Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Accident Could Lead To Better Digital Cameras

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the digital-chamagne dept.

Technology 120

Dave Bullock (eecue) writes "Scientists at UCLA have accidentally created a material that will some day give us better, faster, cheaper, more flexible digital cameras. I toured their lab and shot a photo essay for Wired. Personally I'm looking forward to a quantum-dot embedded camera sensor someday soon. 'Graduate student Hsiang-Yu Chen was working on a new formula for solar cells when something went wrong. Instead of creating electricity when hit with light, the conductivity of the material she was working with changed. "The original purpose [was] to make a solar cell more efficient," says Chen. "However, during the research we found the solar cell phenomenon [had] disappeared." Instead, the test material showed high gain photoconductivity, indicating potential use as a photo sensor.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No, you won't see it any day soon... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950845)

...you'll see a niblet of it, dangled in front of you like a carrot, and then another niblet, and then another. Never will you get a product bringing out the "whoa, this is something totally new, and so much better thatn what we used to have!" in you - and it's just plain ol' business, as usual.

Seen any of those "whoa!" 3CCD consumer digicams on the market lately? ;)

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951137)

Yes? [nextag.com] There are a few [amazon.com] out there.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (2, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951519)

I think he means 3CCD dedicated still camera, not a 3CCD video camera that can do stills.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952631)

Ahhh. Well, if he wants to pay for it, it's technically feasible. Thing is, sensors are very expensive, the most expensive part of the camera. Add to that additional expense of the prism filtering, and there you have it. The 3CCD's are on video cameras because they're much lower resolution, cheaper sensors.

Go ahead and bitch, but 3CCD's are here. Just because they cost a lot doesn't mean that the tech isn't here. Hell... this development could even make 3CCD cameras more affordable to make.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952819)

CCD's are freakin' expensive. If he wants to pay for the camera, the technology is here. It's just not economical for even professionals to pay over 3x as much for the mild improvement in image quality. The reason that 3CCD systems are in video cameras predominantly is because the lower resolution chips are cheaper to manufacture.

Hell, this development might even make a 3CCD camera economically feasible. Wouldn't that be awesome?

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953167)

I think he means 3CCD dedicated still camera, not a 3CCD video camera that can do stills.

From the page linked to:

The Sigma DP1
A Full Spec Compact Digital Camera with all the power of DSLR.

I don't see anything on that site having anything to do with video cameras at all. But he should have known better than to call a digital camera a "Digicam" because that's a brand name video camera.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25954673)

The camera linked is a point and shoot still camera...I don't even think it CAN shoot video.

Sigma also makes a dslr with the same sensor...

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (4, Informative)

sssssss27 (1117705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951395)

Right here. Camera with Foveon X3 sensor [sigma-dp1.com]

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951751)

that's a video camera...

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (2, Insightful)

jebrew (1101907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952391)

No, it's a still camera, try clicking the link before saying it's not something it is.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (1)

el americano (799629) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951647)

Did someone say totally new and much better? It wouldn't matter even if it were true. We already have good and inexpensive photo sensors. If it's cheaper to manufacture, it should eventually get into products, but the consumer shouldn't notice.

Re:No, you won't see it any day soon... (1)

utopiandelusion (714882) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951949)

this is nothing new, research to mass production always takes quite a bit of time.

Nice accident... (5, Funny)

oskard (715652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950847)

Scientific accidents have brought some of the most groundbreaking discoveries - vulcanized rubber, X-rays, penicillin

I like how they compare 3 things that have been unimaginably advantageous to the human race to something that will allow me to view better-quality porn.

Re:Nice accident... (2, Funny)

jornak (1377831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950865)

Oh trust me, those other three things have sexual applications. ;)

Re:Nice accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950943)

Yeah, I mean enough x-rays to the crotch and you don't NEED to get fixed :D

Re:Nice accident... (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951537)

Ok, the rubber and the penicillin are obvious...

but X-rays???

Re:Nice accident... (1)

dB 0 (982589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951655)

I like to see what I'm getting into.

Re:Nice accident... (1)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951665)

Osteophelia obviously. The sexual attraction to bones and bone structures.

Re:Nice accident... (1)

atrocious cowpat (850512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951901)

Haven't you seen those X-rays of things people ...erm "accidentally" got stuck up their butt?

