Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables Science Hardware

Origami Helps Cellphone Cameras To Focus 132

Posted by simoniker from the introducing-the-blade-runner-approach dept.
Sea Monkey writes "New Scientist has an article on the development of novel and ultra-cheap micromotor technology. It's a new type of linear motor, 'using a technique closer to origami than engineering' to cut slits out of tiny piezoelectric ceramic parts. One of the envisioned applications is taking a sheet of the material with the motors, wrapping it into a tube and moving a lens up and down it - instant tiny movable focusing element for cellphone camera lenses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Origami Helps Cellphone Cameras To Focus More

Origami Helps Cellphone Cameras To Focus

Comments Filter:

  • I read about this earlier (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    check Fox or CNN, its on one of those two right now. gl

  • Oh come on now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by WwWonka ( 545303 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:26PM (#6845870)
    I'm a guy, I have NO idea how to give the fine ladies an oragami.

  • MEMS==Origami (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_pooh_experience ( 596177 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:26PM (#6845872)
    Isn't anything MEMS [sandia.gov] closer to origami than science?

  • This camera is useless t o me... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:29PM (#6845882)
    The whole camera on a cell phone thing always reminds me of the geneticist in South Park. "This monkey is useless to me, it only has one ass."

    Cameras on phones are totally worthless for the general public. Yes, there are a few applications, but they pretty much are not even fun toys. I mean, cell phones in general have enough problems with the networks. It's like they're trying to mask that by deploying this crap.

    "We just created one of the great nanotech ideas of the year. How can we incorporate this into cell phones?"

    • Re:This camera is useless t o me... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by danitor ( 600348 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:38PM (#6845913)
      ok, now i'm gonna rant, because i'm so tired of hearing this kind of comment every time a new tech is introduced.

      this is just silly-
      you are saying that cameras have no use to the
      general population!! what kind of idiot are you?

      why do you think digital cameras have become so popular? because people need them and like them.
      haveing one with me all the time, even a crappy one, is super cool AND useful. hell, my mom uses it to show her quilting buddies fabric before she buys it. just because you aren't imaginitive enought o conceive of a use for something, doesn't mean that the rest of the world will be as dull.

      people have been using cameras for a long time. even ORDINARY people. you knoe, the kind who don't need a 10megapixel SLR to take pics of their kids or something interesting.
    • Also consider how many cell phones become 'obsolete' if you ever change networks. A friend of mine emailed a picture shot from his phone, there's a lot lacking in resolution and exposure metering. If you want to take pictures any/everywhere you go and portability is higher importance, get a Canon Digital IXUS or A60/A70/A80. Those cameras are very compact and can beat any lens/sensor slapped on a phone.

      • Re:This camera is useless t o me... (Score:5, Informative)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:04PM (#6846007) Homepage Journal
        that is true only where there is network lock in, and there is no problems with network here either (how bad are the networks in usa? the gsm network has been 'perfect' for the last ~5-7 years here ffs, and i pay the same rate in most of europe as i pay in my home country), not that it makes the camera any more usefull or less useful.

        the uses are limited but on the better phones with cameras(nokia3650 for one, the lens is better than on 7650) the camera is good enough to beat a disposable camera(especially when you get to see the picture, whereas on a disposable cameras you don't).

        not a replacement to a good digicam but it's something you have with you _always_, no matter how compact camera you have you're going to end up leaving it but you don't leave your mobile, so you end up getting loads of party pics(and travel pics as such: here [hermokaasu.com]). besides than that it's just 'nice extra' in 3650 anyways, the other features are much more useful and valuable for a power user(symbian, mmc memory expansion, gprs, powerful enough cpu).

        the even smaller resolution cameras in cheaper/smaller phones are pretty useless though except for sending mms messages.

        • GSM service in the USA sucks big floppy donkey dick.

          I've had friends on AT&T who loved their TDMA service then got forced into GSM and now HATE it. Coverage is only a tiny fraction of what it used to be (see https://www.attws.com/images/maps/ngnn-nat.gif [attws.com], Cingular, T-Mobile, and Sprint are even worse), even inside major cities. I used to be on Cingular GSM and literally more than 50% of the time I was unable to make calls and I kept getting phamtom voicemail indicators sometimes even six hours after
          • but why oh why can't they put some of that money into making the phones work?

            Well, it's a UK company that's doing this work, and over here, the phones *do* work. That was kind of the original poster's point.

