you need to add color to it. its easy to do, very easy tbh, i wrote a comment about it. i would love to see it ♥️

I think that it will be another level of hard work.

would be great!

SeanHodgins how about a thermal version? What’s the smallest PIR (or similar) component you can buy?

@@benarthur3517 I believe with old digital cameras you just have to take a filter off of the sensor, there's videos on YT. But yeah that'd be dope

cuz regular camera is microchipped by CIA, and a pic of Bigfoot or an UFO just disappeared while processed !!!

@@RobotN001 bro most camera companies aren't even American, ain't no foreign company letting the CIA get involved in their products

Dont forget bank CCTV footage

Will 93 that’s just what they want you to think

😂😂😂

That's how remote monochrome astrophotography setups work

You could also have a motor that would rotate the camera by a slight amount like 3 times horizontally and 3 times vertically to get a 9x better resolution photo

That's how JWST and most telescopes work

I used this technique to scan some old film negatives using a scanner and my phone screen as the r/g/b light source and then combined the 3 scans in photoshop. Fun but time consuming :D

You call them remote but my laptop and me are right next to it in the field :p @@ravbin86

iphone users: oh, my iphone 2g got 20 more pixels!

​​@@nikostalk5730its so much better than androids... 8k resolution... 1020 pixels total is so good! Cutting edge tech by tim apple!

​@@nikostalk5730..just what is thst supposed to mean or make fun of

Just make it a global shutter sensor ;) Such cameras aren't even that expensive when you consider industrial cameras.

@rkan2 , Thomas thinks he is a comedian.

*" but maybe that's just me " " for me it's a must to have at least 3 SD card slots and 7 axis 4D image stabilization" .

@Matheus Pedrosa de Souza Based on what? I bought a 1200p global shutter camera that fits in my palm for ~150€ What are you talking about? Yes, global shutter cameras require more "wiring" and more power, and thus can also heat up a lot more.. but very difficult? meh

and the ones people use to take pix of UFOs

You right

Security cameras working 24/7 they don't need high resolution. Do you realize, how much memory it is need to store high quality video?

Also there is a cameras that work in high quality, but with moving sensor's, or light sensors, etc.

@@holycogs2706 its a joke

haha

It's for person with clear eyes sight like me, not for you.

Or someone with big screen

Me looking at the white dot in the middle : ah yes

​@@albertllubitmusicr/iamverycool

Nice XD XD

Baby steps!

1000 pixels made at home for fun, flying cars are coming soon as well...

even funnier, the experimental televisions of the 1920s were roughly this same resolution

i don't know why people still need a flying car in 2020, we already have helicopter, elon musk says flying car would be horrific, it's not environmental friendly

I'd rather have universal low cost mass transit than a flying car

I think that would be needed for sure!

@@SeanHodgins Can't wait to see what you do! This is an amazing idea :D I wonder how well it would work with manual SLR lenses and an adaptor ring? You could change out lenses on the fly, seeing as they rely on fixed focal plane distances :)

With a buffer if there was motion/accelerometer sensors along with a fast enough exposure would it be possible to emulate higher resolutions by moving the camera and stitching in post like a panorama?

I would suggest a different hardware setup, utilizing 'dual co-processors' for reliable fast data transfer. beagleboard.org/pru en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeagleBoard#BeagleBone_Black Unfortunately Arduino won't compile code, you'll have to learn assembly (which you might anyways, if you want a stable reliable transfer - without interrupts from the bootloader, etc) To save on those costly light sensors, and make things more complex - it is possible to use LED's as light sensors: wiki.analog.com/university/courses/electronics/electronics-lab-led-sensor

@@SeanHodgins The ESP32 has 4 ADCs and up to 20 channels. Split your photo cells into groups and run them on different ADCs. It will be much cheaper too because the ESP32 costs a couple dollars and you can use a few cheap 8:1 or 16:1 MUX chips. The ESP32 can run up to 240Mhz and has 2 cores. Much faster than an Arduino.

i don't get, why to do this kind of useless project. If you doing this to understand some kind of scientific research - is ok. But doing this only to get views on a KZfaq, it's like BRUH. It's not about talking about bad or good things, but We ALREADY having a good amount of old tech, which works better than this diy Like, bro, people did much greater amount to produce their little stuff, to work ok and one man from youtube, be like "hey, i did a camera from 19 century on a kid's circuitry with 3d print" i don't get this point of using materials to get useless stuff, bro, u wasting a usable materials.

​@@nikostalk5730You don't get hobbies

Why do you care how others perceive it? Why not just say you appreciate it?