Re:Nice accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952273)

The uses of the rubber and the penicillin for porn ar clear. X-rays are a bit trickier, but think about some of the more intricate piercings and the x-ray vision porn possibilities.

Re:Nice accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950973)

They accidentally a new photo sensor? The WHOLE photo sensor? That sounds painful!!!

Re:Nice accident... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951047)

What about the transistor, anyway?

Re:Nice accident... (4, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951227)

You really need screen-sized pimples to get off?

The biggest problem with most digital cameras at this point is that they have tiny, low quality lenses pointed at tiny little sensors. The next problem is that the operator is incompetent (I take horrible pictures).

Instead of over-sized 5 megabyte, poorly framed, poorly lit snapshots that are the norm today, we are going to have super-sized 25 megabyte, poorly framed, poorly lit snapshots.

Hopefully the increase in speed is decent.

Re:Nice accident... (1)

jebrew (1101907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952429)

Maybe, but my hopes are that these more sensitive photos allow the poorly lit part to go away...after all, if your images can take a much more sensitive photo, then you should be able to get lower ISO values in darker scenes with less noise...

Re:Nice accident... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953867)

"Poorly lit" doesn't necessarily mean "dark." As in, more light (or sensitivity) isn't necessarily the solution.

Re:Nice accident... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953825)

I'd agree with you, except I think you mixed up the order of the top two problems.

Re:Nice accident... (5, Funny)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951273)

Dude...

As anyone who's ever viewed porn at higher resolutions / definition can attest, it doesn't make it better, it brings out every flaw in greater detail - making you wish you'd never upgraded....

Re:Nice accident... (4, Funny)

mgblst (80109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954237)

Is this your reason for avoiding real life contacts as well? Or do you close your eyes when you get intimate with a women.

Re:Nice accident... (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 5 years ago | (#25955417)

it brings out every flaw in greater detail

that's just poor framing, not a fatal flaw of HD cameras. With enough 60"+ TV's out their, instead of zooming in on one small portion, I say add more "actors" (or mirrors) and less extreme zooms, since we can now get that same detail without a zoom.
Granted if they take the same clips, etc, and just filmed in HD that would be worse. Changing how they film to match the media will eventually make it all much better.

Re:Nice accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951399)

Like rubber and penicillin had no impact on porn...

Re:Nice accident... (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951449)

Scientific accidents have brought some of the most groundbreaking discoveries - vulcanized rubber, X-rays, penicillin

I like how they compare 3 things that have been unimaginably advantageous to the human race to something that will allow me to view better-quality porn.

How is this rated funny, real people are trying to earn a living with porn. You insensitive clod.

Re:Nice accident... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951657)

I like how they compare 3 things that have been unimaginably advantageous to the human race to something that will allow me to view better-quality porn.

How is this rated funny, real people are trying to earn a living with porn. You insensitive clod.

Parts of the people may be real, other parts are not!

Re:Nice accident... (1)

ari wins (1016630) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952003)

Really though, we must all ask ourselves: Is better quality porn REALLY better? I'm just thinking some things are better left unseen, ya know what I mean?

Re:Nice accident... (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952633)

could not be more true. because you know it is simply a matter of time until there is a new goatse in high def - definitely better left unseen.

Re:Nice accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952203)

They put them together because they were discovered by serendipity

Nice Accident.... (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954943)

An accidental discovery is often great. I just hope nobody can get a patent for the discovery itself. Since it's an accident...

That's great... (4, Funny)

decalod85 (1214532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950873)

but the assignment was to make a better solar cell. That's an 'F' for you, Chen!

Re:That's great... (5, Insightful)

Bearpaw (13080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951073)

Funny, though she was smart enough to not just toss the mistake away as worthless. That's the trick with accidental discoveries -- recognizing that the result is valuable even if it isn't the result you were looking for.

(And the lab is still working on better solar cells.)

Re:That's great... (2, Insightful)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951153)

Now THAT's insightful. Both on Chen's part, and the parent post.

Re:That's great... (5, Informative)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951381)

Or, to quote Asimov:

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'

Re:That's great... (5, Insightful)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952035)

Isn't that just like slashdot?
Everybody's aiming for +5 Insightful but it's even better when you get +5 Funny!

Re:That's great... (3, Funny)

Dice (109560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952613)

Personally, I've been striving for +5, Flamebait.