            I have a Nokia 3410 that I got free last year when I renewed my contract with my service provider, and with a few exceptions (eg on the Tube) I have perfect reception pretty-much everywhere I go. There are one or two places where I don't, because of local conditions, but they're few and far between an

    • You get it wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:45PM (#6845942)
      Actually, a cell phone and a digital camera are two decives that are really GREAT to combine.
      The whole reason for small cameras is making snapshots ect. Therefore you need the have them around when something happens that you want to make a photo of.
      Now on the otherhand, most people own a cell phone, and they naturally have it with them.
      Now both devices need a signal processor, an accu-pack, memory, ect.
      So it is quite sensible to make them one device.
    • If it's useless to you doesn't mean it's useless for everyone. I have prsonally found it good to take those "you had to be there" -shots, like when partying out with friends or just plainly finding yourself in a place you couldn't predict in the morning.

      Sure, a real (analog/digital) camera takes much better pictures, but not everyone has space to carry them around to every place they go. + it's a bigger chance they get stolen.

      There have been many jokes about friends (like a picture which says they're gay)

    • Re:This camera is useless t o me... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is just like saying 5 years ago "cellphones are useless! look at the huge piece of shit and I can't even get a signal! people will only be using these as toys!"

      give it some time man. imagine a camera you don't even have to plug into your computer because everytime you take a picture its upload to your website. no more film, no more flashcards either
    • cell phones in general have enough problems with the networks

      I think you've misunderstood something, the phones don't create the network, the base stations do. Network problems are usually caused by a poor infrastructure, and there is little you can do device-side to get better coverage.

      • No, I think I just formed a poorly worded sentence. My point is that it's like driving a BMW in Hazard County. The roads are barely finished and half the bridges are out.

        Once I can get a cell phone call (caller calling me from their cell) who isn't always breaking up and gets cut off 10% of the time, then you can talk bells and whistles.

    • Just 'cause YOU can't think of an application... (Score:5, Funny)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:09PM (#6846035)
      Now you can not only call 911, you can send them a _picture_ of the guy that's mugging you and taking your expensive cellphone!
    • Cameras on phones are totally worthless for the general public. Yes, there are a few applications, but they pretty much are not even fun toys. ...it is an undisputable fact that not one, but several of my friends have bought one. And for whatever mysterious reason they do, I suppose they'll also want a good camera (which might actually make them somewhat useful).

      I've yet to see them use it for anything useful. But after all, it's the ultimate "carry-with-you" camera, that you carry 24/7. Ever wished you ha
      • The general public obviously sees some value in it.

        Let's take an honest look at the general public's opinion of value. Watch some TV for about half and hour, look at all the commercials for "space bags" or "super-does-1 million-things knife". A lot of what is marketed is frankly, rediculous. Cell phone cameras are just that at the moment. Once quality improves, I'm all for it, but as for now, who is going to want to take poor quality pictures, for c. $300 a year?
    • ... then contradict yourself in the body. Cameraphones are useless to you, but the general public definitely sees a use for them, and they are selling quite well. It's interesting to be able to post pictures of a fire near your office [livejournal.com] to your online journal while you're still out.

      Just because you don't see anything interesting doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't. I'm still kicking myself for not having my camera snap-on when I wound up driving next to the Batmobile (the 60's one!).
    • I think that a large reason why mobile phone camera's are more gimmicky that useful is because they don't compare to pure-bred digital's on an even footing. They are missing out in subtle areas such as the abscence of a flash and the ability to zoom -- as concerns this article.

      They are as you mention finding their niche in a few applications. I know of atleast one media purchase manager (as in advertising exec) who snaps up photographs of billboards on his way to and from work. I'm sure he could just as
    • Moderators: This comment is not interesting or insightful. It's overgeneralising and worthless. We have head this stupid rant before aswell, and it adds absolutly nothing of value to the artical, since it isn't even specificly about cameras on cellphones.

      -1 Redundant IMHO.

    • Wait until people are leaning over police barriers to get closeups at accident/crime scenes. The juiciest pics emailed to cnn will earn fat cash rewards.
      • Fat cash rewards? Hahahaha! Try somewhere around $50us for a good quality picture, though you can get more (sometimes much more) with an excellently composed, GREAT quality photograph.

        If there is a police barrier, chances are REALLY good that a professional photographer (with a MUCH better camera) is already there.

        Show me a mainstream (one that can afford to pay 'fat cash' for crappy pictures) magazine that has crappy quality pictures between their covers.

    • Actually, I can think of at least one use... A lot of tv stations (in my area at least) offer cash rewards for amateur video of crime scenes/other news items. I've always thought it would be kind of cool to just carry a camcorder around town, but it would be annoying (bulky, and useless for anything but recording). At least with a cell phone/camera combo, I have an excuse for carrying it around when I don't intend to take any pictures.

