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!

Building a Digicam from Scanner Elements

chrisd posted more than 12 years ago | from the can't-believie-this-one-isn't-a-dupe dept.

News 111

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Want a weird & wobbly digital camera, but don't want to spend over $100? Well, Matthias Wandel, whose site is due for some /. lovin', used the guts of a cheap scanner, some camera parts, and scrap wood to build a very high quality digitcal camera. Read about progress at this site. Oh, and he also builds things out of legos as well." I personally think that his Jenga Pistol and wasp-vacuum are pretty neat too.

cancel ×

111 comments

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

Last poop (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467124)

First post, last poop!

First reply to last poop! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467201)

Er, I mean, first reply to first post!

Sadly, I have not pooped my last. Stinks, doesn't it?

Not the first post! (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467125)

not the first post! hurray! Yes, I rule!

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467133)

> high quality digitcal camera My gawd, give the man a spellchecker, already...

For a moment there (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467139)

Thought I had the first post! Too bad!

Wuss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467277)

First posts are only cool when you identify yourself and suffer the karma drain. Loser.

lens issues (4, Insightful)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467140)

For the lens, I used an obsolete 35mm F/2.8 screwmount SLR camera lens. The lens is so obsolete, its even predates the Pentax screwmount (which I still use). The lens has no anti reflective coating, and, a completely manual aperture - that is, it even predates the automatic aperture reduction when the shutter is released. Its entirely manual. Perfect for the job.

Something like this is going to be next to impossible to find. and might be a photographic collectable as well?

Perfect reading for a sunday afternoon. File away as technology to remember for after the end of the world.

Re:lens issues (3, Informative)

zome (546331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467465)

there are plenty of them on ebay.
I just bought a very old vivitar SLR completed with working 50mm f1.4 and non-working 85mm f1.8. These lens are totally manual.

Re:lens issues (4, Informative)

psavo (162634) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467596)

Something like this is going to be next to impossible to find. and might be a photographic collectable as well?

My local shop has about 3-400 lenses _in shop_. And we're talking about Finland/Helsinki, not freaking NY/Adorama.

For those who don't know: most modern lenses are fully manually operable, etc. you can set aperture & focus with your hands, without electric contact.

hmm (3, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467150)

I tried something like this once, but instead of a scanner, I used a toaster.

Well, I had to add some parts, but I can say for sure that the pics I took were hot.

I'm suprised you weren't sued by NewTek (2)

VValdo (10446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467252)

I believe they have a competing product [newtek.com] .

Didn't Wil Wheaton [lysator.liu.se] work there?

W

praise (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467167)

It's people like this who will lead us in rebuilding after the coming revolution!

Other inventions (2, Interesting)

greyguppy (413383) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467168)

I personally prefer the wasp-sucker. It looks good, serves a purpose, and has the 'home-made' quality to it.

The marble gun seems dangerous, I can just imagine a kid understanding gun safety, yet building one of those

I DO NOT WANT TO START A DEBATE ON GUN-CONTROL

The Jenga thing however is stupid, as it makes you more likely to lose!

As Homer Simpson once said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467172)

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter...

High Resolution Vs. High Quality (1)

John_McKee (100458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467173)

He seems to have confused high resolution and high quality. Getting a high resolution image is easy. That hard part is getting a high quality image. While the 2000x2000 pixel image size is somewhat impressive, I have seen better results with $300 1.5 megapixel cameras.

Re:High Resolution Vs. High Quality (2, Insightful)

npietraniec (519210) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467257)

You seem to have missed the fact that he *built a camera out of a scanner*

He was impressed with the resolution, and I think it looks pretty good too.

The point was to try and build it, not try to create a perfect image... I'm sure you've seen better images with a 1.5 megapixel camera, that's what they're built to do... I'm sure we can also assume that the picture on the site was shrunk down with a sort of image program to make it more web friendly

Re:High Resolution Vs. High Quality (2)

zeno_2 (518291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467324)

Yea, and his pic that he had of his garage with the strange doors, it would be interesting to see what other stuff did.

Id say its pretty slick, in fact his whole site is (+5 interesting)

Re:High Resolution Vs. High Quality (3, Interesting)

psavo (162634) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467590)

Yeah, he said he got 2k*2k images out of that camera.