Re:That's great... (0, Redundant)

Dice (109560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953579)

*sigh*

Failed again.

Me Too! (2, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954437)

Well, maybe -1, Flamebait times 5.

I have some karma to burn, and it's sometimes fun to tweak the $WHATEVER_GROUP of the day that pisses me off.

Re:That's great... (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953107)

(And the lab is still working on better solar cells.)

And after many years of creating better photo sensors for cameras, low-leakage transistors for embedded computers, denser hard drive storage, a material for denser optical disks, and a new formula for Coke that people actually like better than the old one, but never a single improvement in solar cell technology, they give up in disgust.

Whoa There Chen (0, Troll)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951003)

I'm sorry to break the news, but just because you created something photo-conductive, even super-off-the-charts-photo-conductive doesn't mean it will become a digital camera sensor.

My question is, how is it that a UCLA grad student got a whole article out of bad research?

Even worse, the department will smile upon his non-work work because of the press generated more than anything else.

Re:Whoa There Chen (0)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951319)

Not only that but better sensors are fairly worthless, we are already at the point where it's the LENS that's the limiting factor for picture quality. The only way this makes a difference is if it costs less to make the same size sensor which is unlikely since it's competing with bulk CMOS technology.

Re:Whoa There Chen (4, Informative)

bombtime (1377167) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951523)

Not true at all. Sharpness of a given lens may be diffraction limited at a given aperture, but that doesn't mean better sensors are worthless! Light sensitivity and dynamic range are the true limiting factors for digital imaging. Any technology that increases either will move digital closer to film, which has been the goal all along.

Re:Whoa There Chen (1)

ender- (42944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951995)

Not true at all. Sharpness of a given lens may be diffraction limited at a given aperture, but that doesn't mean better sensors are worthless! Light sensitivity and dynamic range are the true limiting factors for digital imaging. Any technology that increases either will move digital closer to film, which has been the goal all along.

Not only that but the article mentions the substance being flexible. If the technology is good enough it could be able to curve the sensor in the way that best overcomes the limitations of your cheap lens.

Re:Whoa There Chen (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952295)

Digital already surpasses film for light sensitivity, I can shoot from ISO-50 to ISO-3200 with my sub $500 DSLR. It will be quite grainy at ISO-3200 but so will film. As the examples at this [clarkvision.com] site show modern digitals also have a greater dynamic range then typical films. Also the existence of HDR imaging shows that in practice you can achieve significantly higher dynamic range using digital techniques than you could with film.

Re:Whoa There Chen (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953945)

Well, try using those HDR photo techniques with a motion picture camera and let me know how that goes.

Re:Whoa There Chen (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954219)

Probably not what you meant but check out this [vimeo.com] work for some HDR videos (granted time lapse). Also I think Peter Jackson and company would argue that at the high end digital has plenty of dynamic range, and with camera's like the D90 and 5D Mark II it's actually coming to the prosumer market.

Re:Whoa There Chen (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951761)

I wish I had mod points. I also wish I had a few L-series Canon lenses (or even just one!). My camera body is WAY better than my lens budget allows.

Re:Whoa There Chen (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954247)

Yeah, 2/3 rd's of my budget for the camera I bought with my rebate check was lense and I was still wishing for more glass when I went out to Yellowstone this fall. Decent quality 400+mm glass with autofocus and image stabilization is really freaking expensive. My 18-200VR lense was the best all around piece of glass I could afford and it's only OK quality.

Not so fast. (2, Informative)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952015)

"we are already at the point where it's the LENS that's the limiting factor for picture quality"

Not at all - 22mpix is about film resolution, which is just becoming widespread with the 5Dmk2 and D3X. Long way to go before that's on my phone. Similarly there's a long way to go with ISO. The 5Dmk2 has 25000 iso, but its still not perfect. Lots of room for improvement there and that's just two areas.

Re:Not so fast. (3, Insightful)

g0at (135364) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952387)

I think you are proving the parent's point.

Parent:

we are already at the point where it's the LENS that's the limiting factor for picture quality

You:

Not at all - 22mpix is about film resolution [...] Long way to go before that's on my phone.

The lens on your phone is a piece of shit; a better lens will make your phone's 1 megapixel picture look better than would a 22 megapixel sensor.

-b

Re:Not so fast. (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953961)

I think you mean 2.2 megapixels as being equivalent to film. That would be 2K resolution, which is the defined minimum for 35mm film work.