      I don't have any plans of buying that kind of cellphone, though, as I ha
    • "Cameras on phones are totally worthless for the general public. Yes, there are a few applications, but they pretty much are not even fun toys."

      Since when is "I can live without this!" ever interesting or insightful? The guy doesn't get it! Never mind that millions of people have digital cameras today, having one in their cell phone that they carry around all the time is completely worthless.

      I wish I could understand the psychology of somebody who can live in such an over-simplified world.
    • ameras on phones are totally worthless for the general public.
      I agree.. My camra is...
      Hold on... *Takes picture of cargo container for boss saves it on disk boss e-mails it to port master*
      My digital camra has no practical applacation...
      Oh I forgot something...
      *Takes some digital pictures for items selling on ebay*
      No practical value at all
      *Exchanges pictures with lady friend*
      None...
      *takes cute pictures of kid drawing posts on website*
      None...
      *Takes picture of city flower arrangement....*
      at
      *picture of a Sla
    • Yes, there are a few applications, but they pretty much are not even fun toys.

      A company I used to work for did 3D building visualisations. They had one customer stand on his building site and email them pictures straight from the phone. In virtually no time (I'm guessing an hour?), they'd incorporated those pictures into his mock-up. So there was his building with a reasonably accurate background picture. Tres cool.

      So even the current phone cameras can be really useful little devices.
    • I don't know... quite a few of my family members have "camera phones", and they use the camera feature quite a bit.

      They primarily use the camera feature to obtain a quick snapshot for photo caller id, which I think is really cool... but also to take fun pictures to send each other.

      For example, my uncle and I went fishing. A mutual friend was being a baby and didn't want to come because he thought the fishing would be bad because of low tides. My uncle caught a nice redfish, so I snapped a half-way decent

  • Zooming (Score:2)

    by rf0 ( 159958 )
    Cool now I can zoom on the phone camera and get close ups of girls bums :)

    Rus

  • PZT motors are brittle (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:32PM (#6845895)
    Oh man, I work with PZT all the time. It is so
    brittle it hurts. Dropping this camera will be
    a disaster. Heck, even the kinda jolt from
    car traffic and the like (stuff that used to
    make old cd players skip) may break this motor.
    • I have to agree with you. It's a very delicate arrangement based on the principle of gripping surfaces and tension between two surfaces that looks like it can come apart or go awry quite easily.
      • i dunno. smaller you go the more force you can apply with less brittleness specially at the nano level. ants raise many times their body weight while humans cant.

  • Other applications? Dobsonian focusser? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trull ( 95206 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:37PM (#6845910) Homepage
    Thinking about this invention, I'd love to get my hands on this stuff to line the insides of my homebrew Newtonian Dobsonian 22cm f7.3 telescope. I think that this would make a cheaper and lighter solution to microfocus the eyepiece. After all I'll be running a webcam off it and eventually will fit steppers for alt/az control as well. So an electronic focussing element would be just great.

    Clear Skies

    Torc

  • Depth of field (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DogIsMyCoprocessor ( 642655 ) <[dogismycoprocessor] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:39PM (#6845915) Homepage
    The small size of the sensor allows simple fixed-focus optics with practically infinite depth of field. Adding a mechanism for focusing means you also have to add either an automatic or manual way to achieve the correct focus, which doesn't fit well with the form factor or battery usage desired for cell phones. So the application to cell phone cameras has very small benefits with large drawbacks.
    • I think you have completly missed the point. The whole point of this is that the focusing system would be very small and doesn't take up much electricity. Even a normal foacusing system in a compact camera dosn't take up much compared to all the other things like doing processing to show a live view of the camera, and the screen/backlight of course.

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elvum ( 9344 ) * on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:39PM (#6845918) Journal
    The cameras in mobile phones use simple fixed-focus single-element lenses that are sufficiently wide that everything from about 50cm to infinity is in focus. What's the point of adding an unnecessary focussing mechanism - it'll just put the price of the phone up and add another mode of potential failure, without adding any worthwhile functionality.

    I can see lots of useful appliations for a tiny linear motor, but I'm not convinced that this is one of them.
    • Most phones have digital focus which take the quality from bad to worse

      Rus
    • Ahh, but you've missed the point... This is a relatively inexpensive (Read the article) upgrade to a phone that can change it from a cell phone that can take pictures, to a device that is both a cell phone AND a camera. There's a big difference between being able to take pictures with something, and being able to use that same thing as a replacement for a dedicated camera. We're not talking about pro-level manual control, we're talking about the el-cheapo auto-focusing that is done in entry level consume
    • It would be very useful to take pictures much closer than 50 cm. A snapshot of page from a phone book, a map scribbled on a napkin or to show off a particularily long nose hair, 50 cm is too far away to be useful for many tasks.
    • What's the point of adding an unnecessary focussing mechanism

      Hey I can write a book on a Tandy 100 with a cassette drive. Who needs anything else? Right? Obviously not. Quality and utility are always key.