Bigger thing is that because his camera is completely computerized, it can be distortion -corrected. So actually geometrical errors can be compensated for. Same goes for colors (just scan a picture of 'test pattern' and make a grid out of it).
Hmm. Now that I think of, biggest problem is 'keeping image in focus', but that seems to handle well in his pictures.

What i'm more surprised of, is that modern conan 1D / niikon D100 don't have these kind of functions. Niikon _surely_ knows distortion properties of their lenses and they already distinguish lenses with a microchip.

Re:High Resolution Vs. High Quality (1)

wcb4 (75520) | more than 12 years ago | (#3469042)

Same goes for colors (just scan a picture of 'test pattern' and make a grid out of it).

Speaking as someone who worked in the printing industry doing just that sort of work for about 10 years, its is NOWHERE near that easy ;-)

fakes (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467177)

I met this man once and he lured me into his "workshop" under the guise of "perusing" some of his project. I found out they were all fakes and he violated my virgin bum!

Re:fakes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467199)

You mean your previously virgin bum. Did he look like this [sentex.net] and take pictures of you with his flatbed-scanner/digital camera?

Re:fakes (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467254)

Yes, that's me. You can see him holding my fake legs apart in the picture!

Once upon a time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467178)

...I made a super-scanner out of a whole bunch of 9 flat bed scanners. I took the scanning mechanisms out of their cases, and lined them up in a 3x3 array. You could scan posters with that thing. Unfortunately I tried to write my own stitching algorithms and could never get them to work quite right. I used to have to apparatus displayed on a website, but I started getting a lot of emails from porn site operators wanting to know if I could build something like this the size of a bed. I wonder why....?

Anyway, kudos to this gentleman's engineering skills. Looks like a cool weekend project!

looks safe (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467183)

I opened and closed the garage door while I took the shot above. Really makes it look like there's something gone very wrong with the garage door.

Looking at the pic [http://www.sentex.net/] [sentex.net] that looks like no under statement. It look it is designed to act as door from star-wars.

[http://www.sentex.net/] [sentex.net] I must say that looks like the safest prototype for a ejection seat =)

the wasp sucker is cooler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467184)

and it's actually quite useful (it's on the same page)

Infrared (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467191)

He mentioned that it lacked an infrared filter. I didn't see any pictures though. Can anybody guess if it's sensitive enough to take pictures of people in total darkness?

Motion Distortion (1)

div_2n (525075) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467203)

"I opened and closed the garage door while I took the shot above. Really makes it look like there's something gone very wrong with the garage door."

Imagine this thing taking a picture of someone walking from the top down. Now that would be some trick photography.

Re:Motion Distortion (1)

jtra (525331) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467320)

Imagine this thing taking a picture of someone walking from the top down. Now that would be some trick photography.

You can get this effect [sourceforge.net] with effectv [sourceforge.net] under linux with v4l device. Works great and there are other good effects too.

Damn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467210)

check out the pipe organ he built.

http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/organ/organ.html

I wonder if he's ever made a homemade masturbator? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467213)

Fuck me bitch. Aw yeah. fuck me. Fuck me. FUCK ME!!

Drip

Drip

Drip

Re:I wonder if he's ever made a homemade masturbat (-1)

Angela Lansbury (568190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467267)

probaby, but wood chafes...

Neat page (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467217)

There's some great stuff on that site. I especially like the wasp-sucker, and the marble machines.

I figure I'm not alone in liking this kind of stuff...

Infact, the site is already getting slower and slower... Slashdot effect...

Beowulf Cluster Applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467223)

Does anyone think it could be possible to attach a cluster of digital scanner elements to form a Beowulf Cluster? The resulting image gathered from the cluster of scanner elements could be processed on a Beowulf Cluster of Linux machines and then be printed out on a cluster of printers. Just imagine the possibilities...

Scanner enlargements? (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467224)

If this is his camera, how did he take the pictures in the article?