Re:Not so fast. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954175)

No, ~20MP is equivalent to full frame 35mm film in all aspects including the ability to crop and blow up to wall sized prints. In practice 6-8MP is good enough for almost all work even for most professionals. There are of course exceptions but unless you are shooting medium format today 22MP is likely going to fulfill all your needs.

Re:Not so fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25954921)

You've completely missed the point.

1) The lens on your cell phone is a tiny piece of crap.

2) Just because a company made a 24 megapixel small format camera doesn't mean the lens can resolve that resolution. In fact, very few canon or nikon lens can across an entire 35mm frame. Small format cameras should produce at max 11x14 INCH images before defects from the lens become apparent. (Looking at an image on a computer monitor doesn't count...we are taking high quality printed images.)

3) The size of the sensor on a cell phone is tiny compared to an full frame dSLR. And the size of a medium format camera sensor dwarfs it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SensorSizes.png

Larger sensors allow for higher resolutions, since larger lenses are needed in turn. IF this new material is cheap (and rivals CMOS or CDDs)then this should bring down the cost of full frame dSLRs and medium format systems (which are upwards of $40,000). Right now camera sensors are made much the same ways as computer processors, only they don't have the benefit of getting smaller, hence requiring less silicon.

Re:Whoa There Chen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951413)

Even worse, the department will smile upon his non-work work because of the press generated more than anything else

(cough) that would be "her non-work" did you even open the article?

Re:Whoa There Chen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951493)

As an anonymous coward, I can only assume that you are new here.

Re:Whoa There Chen (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951427)

I'm sorry to break the news, but just because you created something photo-conductive, even super-off-the-charts-photo-conductive doesn't mean it will become a digital camera sensor.

But it might be good for that, or good for something else. If you don't fund her project *cough cough*, we'll never know.

My question is, how is it that a UCLA grad student got a whole article out of bad research?

She had novel results. That's plenty to get an article published. The journal doesn't care that it wasn't the purpose of the grant, they just care if the results are significant and novel. Unexpected results != bad research.

The violation of Rob Malda (0, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951023)

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda stepped off the bus and was led into the yard of the Main
State Correctional Institute. He had been given ten years for participating in
a stock fraud. Five with good behavior. Years spent basking in the glow of a
CRT had been hard on him. His body was frail, his skin pallid. He knew he could
never make it through ten years in the general population with his virginity
intact. He had to get into solitary.

As soon as the burly guard unshackled him he made his move. Exhaling a feminine
"hmmph" he weakly slapped the guard. He was quickly taken to the ground,
receiving a swift kick to the ribs before being restrained. As he was dragged
to the solitary confinement cell he felt nothing but relief. "At least in
solitary," he thought "I'll be safe." Unfortunately for Rob he had picked the
wrong guard to mess with.

The next few days were uneventful. The time in his cell he spent evenly between
sleeping, reading a "Perl for Dummies" book he had gotten from the book cart,
and masturbating furiously. His self-flagellation was interrupted on the fourth
day. The burly guard he had attacked earlier stepped into his cell. The gleam
in the guards eye and the mean grin on his face made Rob's pecker quickly
shrivel in his hand. "You fucked with the wrong man when you fucked with
Michael Simms," said the guard. "The inmates here call me The Asshole for a
reason. Now come with me, punk."

The guard led him down the hall to one of several empty shower stalls. He
roughly threw Rob in the stall and locked the door. Rob was petrified. His mind
raced as he imagined the myriad of different tortures that could be in store
for him. His worst fears were confirmed when the guard returned. In his hands
were a short black dress, black stilleto heels, and a curly blonde wig. "Strip
down and put this on, bitch." Rob did as instructed and was pleased to notice
that the dress fit well and the heels gave him a nice slimming effect. The
burly guard admired the drag queen. "The GNAA is gonna love you!"

The guard left the shower stall, only to return minutes later. He opened the
door and led 20 large black men into the stall. "Rob, meet the Gay Nigger
Association of America. GNAA, meet Rob. I'm sure you all will get along fine."
With that the guard slammed the shower door closed and walked away laughing.