      Off the top of my head this would probably deliver:

      - Much improved image quality
      - Ability to zoom into distant objects
      - Ability to take pictures close and very close (macro mode)

      All of the above increase the effective resolution of the device.

  • Camera Phones (Score:3, Insightful)

    by error502 ( 694533 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:39PM (#6845919)
    Why add cameras to phones?

    Why not work on ensuring that my call will never get disconnected? How about trying to make it so that I actually get reception in my house? I don't really enjoy going into my backyard just to make a phone call.
    • Think of the fresh air you get though :-)

      Yeah same here. Actually in my case I seem to be the only one who doesn't get decent cell coverage indoors [v120c]. I take one step outside and boom 3/5 bars.

      Stupid fones...

      Tom
    • Its too separate companies. The people who will make your reception better is the phone company you use. The people who would add camera's to phones are the phone manufacturers who are totally separate.
    • Do you really have such a bad network? I have a gsm phone here in germany since 97 and never witnessed a disconnect besides obvious things (driving into a tunnel).

      And you add cameras to phones because people like to carry cameras aound to make snapshots of interesting things. And they also carry cell phones around. both are digital devices with a case, battery, display, processor, memory, ect.
      So people who want both need only one gadget in the pocket, and everybody else can buy a phone without a camera.
    • Why not work on ensuring that my call will never get disconnected?

      Because then you can send a picture of yourself flipping the bird to them.

    • Cameras have many uses, especially one that you always carry because it's built into your mobile phone. When a truck skidded into the front of my car, I had my Nokia 7650 with me to take some pictures [evansweb.info] for "evidence" (in case it's not obvious, the last two on the page came from my phone).

      Having said that, in this case it didn't do me that much good, as the insurance companies decided that the accident was an "act of God". :-(

      • Yeah, you really proved me wrong. Those pictures were of indisputably high quality! The cell phone and the digital camera should remain united!

        Yeah, I think I'll just keep my cheap cell phone, with it's cheap calling plan, along with keeping my tiny, inexpensive digital camera in my car.

        Sorry about your car.
    • Well, perhaps because eg in Finland we don't have those problems. And if you happen to have bad reception in your house you can either call you operator and they often fix it or switch to another operator that works better, your phone number will still be the same.
      • That's because in Finland the cellular operators work together and share cellular towers. I wish they would in the US, too.

        In the US, it's everyone for themselves. You could have a Cingular phone with zero service when standing next to an AT&T tower, for example.
    • Yet another 'No problems ... in Europe'

      Reception in houses is done since ... well ... before I was able to even afford a cell phone ;)

      Now, you can even go trough train or car tunnels without fearing to be disconnected.

      But CDMA is much better than GSM and will rule the world !!!

      (ooops, just been flamebait)

    • Why not work on ensuring that my call will never get disconnected?


      Talk to your operator. I have exactly ZERO problems with my connection. But then again, I'm in Finland, so....
    • Sounds like an alltel commercial. My favorite has to be the "super-massive wireless" commercial with the overpaid singers.

  • How Muscle Fibers Work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Milo Fungus ( 232863 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:43PM (#6845935)

    The description in the article sounds analogous to the way muscle fibers work. Mother nature is a great structural engineer, and she's been at it a lot longer than we have. Human technology has been inspired repeatedly by nature. One easy example is the Wright Brothers. Others may follow in replies. (I hope so, anyway. I'm sort of in the mood to hear a few more...)

    An explanation here: UIC [uic.edu]

    A cool animation here: San Diego S.U. [sdsu.edu]

    • Re:How Muscle Fibers Work (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This lens arrangement is essentially a sphincter then. All the engineering efficiency of Mother Nature minus the the grunts.
    • Mother nature faces different engineering challenges than humans do. Since forces affect objects with different relative strengths at different scales (e.g., surface tension vs. gravity), and since nature is mostly based around cellular subunits, there are different sets of restrictions on natural and human designs.

      I'm stealing these ideas from Steven Vogel's "Cats Paws and Catapults," which I'm halfway through, heh.

      It's an interesting book.

  • Satelitte (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:51PM (#6845965)
    As an interesting side node, some of the satelittes out there have a surface which was discovered - and first designed - using origami.