@@jerbear7952 because it means he gets views , likes, recognition , and gets to keep building things, hopefully. Why you're replying to me? Why can't you just fvck off and mind your own business? This is a 2 year old comment you duche

Get rid of stupid music

I definitely do. Have any recommendations? I don't normally do huge component heavy projects like this, and this one was done this way so I could literally say "I built a digital camera by hand!". But I have a friend with a pick and place if things get any bigger.

Or he could just make a Bayer array with the camera he's already got, use colored sharpies to color over the photodetectors. It would lose a little sensitivity but theoretically retain the same spatial resolution and add color.

That’s how 8-bit guy did it with a b&w webcam

@@stabilini Exactly, this would just be a lower resolution version of what he did.

jkenny1 Good idea! Maybe tiny pieces of filters(if can be found) will work better than sharpies? Also I could already imagine the resolution suffering😄

​@@jkenny1He'd lose a 3rd of the resolution once he demosaics though.

yss.. i m thinking the same...

You could probobly do it pretty easily with binary counters and ram chips

Or just use a better microcontroller... and a better screen ;-)

Exactly what Benedikt says, maybe a single ESP32 plus actual multiplexers (that will react in a matter of nanoseconds rather than milliseconds like the ATmega chips would)

Parallel capture of the 32 cells in a column/row and then change to next would do wonders already, could almost/possibly even do motion

@@0xbenedikt WAIT Benedict I know you dont I ;)

This is basically how panoramas are stitched

Or just do what Sony does with IBIS, but shifting the sensor slightly in x, y directions they take multiple shots offset and combine them to give you a super resolution one.

@@FennecbuttYou could achieve similar results with a complex optical assembly that basically redirects the light onto your sensor.

do you know how to do it? I have a project about it. please contact me. tubbiya@hotmail.com

@@DesignScripter This video should get it across kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l5OerJaYyrCRnp8.html

So a fifteen second shutter instead of five with clicks every five seconds when a servo switches filters. I LOVE IT. Do it.

I say buy some ON Semi / Sony sensors and slap some ADCs on it and make an industrial camera of sorts :P

rkan2 No external ADCs needed on modern CMOS sensors. They are on-chip. In any case, there would be no fun (and lower educational value) using off the shelf image sensors. I worked for ON Semi (well, Aptina which was then bought by ON Semi) for 6 years, and since then have been working with Sony sensors on a daily basis.

It puzzles me that someone like you finds the time to watch KZfaq

reaper. I barely do. Especially with two young kids!

@@pandasinspace3560 It doesn't take a lot of googling...

"Superresolution"

+the colorwheel idea and then stitch multiple images together to get a "high-res" shot.

Thats a great idea! I see those in flea markets all the time. Also a regular old digital projector would probably work great too.

Get back in it!

Now shipping with the 'auto shake' image destabilizer for the historically-accurate, authentic feel.

I've got one now! I just cant do the PNP manually anymore, hurts my neck a lot.

Thats a lot of food for thought! Originally I was entertaining the idea of moving a single pixel along an XY plane to make an "infinite" pixel grid, but decided against it. Love the idea of moving the whole sensor just a small amount. I bet that would be way easier too, and possible to use the current hardware. I think I would need some help in the software side of things, but it would be really cool. I'm definitely going to look into that.

Dave Etchells thanks! for the information and the term "pixel shift high resolution" exactly what I was wondering if possible

​@@SeanHodgins - I bet there's a clever way to do it in Photoshop with masks, although it might be a major PITA to make the mask that'd select the right pixels to merge. (I'm thinking rez-up each individual image to the final size using nearest-neighbor resampling, then have a mask that'd select one pixel out of each 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 or whatever grid depending on how many samples you were dealing with, shift that mask to the appropriate position for each sub-image and successively merge the images through the mask to assemble the final image.) It'd be easy to write a program to merge files for someone who knew Python (for example) and what image file formats look like. Maybe another viewer here will see this and jump in to help? Pixel-shift high res can be tricky to do in digital cameras if you're aiming for more actual pixels in the final image. Sometimes they do it just to overcome the detail loss associated with demosaicing the RGB color filter array, stacking red green and blue raw pixels up on top of each other, and that's relatively straightforward. It gets more difficult when you're trying to extract what amounts to sub-pixel information. The gaps between photodiodes in your camera are actually an advantage, because you won't have actual image data overlapping if you just shift so as to sample in between the diode positions of the first shot. I'd imagine you could do a 2x2 sample with no overlap at all. (You can sample with overlap, but beyond a point you won't get any more resolution without some image processing. But 2x2 should be easy.) (Yeesh, blah, blah, blah, hope this was at least a little bit helpful :-0)

Hmmm i think manual photoshoping each one is little bit too hard, why not use matrix instead?,like move alot then broke 32x32 matrix into spaced higher matrix like 640x320, But i think thats need an sbc to handle so much data. Hehe just little thought from third country student

Maybe just attach the image sensor to some servo and throw it around the camera body?