Seriously, I've often wondered whether there could be a good way of using a lens/projector to blow up the size of a negative/slide on my flatbed scanner. I've been surprised to find that my Epson GT7000 does a better job of getting details from the shadows of slides than a dedicated Canon 2700 slide scanner, but the resolution is of course much lower. Before I borrowed the slide scanner, I tried things like projecting a slide onto the glass plate and scanning that, but although the light rays are focused properly, they are travelling in the wrong direction to be picked up by the CCD. As Matthias mentioned in his article, using a ground glass screen might be an option, but a poor one.

Would it help to remove the scanner's own lens, and focus the projector somewhere below the glass plate, do you think? (I've already discovered I can improve the detail on scanned slides by tweaking the lens, so removing it completely is not difficult.) But the prism optics in the scanning bar might screw things up a bit... Hmm. Buy a decent slide scanner I think.

Re:Scanner enlargements? (1)

I Love this Company! (547598) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467363)

If this is his camera, how did he take the pictures in the article?

Taken right from the page:

Well, within a year of building this contraption, I bought a digital camera anyways.

Re:Scanner enlargements? (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467457)

Taken right from the page:

Well, within a year of building this contraption, I bought a digital camera anyways.

Yes, I know. Sorry I forgot the smiley...

check this out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467225)

Chick Tourney [chicktourney.com]

That, my friends, is not all.. (1)

hhg (200613) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467230)

This guy also built his own network-booster out of an old loudspeaker. Now, that's what I call a genious.

Re:That, my friends, is not all.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467661)

I am not your friend ashole.

Re:That, my friends, is not all.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467869)

looks like his isp could have used his network booster

Re:That, my friends, is not all.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3468048)

Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find it anywhere on his site.

Logical marble machine (1)

bill^2 (164100) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467232)

So, would an infinite number of simple logical marble machines running for an infinite amount of time eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare in binary?

Re:Logical marble machine (-1, Offtopic)

Noodlenose (537591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467624)

..and now imagine a Beowolf... - oh well.

Digital Millenium (2, Offtopic)

Bombcar (16057) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467243)

Do you realize this is from 2000 or earlier? Taking slashdot.org to a new height of old news (but the marble machines are nice)

Plural of lego is "lego"! (1)

greenius (300851) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467258)

I'm sure we already had this discussion recently. But it is one lego brick, two lego bricks, many lego bricks, several pieces of lego.

Re:Plural of lego is "lego"! (2)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468298)

I don't think that's correct at all.. sort of your mentioning it, I've never heard of the plural of lego being lego and have ofter heard them referred to as legos

Re:Plural of lego is "lego"! (2)

DennyK (308810) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468445)

Technically, there is no plural of "LEGO" (yes, all caps) because LEGO is a trademark name, not a noun. There is no such thing as "a LEGO." The correct term would be "LEGO piece" or "LEGO element" or "LEGO brick." Remember, all trademarks are technically descriptive adjectives when used in product names, not nouns.

However, outside the world of official trademarks, most people I've ever heard refer to LEGO bricks as simply "Legos" or (when the context is already established) just "bricks" or "pieces". Just like people say they had "Pop-Tarts" for breakfast or "some Oreos" for dessert. Technically, there is no such thing as "a Pop-Tart" or "an Oreo" or "a can of Spam", only "Pop-Tarts toaster pastries" and "Oreo chocolate sandwich cookies" and "SPAM luncheon meat"...but in casual conversation, people usually make the trademark into a noun. Actually, this is something companies have to watch out for, in more "official" media like the press or television, because if they allow their trademark name to be used in too widespread fashion as a generic noun, it will become invalidated, and they will lose it...like Trampoline, Asprin, and many other companies' trademarks have in the past.

DennyK

Re:Plural of lego is "lego"! (1)

greenius (300851) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468506)

Maybe it is an American English thing. I come from England, where the term legos sounds completely strange and wrong. We have always referred to several pieces of lego as lego as in I am going to play with my lego or I would like some more lego.

On the Lego Website [lego.com] they seem very careful to always say LEGO bricks. By the way there is an article about Mitchel Resnick [lego.com] who came up with the design for Mindstorms.

I think you are correct in that Lego in this context is an adjective rather than a noun. It it is the material that you use to build things, similar to the word wood. You would buy 3 planks of wood rather than 3 woods. Similarly you use several lego pieces, and not several legos.

Maybe this is another example of Americans destroying the English language... Even if you did want to make it plural, you would spell it legoes or else the o would be pronounced short has in log rather than long as in hole.