    Who said paper is dead?

  • Last time I checked in Origami you fold not cut

  • This isn't new, nor is it innovative. Prior art: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Myself ( 57572 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @03:55PM (#6845984) Journal
    Canon has used ultrasonic piezoelectric motors [canon.com] in their lenses for years. These are the "mexican wave" (wtf?) motors that the New Scientist article mentions. I'm not sure why they'd be any more expensive than the origami motors described here.

    Piezoelectric stick-slip [cam.ac.uk] actuators are nothing new. Those units built at Cambridge apparently pre-date the units mentioned in the article, but the surface preparation technique is somewhat different.

  • How does it move objects in both directions? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aunt_jamima_sr ( 668433 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:03PM (#6846002)
    The article says it works using vibrating surfaces that are roughened in such a way that they can use "stick and slip" to ratchet things along. Wouldn't this move objects in one direction only? How could you use this to move something against the grain of the rough surfaces?
  • Well you can do the same with standard geek tools.
    Take 2 empty Pringles cans with intact lid. In fact one can with 2 lids will be sufficient.
    Remove the bottom of one can.
    Put one lid on the bottom and glue it hot glue.
    Fill can with water.
    Put the other lid on the top. Make sure that there are no bubbles in the can.
    Glue the top lid.

    What have you now got is a high quality ultrasonic lens with will greatly improve the focusing of your cellphone cam or any other cam with ultrasonic focus.

  • Soon enough we will have foldable cameras, how cool would that be to fold up a camera and slip it in your pocket?

  • fast shoes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eagl ( 86459 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @04:40PM (#6846157) Journal
    If you put a sheet of this stuff on your shoes, can you skate on concrete or climb up walls without moving your feet?

    How about a pad of this stuff you could drive your car onto, then apply the current to have your car creep sideways. Would be great for repositioning your car in your garage.

    No more roller-ball conveyer belts, just a sheet of this stuff.

    Think about a bodysuit made of it. Ridges out = you can slither around like a snake without effort. Ridges in, and it could be hooked up to a computer for a full body sensory feedback from your favorite games.

  • not that different from... (Score:3, Informative)

    by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Monday September 01, 2003 @05:05PM (#6846239)
    That doesn't sound that different from existing piezo-electric motors like this one [canon.com].
  • Isn't the movement/motion described more like the one of a snake than having anything to do with origami.

    I am sure there are more clever cut and paste jobs being performed elsewhere.

  • Applying an alternating current to the crystals induces a mini "Mexican wave" around the ring that turns the lens.
    <racist>
    Being a people of mostly short stature, aren't all "Mexican waves" considered "mini"?
    </racist>
  • Actually, better technology that accomplishes the same purpose has been around for a long time. Biometal. Shape memory alloys? remember those? much better for the application. And for that matter, pure quartz has piezoelectric properties. Coincidendally, you can make a hell of a fine lens out of quartz. Why not simply engineer a solid state, self focusing lens? Is that so difficult, hmmmm? You silly humans. TESLA RULES!!

  • Could be used for "moving" sidewalks!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ttennebkram ( 611275 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @05:47PM (#6854450)
    I had wondered years ago if piezoelectric materials could be used to make a people moving surface that would slide people along with micro-vibrations but where the surface itself would stay in place.

    The problem with current moving sidewalks are the very complex mechanics and the "return" mechanism for the belt/stairs, etc.

    Instead, maybe tiles of this material could be manufactured to pave pedestrian areas. They would save energy because they would not need to vibrate all the time, just one somebody is gliding by. And the outer tiles could "move" slower than the inner tiles, so that you could step on to a surface at a low rate, and then accelerate gradually by walking over into the "fast" lane.

    If the piezoelectric ceramic would be made a bit translucent, then perhaps solar cells could be incorporated, and then flat batteries under that, so that the system could be self powered. It can charge all day, but only has to vibrate when a human speeds by. And presumably the tiles could chat with each other, maybe via low rate IR signals, so that upstream tiles could let downstream tiles know that a person is on the way and what speed they are at.

    Heck, the panels could perhaps even have two slightly different angles of activation, so that folks could get on and off automatically, using their GPS-enabled pedestrain mapping device.

    And presumaly the panels could be pressure sensitive, such that they could feel your feet leaning to slow down or speed up, kind of like a Segway.

    Yeah, OK, this is a tall order. BUT, once such tiles were available, they would be ecconomical in the long run.

    Putting these on the soles of shoes might have a similar effect, though I think the power management and accessibility favors piez-paved services vs piezo-sneakers.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close