Researchers Design a Self-Powered Digital Camera 85
Jason Koebler writes: Researchers at Columbia University have designed a fully electric digital camera that powers itself using ambient light. Put in a well-lit room, it would work indefinitely. The camera's image sensor does double duty. It measures the light needed to make the photograph, and it also takes excess light and uses it to power a capacitor (it has no battery) that runs the camera (PDF). The research team says the technology can be used to create self-powered cameras that can live on the internet of things.
Yeah, yeah... (Score:2)
But what about low light performance?
Re:Yeah, yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't you read the summary? It's a "fully electric" digital camera. If you want low light performance you need one with a gasoline engine. :)
Re: (Score:2)
" Are you telling me that this sucker is NUCLEAR? "
"No, no, no, no, no, this sucker's electrical..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yeah, yeah... (Score:2)
Just activate the flash, and it will charge itself up, of course. ;-)
Story is that it's a very low power camera (Score:2)
Trying to make it work off just light, is sheer gimmickry. You run just run power over ethernet in a wired environment, in a wireless setting running the transciever will really hurt your capture rate especially if there is variation in illumination.
Re:Story is that it's a very low power camera (Score:5, Insightful)
For example if you want to look for forest fires, you plant a camera on a high spot, overlooking a large area of forest. It takes a picture every hour.
Another example is time lapse photos for environmental/biological research.
Re: (Score:2)
Or.... you know... once a (day|week|month|year) download the pictures...
Re: (Score:1)
Good for research, not so good for forest fires. The camera might have gone up in a puff of smoke by then.
However, "The research team says the technology can be used to create self-powered cameras that can live on the internet of things."
This indicates that it also has a low-powered wireless transmitter powered by photovoltaics, which means you could have a line-of-sight yagi set up between two points to transmit the photos to some powered location.
So these basically allow you to mount anywhere (with enough
Re:Story is that it's a very low power camera (Score:4, Informative)
For outdoor use you'd be better served by a $10 solar panel and a battery or supercapacitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Story is that it's a very low power camera (Score:4)
No problem... you can just setup a wireless transmitter. Powered by other cameras of course.
Re: (Score:2)
So... separate solar cell? I'm sure the actual picture taking part of the sensor would be more efficient if it was optimized for power saving than in this spliced abomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Power over ethernet implies cables.
Expected capture rate is not always 30/60fps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power over Ethernet also requires a Power over Ethernet infrastructure.
Which runs about $12 for a single connection power supply/power inserter... If you are going to run the wire anyway, it's not that expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the story man ?
The camera is a joke. They are using discrete photo diodes to generate the image and the power.
Aside from the fact that their scaling claims false.
Higher res != More power
Larger capture area = More power
You can do better by just popping a solar cell next to the aray. If space is your concern a ccd sensor is going to be insanely smaller anyway
Re: (Score:2)
I was just answering _your_ alternative proposal.
I did look at the story, and I think it's a cool idea, that might even end up having some kind of application. This is research, not engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the size of the camera too, wouldn't it have been less difficult to hook a solar panel to any old camera? The thing is huge, takes awful pictures, and does what can be done easier with a solar panel and a camera (and even a WAP).
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that the entire point is not to require a wired environment.
Re: (Score:3)
welcome to the internet of things
DO NOT WANT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All of man's greatest accomplishments were derived from man's biological need for ever easier access to porn & sex.
Al Gore's claims to the contrary, it was porn that drove the innovation of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, an array of photovoltaic cells. (Score:2)
I recently visited an old friend, and saw that he'd installed a PV grid on his roof -- three rows, with thirteen panels in each row, and separate control/monitor circuitry for each one. It took me about two minutes to say "you know, put up a big board with a hole in the middle, and you could do imaging with that array."
It was a dumb joke, not a profound engineering insight.
Yes, I'm sure this camera can self-power. No, there's no way to make it cheaper or more effective than putting bigger, dumb panels on th
Re: (Score:2)
What are you basing this assertion on? It sounds believable, but it also sounds like an unproven assumption.
I'm glad you asked.
1. I assert that it will always be more expensive to make an array of individual PV cells, with circuitry to route their output to readout logic and the global power pool, than to make a conventional sensor and a conventional PV cell with larger effective area. I can't "prove" this, but I can't imagine a realistic scenario where it wouldn't be true.
2. I observe that a sensor in an optical assembly, with light only entering through a lens, can only absorb light that falls on the lens. In f
Re: (Score:2)
3. I assert that any camera will have a housing with more surface area than its lens.
This [ptgrey.com] and several other models. The lenses used for these usually have much more surface area than the camera itself, and weigh significantly more to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
That camera's body is approximately a cube. The lens occupies most of one face. Now, class, what percentage of the camera's surface area is occupied by the lens?
For extra credit, describe a geometric solid of which one face has more surface area than the entire solid.
Re: (Score:2)
That camera's body is approximately a cube.
Yes, for that camera, an area of approximately five square inches. Subtract one for the side that is mounted to something, so four left over.
The lens occupies most of one face.
Yes, the lens covers one face of the cube. That remove 1 square inch from the surface area of the camera.
Now, class, what percentage of the camera's surface area is occupied by the lens?
Uhhh, 1/6. So? The statement was that the surface area of the camera will be larger than that of the lens. The lens is not just one face, it is a cylinder of some length and diameter. The ends of the cylinder will be used as entrance and exit for the lens so can
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the bit that, in the old days, used to have textured rubber on so you could twist it to focus?
I thought light doesn't go through that bit.
Why use a laptop when a desktop will do? (Score:2)
It means the people that want to deploy remote gear can get something prepared earlier instead of assembling a system.
Ya, but... (Score:2)
I looked at the photo on TFA and that thing is HUGE. Seriously, it's got to be a foot square. :-)
Self powered camera or array of solar cells? (Score:2)
Kind of interesting, kind of pointless at such low resolutions (40x30).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To hipsters, all non-hipsters do.
emitter of a FET? (Score:2)
In figure 3 Q1 is drawn as a FET (and the circuit implies it is one) but they refer to the "emitter" of it when speaking of the drain.
And obviously the goal of high resolution is counter to needing large cells to capture charge for harvesting.
The design would seem to imply that the device cannot be self-starting. That is, if it runs out of charge, it has no way to activate the harvesting and get it self running again. Ah, I see in there it say they had to start with a charged supercap.
It's still an interest
No Practical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
JFC! (Score:2)
Anyone who uses the term internet of things (IoC) when talking about a product should be shot on sight. Things DO NOT need to be connected to the internet.
If we can't secure the basic things already connected, important things such as power plants, traffic signals or government computers, wtf do you think will happen when crap like this is thrown in the mix?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things DO NOT need to be connected to the internet.
I wonder if that will become the definition of a 'thing' in a generation.
Thing: An item which is connected to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already happening with a pile of webcams naked to the net when it appears that their owners did not intend that to happen.
Some interesting speculation about what could happen with universally available 24/7 monitoring was in the Japanese short (~5 min episodes) web animation series "Platonic Chain" from around ten years ago. It's probably still on the net. To sum up, kids do some creepy things with their advantage of knowing far to
This could be useful in an artificial retina (Score:2)
Webeye (Score:2)
It is quite sad ... (Score:2)
Yo dawg ... (Score:2)
This is a selfselfie. Or a selfie 2.0, if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be usable in wearables where power is at a premium.
Oh, researchers... (Score:2)
You had me until you said "internet of things."
Solar Powered (Score:2)
The Matrix is coming... (Score:1)