Re:Plural of lego is "lego"! (0)

smallblackdog (266198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468705)

Yeh, its true, plural of lego is, infact, lego. Its an American thing to call many lego bricks legos. In Scotland/England, it sounds just plain fucked up and American. and Vice Versa I'm sure. But the guys who make the stuff call it lego and pluralise it to form lego.

yet another great hack! (5, Funny)

bflong (107195) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467295)

the guts of a cheap scanner, some camera parts, and scrap wood to build a very high quality digitcal camera.

...you should see the web server he made with a cheap watch, some cat 3 cable, and toliet paper... oh, nevermind.... it just exploded.

Re:yet another great hack! (1)

eracerblue (473104) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467795)

From the Matthias Wandel's Link Section [sentex.net]

Slashdot - what a waste of time, but we all read it!

Progress? (3, Informative)

idonotexist (450877) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467300)

Well it is now May 5, 2002. Perhaps he purchased a new digital camera since his latest update? The text below is from his site. I think it is safe to assume this project is collecting dust.

July 2000 Update:
Well, within a year of building this contraption, I bought a digital camera anyways. My first digital camera was an Olympus D340R, bought it in June 1999. Then, in June 2000, I bought a cannon PowerShot S100 (the Digital Elph). Awesome little camera. Haven't used my scanning contraption much, although it is still capable of producing images sharper than what comes out of a 3.3 megapixel digicam.

Garage picture? (1)

*xpenguin* (306001) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467308)

I can't figure out why the garage would look like that is it is being opened. I would understand why one side would like like a triangle, but both?

Re:Garage picture? (1)

*xpenguin* (306001) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467316)

Nevermind, it was opened AND closed.

Re:Garage picture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467332)

Read the article - he also CLOSED the door.

i love his organ (hehe...) (2, Interesting)

Mao (12237) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467352)

I must say his homemade organ tops everything else he shows on his homepage. From the sound samples he included on the page, it seems the organ actually works quite well. I once did a science project in high school on the accoustics of a violin, and found out accoustics is one fuzzy SOB. The tiniest error in craftsmanship can really ruin the sound. This guy is awesome.

Something Similar (2, Funny)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467361)

If I still had the pics to prove it, I would post them somewhere.

I once had one of those old Logitech hand scanner jobs. So what I did was take the glass top off my stereo cabinet and would use the hand scanner on that to take pictures. It worked surprisingly well, actually. It was only B&W, but the pics were damn near perfect.

I got my GF at the time to take her pants off and squat over the pane of glass...

Yes, I'm being serious... :-)

Re:Something Similar (2, Funny)

wackybrit (321117) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467395)

I once had one of those old Logitech hand scanner jobs. So what I did was take the glass top off my stereo cabinet and would use the hand scanner on that to take pictures. [..] I got my GF at the time to take her pants off and squat over the pane of glass...

You almost rose to the rank of a true geek there, but what a wannabe you are! Real geeks don't have girlfriends. I bet you had sex too, right? Begone! And leave us to our regular expressions.

Re:Something Similar (1)

r00tdenied (540333) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467436)

You almost rose to the rank of a true geek there, but what a wannabe you are! Real geeks don't have girlfriends. I bet you had sex too, right? Begone! And leave us to our regular expressions.

Who says geeks can not have girlfriends or sex? Maybe not with supermodels, but none the less. I am a System and Network Admin for an ISP, program, use Linux/FreeBSD/IRIX/other Unix flavors, that in itself would qualify me to be a full fledged geek. But, I have a girlfriend and am sexually active.

Stereotypes Begone!


r00tdenied

Re:Something Similar (2, Funny)

Hatter (3985) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467643)

If you're such a full-fledged geek then where's your EFF secret decoder ring?

Re:Something Similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467892)

I tossed mine out when I realized the secret message was "Drink more Ovaltine"

Re:Something Similar (2)

psavo (162634) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467684)

You almost rose to the rank of a true geek there, but what a wannabe you are! Real geeks don't have girlfriends. I bet you had sex too, right? Begone! And leave us to our regular expressions.