The men approached Rob, backing him into a corner. The apparent leader stepped
forward. "No matter what I'm gonna fuck that purdy lil' ass of yours. Now I can
fuck it dry or you can lube it up for me." Rob knew he had no choice. He
kneeled in front of the leader, who began to slap his face with his 10 black
inches. Puss from syphilictic sores quickly covered Rob's cheeks. When the
leader was sufficiently aroused he placed his throbbing cock up to Rob's lips.
As soon as Rob opened his mouth the leader violently shoved his manhood to the
back of Rob's throat and exclaimed "Swallow my shit you cracker bitch!" Rob
gagged as he was violently face fucked.

Just when he was about to pass out the leader pulled out, turned him around and
shoved his cock into Rob's ass. Rob began to scream in agony but his cries were
quickly muffled by one of the other gang member's cocks. They rode him like
that for the better part of an hour. When one man finished another quickly took
his place. Just as Rob was getting used to the throbbing pain in his anus the
men stopped. One man lay down on the floor and Rob was told to get on top of
him and take his dick inside him. Exhausted and humiliated, Rob had no will
left to fight. As soon as he inserted the penis another man came up behind him
and began to force his cock into Rob's already filled anus. Again his screams
of agony were muffled, this time by a smelly black anus.

For another hour he was violated in this way. When the men were finished with
him he couldn't walk and his mouth was filled with dingleberries and ass hairs.
Before they all left the leader had some parting words for Rob: "Thanks for
that sweet piece of ass, punk. We'll see you again tomorrow. Oh by the way, we
all have AIDS." It was going to be a long ten years for Rob.

=Smidge=

Re:The violation of Rob Malda (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951089)

too long; I popped halfway through

Old News (3, Interesting)

bmwm3nut (556681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951039)

This is fairly old news. We've been seeing the same stuff in our lab for about 8 years (also came across it during Quantum Dot research). It's been very hard to characterize. Cool stuff. Since you have x, y, and z resolution when you're "writing" to the photosensitive material, and these spots can be diffraction limited in size, you can imagine the storage density of read-only optical media for this.

Re:Old News (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951897)

Oh great. First we have to upgrade to Blue Ray, and now we'll have to upgrade to three quantum holo discs.

Re:Old News (1)

Tsujiku (902045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952365)

Holographic discs [wikipedia.org] are already in development.

A comic strip I read... (1, Interesting)

Trillan (597339) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951071)

I couldn't find it in the archive because the search tool is down, but Schlock Mercenary [schlockmercenary.com] by Howard Tayler once made the observation that great discoveries are less "Eureka!" and more "Hey, that's funny."

Re:A comic strip I read... (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951195)

Except, of course, when Einstein realized that the orbit of Mercury could be used as a proof for relativity. Don't observers claim that he screamed and had heart palpitations?

Re:A comic strip I read... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952567)

I thought he was more excited to prove his gravitational theory that the "bend in space time" would be proven with the refraction of light around the sun. (Which to me only proves that light particles can be manipulated by the attractive force of [electric|magnetic|both] gravity rather than his idea of compressed universe gravity. But then again, I'm just a lowly programmer and not some world acclaimed physicist.)

Re:A comic strip I read... (2, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951597)

That was a reference to an Isaac Asimov quote.

*leaves work early to buy more Ovalkwik*

Re:A comic strip I read... (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953403)

I didn't realize that! I'd like to think I've read most of Asimov's work, but there's so much of it I've probably only scratched it.

Re:A comic strip I read... (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954089)

They are the Non, who must become Juffo-Wup or Void.
We are the agents of Juffo-Wup.

We are the Mycon. We respond.

(Thanks for accidentally brightening my day at work! Haven't thought on those lines in years!)

Fuck this Shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951135)

There is no indication that this would be beneficial at all to camera design or manufacturing.

We have too many good, cheap, cameras.
Every asshole thinks they can just buy a DSLR and become a photographer (or even worse, a photo journalist).

We don't have enough good, cheap, solar cells.

Hsiang-Yu Chen gets an F-.
UCLA gets a FUCK YOU.

Hi, Xiao Hsiang-Yu (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951157)

Congrats, but--"Pix, or it didn't happen!"

Summary of Slashdot posts (3, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951187)

1. Dup!

2. We've been doing that for YEARS...nothing special move along.

3. Duh...

4. Unless I invented it myself I don't believe it.

5. Dick Cheney will probably patent this and sit on it.

Re:Summary of Slashdot posts (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951415)

6. Al Gore really invented.

Re:Summary of Slashdot posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951541)

... and you forgot

7. Profit!

Re:Summary of Slashdot posts (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952481)

You mean

7. ????
8. Profit!

