Focal plane shutters

[JR1]

Focal plane shutters

Now I am NOT going to get into a debate about what is right, wrong and if this is well written or not (in the links).

What we hear a lot about from NikCanPenSony users is innovation, latest rubbish about what is or is not wanted etc.

What I would like to see is the old FP shutter replaced with a liquid Crystal shutter.

The FP shutter has been around since about 1889, but real use was later than that by Leica. Horizontal ones and vertical ones (allowing higher flash sync speeds) are still used today, what is often not known is that the speed of the (lets call it the curtain) remains constant it is the gap between curtains that changes.

http://digital-photography-school.co...-1016-shutter/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal-plane_shutter

What I would like to see (and it is available, Astronoy is one user base) are Liquid Crystal shutters. Allowing flash sync at any speed with almost limitless shutters speeds !!!!

http://www.thorlabs.de/newgrouppage9...tgroup_id=8166

http://www.google.com/patents/US7450187

So let's forget articulated screens, touch screens etc, let's think of real innovation not gimmics

[James G]

and absolutely silent!

and presumably enables 'simpler' cleaning

I'd go for it!

[Manfred M]

Jeremy - Two thoughts.

1. Your statement on focal plane shutters is correct for shutter speeds at or above synch speed. Below that speed the entire shutter remains open for some period before the the second curtain of the shutter comes down. The actual blade speed is fixed.

2. LCDs are not particularly transparent devices (just the nature of the beast). The specs on the shutter you show indicate that they transmit ~ 60% of the light.. Not a desirable "feature" for a camera shutter. Focal plane shutters transmit 100% of the light. If they can get that number to >80%, then there could be something worth looking at.

[JR1]

Jeremy - Two thoughts.

1. Your statement on focal plane shutters is correct for shutter speeds at or above synch speed. Below that speed the entire shutter remains open for some period before the the second curtain of the shutter comes down. The actual blade speed is fixed.

2. LCDs are not particularly transparent devices (just the nature of the beast). The specs on the shutter you show indicate that they transmit ~ 60% of the light.. Not a desirable "feature" for a camera shutter. Focal plane shutters transmit 100% of the light. If they can get that number to >80%, then there could be something worth looking at.

Yep I know that about fp shutters (1) but unless when you post you write a book you can not cover everything

As for 2, I know they have along way to go, but, iof manufacturers stopped adding garbage like unwanted filter effects, in camera processing etc and concentrated effort on actually innovating it could be with us in a less than three years.

[William W]

and absolutely silent!

I assume the Opening Post was referencing DSLRs: then there'd still be the sound of the mirror slap in most shooting scenarios.

If it is a (near) silent operation for the whole camera that you require, then a leaf shutter provides that: add a leaf shutter lens to a mirrorless / rangefinder and bingo! That technology has been around for a while. Very fast Flash Sync Speeds, too.

*

and presumably enables 'simpler' cleaning

Do you mean cleaning of the sensor?

Why would it presumably be simpler? I don't understand.

WW

[Stagecoach]

but, if manufacturers stopped adding garbage like unwanted filter effects, in camera processing etc and concentrated effort on actually innovating it could be with us in a less than three years.

I doubt very much that the manufactures inclusion of such items as you mention and consider as garbage in any way detracts their concentration, direction and effort with innovation.

[NorthernFocus]

The propsect of no moving parts does sound interesting. Though unless appied in mirrorless it somewhat defeats the purpose. And as Manfred pointed out, that's one more thing between the sensor and subject. It has to efficiently allow the light to pass through and must be near optically perfect so it doesn't degrade the image. And electronic shutters already exist.

Besides, the current tech achieves 1/8000s shutter speed. Surely the need for anything faster does not have broad appeal.

When you think about it, as much as we complain about no huge innovations by the camera manufacturers, in the end we are the sticks in the mud. People like what they are used to. The fact that DSLRs still outsell mirrorless by a wide margin suggests that's still what most people want.

[rpcrowe]

Yep I know that about fp shutters (1) but unless when you post you write a book you can not cover everything

As for 2, I know they have along way to go, but, if manufacturers stopped adding garbage like unwanted filter effects, in camera processing etc and concentrated effort on actually innovating it could be with us in a less than three years.

I totally agree but, I suspect it is the "garbage" that sells cameras, not especially their ability to produce top-line still images!

[xpatUSA]

Um, does anyone know how much light the LCD passes when it's "OFF"?



Maybe there's clue in "contrast ratio"?

As an occasional IR shooter, and lover of violet flowers, I'm less interested than most . . .

[Dave Humphries]

Yet another issue with the LCD shutter concept might be their response time; both trigger delay and transition time.

I have not done much research (so may embarrass myself here), but I would be surprised if they could get to 1/8000s, or anywhere close to that.

This seems to be borne out by a web page (that also displays Ted's graph) which states;

Fast Shutter Switching Speeds (Shutter Mode):

Opening: 5 ms
Closing: 1 ms

Those times are not fast enough for single DSLR shutter use with the range of speeds we are used to.

You'll also note (in the text) that it uses (light) "polarising elements" in its construction, which is liable to have other impacts on their practical usability.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, but ...