GF is as in GeForce (I/II/III/IV + nVidia + closed source). Although I don't quite understand that squat thing. And glass? I remember seeing a i387 processor clone that had a plasticky window built over core but..

Oh well, back to coding.

scanner camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467375)

This is actually a great idea. I think that the idea could be implemented better by building a large format camera box with a suitable large format lens. A typical USB-powered desktop scanner could then be used as the sensor replacing the film back. The real problem would be CCD sensitivity and noise, but I suspect that some really awesome high quality images could be made far surpassing the quality of a typical 3 megapixel digital camera if conditios were bright enough.

2000x2000 (4, Interesting)

hatless (8275) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467383)

One thing the guy didn't mention (unless my eyes are going) was the specs of the scanner. If it's a low-end (say, 300 or 600 dpi) scanner, I'm curious as to whether higher-density scanners have higher-resolution CCDs. It's a terrible point-and shoot, but large-format photographers would be very ineterested in, say, an affordable 4000x4000 or even higher-resolution camera like this, twenty-second exposure times and all. It would be a terrific gadget for landscapes, architectural photos, and still-life studio work. At the current 2000x2000, of course, it's just a curiosity.

Not being mechanically minded... (1)

marko123 (131635) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467405)

I thought the best thing about these new fangled scanners was that you could only do black and white face plants with a photocopier - now you can do it in colour at 1200dpi!

Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (4, Interesting)

Selanit (192811) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467424)

This guy has waaaay too much time on his hands, but that wasp-sucker actually looks useful. (It's on the same page as the Jenga pistol.) Of course, once you've spent nine hours sucking up a nest of yellowjackets, what do you do with the buggers? I mean, most of those suckers are still alive, and it's not like they can't fly right back out once the suction is turned off. I suppose you'd have to figure out some way of killing the captured bugs en masse -- spray a can of wasp poison in there, submerge the capture box, something like that.

Of course, you could always package 'em up and mail them to your worst enemy . . .

As for that marble crossbow, that thing is SCARY! Marbles travelling at 150 miles per hour can do some serious damage!

What to do about the wasps (1)

dangermouse (2242) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467481)

Take off and nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:What to do about the wasps (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3468788)

Fuckin' A!

Re:Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (1)

pompomtom (90200) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467584)

and it's not like they can't fly right back out once the suction is turned off.
from that page:
A piece of metal or cardboard can be slid in a gap where the hose connects to seal off the box, and the box just sits on top of the intake spout for the blower, so it can easily be removed from the machine for purposes of showing off one's catch.

Re:Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (4, Interesting)

cheese_wallet (88279) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467674)

"Of course, once you've spent nine hours sucking up a nest of yellowjackets, what do you do with the buggers?"

You freeze them overnight. They don't survive. Yellow jackets are a pretty serious problem here in florida, second only to fire ants.

The bug guys down here vacuum them into a tuperware like container, freeze them overnight, and then sell the carcasses to pharmaceutical companies that extract the toxin from each individual stinger to make an antidotes for people that are unfortunate enough to have disturbed a nest.

"...submerge the capture box, something like that."

That actually doesn't work very well. wasps and bees and such don't drown very fast.

--Scott

Re:Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (1)

kdhas9 (577719) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467894)

Agreed . . . as a kid we'd try to drown flies in a Pepsi bottle filled with water.

We'd wait an hour or so (actually probably only about 15 minutes with the amount of patience we had back then) and then dump them out. They appeared drowned (a-ha foul creature you die!). But alas, in a few minutes they'd just jump to their feet, dry off their wings and fly away . . . bastards.

What a way to waste time.

Re:Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (2, Interesting)

threephaseboy (215589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468097)

I usually burn them.
A bit of kerosene usually does the trick..

Re:Wasp-sucker and marble crossbow (2)

|_uke (158930) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467999)

An Idea, you read about the apple juice maker the guy made? How about using that for the wasps? hahahahahaa. Okay, sick idea :)

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467425)

the man is a real genius

Streaking artifact might be "blooming". (4, Interesting)

baschie (453563) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467432)

This guy at the bottom of the article about scanners notes a "streaking artifact" by a reflective spot. My guess is that it's caused by an effect called "blooming".