I'm just happy it worked!

That would be cool!

This is also a great testbed for other compressed sensing techniques, like coded-aperture or plenoptic imaging. Any technique used for single-pixel cameras could be applied to this setup to increase the spatial resolution as long as multiple exposures can be taken. For example, instead of a lens, there could be a translucent LCD flashing a unique coded aperture for each exposure.

These are some crazy ideas. Would love to test them out!

@@SeanHodgins There are lots of old view camera parts out there, and with the big sensor area, they'd be great for this system. A 4x5 body won't be super expensive, and there are lots of view camera lenses floating around on the used market. One issue for them is the shutters - I don't know if anyone is making shutters any more. They are "clockwork" mechanisms, so they tend to break/fail and are hard to maintain, so working/repaired ones aren't exactly cheap as chips. But if you are dealing with multi-second exposure times, you can go original old school, and simply take the lens cap off, wait, then put it back on. The whole view camera body/lens system would allow for focusing and great image quality optically.

Oops.

well done smartass, it’s clear that he’s accidentally used LCD in place of the word “screen” or the like. Just because it’s literal form doesn’t make sense doesn’t mean it isn’t obvious what he’s trying to say.

Seems like an innocent mistake.. considering this guy is likely an expert in pixel technology I'm 100 percent sure he knows better than any of us here the difference between OLED and LCD... And that's saying a lot considering I used to be a sales rep for LG Display. I could never imagine building my own.m working digital camera sensor.

@@trotskiftw just because something seems obvious, doesn't mean, it's right or it shouldn't be corrected. Some don't know that it's wrong or get confused by the fault, so it's legitimate to correct someone's mistake.

@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife you're really good.

Hassleblad is just an overpriced medium format camera... nothing special

@@mostlymessingabout Overpriced, yes, but still nothing to scoff at. You get what you pay for and they're extremely good cameras ... just that the quality difference between a $200 and a $2000 camera isn't really worth it if you're just a random hobbyist. Think of it as a Leica M. Great camera, but not worth it if you're not a professional photographer or swimming in money.

Not sure but definite worth a try!

youe it would work, but with very low sensivity ... use better phototransistors , your noiseratio will be much more better.

:D I like your way of thinking... hahaha

Thats funny!

Yes... its a oled lcd

@@orafaball2162 no its a oled screen, not LCD. LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display SeanHodgins: real time preview on the oled was not an option or not enough time?

Maybe hu meant oled display ?!

@D2RG6 Totally pointless...

He used the word 'LCD' to mean display.

No this is how they blurred the mars face.

Worth a try!

@@SeanHodgins there are existing algorithms for this. even our eyes do this to increase resolution, by vibrating like crazy all the time. if you place the sensor on a tilting mechanism you can get much higher resolution by sampling once, tilting the image a _tiny_ (really tiny, must be half the angle each pixel represents) angle on one axis and measure the _difference_ between successive pixels. my description is silly, but i'm sure you get the idea.

If I do a megapixel, pick n place will be 100% necessary.

@@SeanHodgins Maybe do a single sensor with stepper placement. That would be pretty slow for sure though.

@@chaos.corner but taking signal/voltage can be continuous. But there is peoblem with inertia of photoresisor. I have one, where changing resistance from daily light to black box took 20-30sec. So it can be fun only with fast sensor... OR with moving not one pixel sensor, but old phone camera sensor. 😋🤩 Thank for new video sean with this idea. 😁🤗

They don't have to be filters i think. Maybe you could make the addon light but with RGB and use just pure red, green and blue light to take the pictures?

@@50t5 But then you would have to take the photo in a really dark room

@@0xbenedikt true, that's the negative side of that.

THIS and take some outdoor pictures with those

Good idea, I need to set GIMP to default.

Holy shit, how did you make an 40mp camera?!?

Sh0bez huawei p30 pro

@@matthew3p Yup!

108mp from samsung be like " I'm you but better"

@@Retronyx but is it? This Samsung vs Sony we're taking about lol. Sony has more experience with camera sensors.

Wait you name... 科技戰艦 看多了嗎😂

Joshua Chan 🤣，但我這回復是一年前的。

@@kjyhh 笑死😂