Some sensor designs already incorporate 'electronic shutter' functionality - e.g. those used in TV cameras for the last 15-20 years, but that technology has its limitations too. It may be possible to combine it with a mechanical shutter to achieve higher flash synch speeds, but it probably doesn't achieve everything we might desire - and the trade off might be unacceptable. (e.g. cost)

Final thought:
For some people (probably not members here), when every camera from a P&S upwards can record 4k movies (in a year or two), people will just 'spray the scene' and select stills from the recording.

[AB26]

Jeremy,

Depending on what is considered to be innovation.
Is it in making a more fluidic body? Or perhaps a smaller body? Or inventing a LCS?

In my mind innovation in camera technology lies in refining technology to capture better images.
Have camera manufacturers not perhaps succeeded in making it possible for the Photographer to take better pictures?

Look at the D4s and what it offers you to “get the shot”. That is what I call innovation.

Does it make any difference what shutter is used, as long as the shutter does it’s job properly.
Most people complaining about the technology used and the way camera manufacturers “lag behind” in developing “better” technology lack in mastering current technology themselves.

The current range of cameras offered by the manufacturers are to most “Photographers” a tool far beyond their level of competence to capture good images.

Is the answer to taking better pictures and getting the shot not hidden in better understanding current technology and making optimal use of this technology, rather than gunning at camera manufacturers blaming them for not offering a camera that can take better pictures?

[John 2]

Interesting thread. For me, innovation and change has to add something other than differentiation in marketing terms since inevitably it is also used to justify a price premium. That in part, probably explains the stick in the mud attitude Dan describes and is why for the most part I tend to agree with the view expressed by Andre. I note that most of the examples inevitably are based on the Cannon/Nikon/Sony end of the spectrum. You may have noticed that most of the time these days, my camera of choice is a Fuji X-T1. No it's not as good as an SLR for some things but better for others and it's the "others that suite my style of photography. I mention this camera only because as part of Fuji's latest (free) firmware update for their X series cameras, they have included (created?, activated?) an electronic shutter. Admittedly, it is totally silent, and that is useful if that is what you want, but it also extends the shutter speed range from 1/4000th sec up to 1/32000th sec. Impressive? - well yes but for the life of me, I don't know what I would use it for. By contrast, improvements in noise performance at high ISO for instance, would be more useful.

[William W]

Final thought:
For some people (probably not members here), when every camera from a P&S upwards can record 4k movies (in a year or two), people will just 'spray the scene' and select stills from the recording.

Since the ESO 5DMkII, that is a reality apropos the blatant functionality employed by some Wedding Professionals for various parts of the coverage.

Some who forwarded this movement are now employing a Canon 4K Camera, for stills extraction.

WW

[george013]

Since the ESO 5DMkII, that is a reality apropos the blatant functionality employed by some Wedding Professionals for various parts of the coverage.

Some who forwarded this movement are now employing a Canon 4K Camera, for stills extraction.

WW

Many photographer shoot an image with the idea on the forehand to crop the image to gain a satisfactory composition.

As a joke, here is a lcc(?) shutter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2JQw0cWL9Q

George

[NorthernFocus]

...In my mind innovation in camera technology lies in refining technology to capture better images.
...

And yet, what the market suggests is that "better" images have nothing to do with it. The prolific growth of imagery via smart phones by the masses and swing from DSLRs to mirrorless by more serious togs suggests that size/convenience are the primary drivers.

So what would be cool? How about a camera that would produce the IQ of a D4s and an equivalent 600mm lens that weighs a total of say, 2kg. And I could have the options while looking through the viewfinder to just verbally tell it, "f4 125". And then have the option of firing an electronic shutter with a button, a my cell phone, or by saying "now". Then when I walk into my house, I simply turn the camera on and it logs itself onto my Wi-Fi network and downloads the images to a preselected location. Or if desired does so through my cell phone from anywhere that I have a signal. There's quality and convenience.

The only thing that I described above that can't be done with current tech is the IQ at the size I desire. Other than that they could do the rest of it today. And I'll bet they could get close with the size. But that would be a marketing problem for them. That would turn the entire existing high end pro market on its ear.

[xpatUSA]

. . . . And I could have the options while looking through the viewfinder to just verbally tell it, "f4 125". And then have the option of firing an electronic shutter with a button, a my cell phone, or by saying "now".

That stood out for me.

Since you can talk to just about any device these days, it is most odd that cameras have no such facility.

[Manfred M]

Since you can talk to just about any device these days, it is most odd that cameras have no such facility.

Probably a good thing too. Some of the language used around / near a camera is probably not in its dictionary, or at least shouldn't be.

[NorthernFocus]

Probably a good thing too. Some of the language used around / near a camera is probably not in its dictionary, or at least shouldn't be.

I nearly choked on my coffee.

[ajohnw]

Sounds like automatic arc welding mask technology to me.

Electronic shutter try this part way down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_(photography)

Most cameras as I understand things already part use this technique.

The real innovation is mirrorless

John
-

[Manfred M]

The real innovation is mirrorless

Agreed. Now if they would only get that technology to work better. Something like the brightness and image size we see in a FF DSLR (with a pentaprism rather than pentamirror) would be nice.