When the potential well of a CCD pixel is full (a photon hitting the ccd pixel creates an electron-hole pair, and the potential well at the pixel position captures the electrons and depending on the welldepth and wellsize can handle from a few tens of thousand to a few hundredthousand electrons) the electrons start "bleeding" to neighbouring pixels.

This bleeding (AFAIK) always occurs in one direction (in this case horizontal) because the potential bariers in one direction are different in size than in the other direction. In one direction a voltage difference is used, in the other direction physical "channelstops" are used, the n-type semiconducter there is replaced by p-type there and the insulator layer is thickened).

Most modern CCD chips have anti blooming (extra circuitry that gets rid of the excess electrons before they "bleed" away to neighbouring pixels), but I guess that is not needed when you know the maximum amount of light that is going to hit the CCD chip anyway (as is the case in scanners).

this article is from 1998 (-1, Redundant)

VoiceOfRaisin (554019) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467443)

NEWS for nerds? this is history not news

This guy is full of shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467447)

Like all semi-intelligent 'nerds', his blinding arrogance after slapping a few bits and pieces together, prevent him from noticing how useless in society his 'sk1llz' are. Anyone notice the car he's driving is a wreck?

Statements like "If you don't understand why, don't worry - most people don't." make me wince and want to punch this guy's lights out. If you're so smart, where's the bling-bling? A fatso bullshitting his way through life about a magic box can do more it seems.

And "On the whole though, with enough tweaking, it is possible to get some very sharp images over 2000x2000 pixels in size. Digital cameras for under $5000 simply can't touch that kind of resolution, and my 'camera' cost me less than $100." Yes, tweaking from someone like you, right, cuz we're not smart enough, huh?

What's preventing anyone from putting a smaller digital camera on a motorized sled and taking pictures one increment at a time?

Reading the rest of his "I'm so good, my hacks are so good, people prefer them" made me want to vomit, and blow up Canada. Wasn't the USA supposed to have first dibs on arrogant useless airholes?

Grrrr!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467469)

OOG break head with Open Source Digicam!

Kiyaaa!!!!

I would like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467502)

to build a delorean from scanner elements. However, I can't do this, so you should buy me one.

He *is* smart (-1, Offtopic)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467515)

Just look at his Links section [sentex.net] :

Slashdot [slashdot.org] - what a waste of time, but we all read it!

Now try and be smart.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467535)

Make a scanner out of a digital camera... um... yeah.

wasp-vac (1)

Moosifer (168884) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467550)

Yes, but after catching the wasps, how does one dispose of them? Wait for them to expire of natural causes? Far too time consuming. Perhaps he can build an add on to the wasp-vac that freezes them, or encases them in goo, or maybe generates an electrical charge with which to fry them. Perhaps the encasement unit can be refashioned to be disposable, and then a catapult like device can be erected to launch the entombed wasps into the neighbors yard. Maybe there is some member of the Myrmecophagidae family, like the echidna, that can be built into the unit to eat the wasps.

Service tunnels kick ass! (1)

distributed.karma (566687) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467555)

Go check out the page on service tunnels. It's interesting he got the idea from lock picking in Feynman's book (which of course we've all read).

When I worked at CERN last summer, discovering the tunnels reminded me of NetHack; in all buildings the floors were numbered, but at some points you could descend the same staircases well below one (where they used certain letters instead). There wasn't any of that fun lock-picking: it's a scientific research facility and nothing is secret. In addition to heat pipes and fat pipes, you could see some 30kV cables going to the accelerators, and vacuum pipes (for protons etc) coming out. Then sometimes there was water leaking on top of them, it made you feel really safe. (Often the radiation safety seemed so bad that all the water there must have been heavy water. You know, the kind which weighs 2kg for every kg.)

Guess I was scared of a power outage, because at some places you had a kilometre of the shoulder-wide tunnel without any exits. Interesting how a kilometre of walking is nothing on the ground, but when the tunnel's so narrow you have to tilt sideways to get through, it feels a lot longer.

About the lock-picking - there were some 'forbidden' doors but you really didn't want to go there. That would be the way to the accelerator, or another highly radiative facility.

By the way, because of how CERN is situated, you could go from Switzerland to France via the tunnels. Which was cool because the French customs officers were being such jerks.