Re:Summary of Slashdot posts (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25954187)

Oh...and I forgot the most important one

6. Meh

it's not a bug..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951335)

....it's a feature!

Well I invented Astro Jax. (1)

dword ZZork (1421463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951455)

I dunno, it was also an accident, I was a bit drunk and started swinging random stuff around and like "holy hell, this could sell," and called up a marketing executive. She called me crazy, so I started a better company. I didn't actually do this, but I think the principle holds that drinking and silicon DO NOT MIX, and should never be anywhere remotely near each other under any circumstance, unless the silicon is mixed with an appropriate substrate to facilitate the absolution of grinprocessing, and an FPU to correct for the spins.

Re:Well I invented Astro Jax. (1)

Ender Wiggin 77 (865636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951587)

I'm just gonna write my own "whoosh!" for this one. wtf?

accidental PhD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951627)

Isn't that how all science is done right now ?

Great News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951827)

How many other "mistakes" like this have scientists just tossed out? Really sad considering how much money gets thrown into projects like these, only seeing it (sometimes) going to waste. But good to see this. One up for observant scientists!

Re:Great News! (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953975)

Most, I hope.
This mistake is useless, and nothing will come from it.

and these exciting science news ... (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951875)

were peer-reviewed and published where?

Given that some labs have already claimed that this is not a new phenomenon to them, it would be nice to see what is actually newsworthy about their "discovery"

Re:and these exciting science news ... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953997)

HEAR YE! HEAR YE!
UCLA SCIENTISTS ACCIDENTALLY CREATE AMAZING NEW CAMERA!

Some retard grad student fucked up his solar cell project and made something that has similar properties to part of a camera.

THIS IS THE HOT NEW SHIT.
UCLA HAS THE BEST SCIENTISTS.
GIVE US MONEY.

HEAR YE! HEAR YE!

Left With The Impression... (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952123)

I'm left with the impression that the author of the article is coming to conclusions about this materials success and marketability that are way above his pay grade.

Does this mean no solar boost from nanoparticles? (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952267)

Or is it just this particular approach that failed?

The nanoparticle boost to solar cell efficiency (by slicing photon energies to allow several electron-hole pairs per photon, rather than one, to be formed for photons with energies well above the band gap, and perhaps to additionally combine the undersized "slices" of the photon energies to use them as well) promised a big improvement: A cheap spray-on coating step that would improve the price/performance of photovoltaic panels to finally make them cost-competitive with grid power in suburban areas.

It would be a pity if that didn't work out.

Serendipity? (1)

mdemonic (988470) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952281)

How fortunate to accidentaly learn a new word from a tag. Now just to make shure im not offtopic - I think this photosynthesis thing is cool, and we should try to find more of it.

twrolL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952331)

[anti-slash.org] But suffice it Exploited that. A stagnant. As Linux Keep unnecessary for successful his clash with [amazingkreskin.com] since then. More *BSD is 3ead. Java IRC client intentions and niggerness? And Of the founders of

Accidentally, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952441)

Like the improbable drive inventor, I wish to accidentally create an accidentator, so that inventors around the world can accidentally something. Science will advance greatly.

Slashdot Word For The Day : +1, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952625)

Serendipity.

    --- You can start modding this down .

PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout.

P.S.: Please enable Cyrillic fonts.

utter nonsense (1)

nih (411096) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952817)

I accidentally dropped my camera and now it's broke you insensitive clod!

chemical engineers (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25953389)

Chemical Engineers are fascinating to me. My wife is a ChemE, and got her PhD from one of the labs which did this work, but her specialization is cancer therapeutics and protein modification. To have that scientific breadth in the same lab seems crazy to me.

The actual paper can be found at Nature Nano [nature.com] , it's a few months old at this point. For all of you jealous researchers who claim to have already done this, it has all the usual citations. If you're lucky (and published), maybe you got one!

anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25953495)

what a disturbing news, photo-conductivity has been known for ages, what is new here for a graduate student and wired to claim a new discovery!!! You can buy these devices at many surplus stores!!

shame on you
A physicist with 30 year experience

frist 5tOp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25954043)

OF AMERICA) 1s the poor dead last 'I have to kill Was after a long
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?