprocamerasreview.com/blog/dig ... he-market/
The first commercially available digital camera was sold by Sony in 1981 or maybe was the Dycam Model 1, released in 1990. The article seems confused about this.
I wasn't really aware of them as a product you could go out and buy, and which was fairly practical, until around 1996. I saw a couple and they were expensive and limited. There were rapid advances in sensors and flash cards. These days most people seem happy with the camera included with their mobile phone.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 1:13 pm
by tggzzz
Most people are happy with their phone's speakers!
I played with a Kodak around 1999/2000, and found it ok for snapshots but not something I would take on holiday. Brownie rather than SLR.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 1:43 pm
by Zenith
These days the low end digital compact camera market is much reduced. As I said, most people are happy using phones. Around 2000 they were still quite crude; low megapixels, limited features, limited storage and very often bulky. By 2010 there were point and shoot digital cameras which were far better than an Instamatic.
SLRs have their own woes.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 2:25 pm
by tggzzz
Indeed.
I rather like my Canon Powershot 16; small/light enough to carry around (unlike SLRs!), focusses down to 1cm(!) handy for TE/PCB closeups.
Re: Interesting findings on the internet
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2026 3:21 pm
by Zenith
The one I usually use is a Nikon L25, which I rescued from being thrown away. It's small and light and I wouldn't cry too many tears if it was broken or lost. I often use it when dismantling things. Having said that, I've just looked on ebay and they are dearer than I thought.
I have others.