Mad Geniuses... (4, Funny)

FFFish (7567) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467631)

...are what make the Internet great. Man, I love reading this sort of thing. Makes me wish I were crazy...

Re:Mad Geniuses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467799)

Uh, made. Sites like this are increasingly rare, having been replaced by "u suk FAG! Now 4 sum ups 2 ma PEEPS!" type homepages.

Re:Mad Geniuses... (2)

rnd() (118781) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468992)

I agree.. this stuff is really fun to read. Everyone should have a workshop. His stuff is really ingenious!

The penny-macro shootout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3467652)

I had to try it myself, and while my camera has colour, I have to admit that his monstrosity clearly has better resolution.

His penny [sentex.net] (from his Frankensteinbox)

My penny [dyndns.org] (from a Sony FD91, me holding the penny a few millimeters away from the lens)

Let's see some more penny photos out there.

Re:The penny-macro shootout (2)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467780)

I don't have a penny, but I have a quarter [shambala.net] ...

Taken with a Fuji S1 Pro, 55mm micro-Nikkor lens and a bunch of extension tubes.

The sign of a true geek (1)

nochops (522181) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467673)

This, as we all know, is the mark of a rtue geek:

"...but going through my collection of miscellaneous gears..."

notice the penny? (3, Funny)

linuxbert (78156) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467761)

it was canadian..
just goes to show what can be accomplished when we have snow for so long..

so yep.. this guy did have alot of free time

Re:notice the penny? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3468438)

Because it was canadian I didn't notice it. :)

we're awful people (2)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 12 years ago | (#3467765)

we slashdotted his brother's geocities page. and here I thought none of us read the damn articles...

Actually, not that novel. (2)

lostchicken (226656) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468084)

I know a guy who sells very-high-end digicams.

The "large-format" camera is a modular system. There is a camera body which holds everything together, a lens (you can figure that one out for yourself) and a back. The back holds the film, or whatever, at a certain spot. The lens focuses the image on the plane where the back is holding the film, and *click*, it exposes the film.

This was designed so the photographer could have a Poloroid back for instant previews, one back with 100 ASA film for slow exposures and so on. With the advent of digital systems, the large format system was a goldmine because the shutter, body and lens were already there. All that had to be developed was the back.

There were (and still are) two types of backs. One has a HUGE ccd there, and is designed for moving subjects. They use low quality CCDs (because the're so big) and they were very expensive.

The other type was much cheaper, and worked like this guy's gadget, by moving a 1 column CCD across the focal plane. One only had to match the resolution in the short axis with a CCD, and then move the CCD with a servo. It would (obviously) only work with a still scene.

Marble machines are cooler (1)

Jaycatt (530986) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468122)

The scanner seemed likea waste of time, but he's a real craftsman with those marble machines. They look pretty classy made out of wood, and with the bells and teeters and such I'll bet it's a blast to watch them work.

Also glad I found his site and saw links to rolling ball clocks. Used to have one of those as a kid... Now I can have one on my desk annoying co-workers at 12:59:59. Yay! Lunch is over, everybody back to work (kaa-shunk-shunk-shunk!)

I have a "magic black box" digicam for you! (1)

GNUCyberKat (62503) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468146)

Hey,

Just let me demonstrate my "magic black box" digital camera made out of a calculator and a coffee maker...it'll record 200 hours of video at the highest quality...and if you invest only $6 million....But just don't ask for the schematics!

Wasp Sucker (-1, Offtopic)

sunspot42 (455706) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468692)

Insert Monica Lewinsky joke here.

How he took pictures of the camera? (1)

PhiberOptix (182584) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468835)

i assume he didn't have a digital camera (to be so desperate to build one out of chumps of wood and a scanner) and his scanner was gone for good, so how he took the pictures to upload to his site ? :)

Cool hack... but (1)

SirTwitchALot (576315) | more than 12 years ago | (#3468959)

Cool hack, but it would be tied to the computer. Plus, the cathode lamps in scanners make the power supplies ungainly. You could buy a little webcam for much less than $100, and get much better shots from it. Awesome idea, well implemented, but not of any real use.

Re:Cool hack... but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3469044)

His conversion leaves out the lamps.

Also, show me a webcam that gets 4 megapixel resolution.

Did you read the article?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>