Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms? (long & boring)
From: dennis at hale-pohaku.net (Dennis)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:40:59 -1000
References: <BLU0-SMTP929E43B8A29EAF7FF1EB3C8CE40@phx.gbl> <4AAEB7D1.5020808@hale-pohaku.net> <36172e5a0909141550t37d49545pbbdce12e3a49bcf4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Geoff,

The CCD is an analog to digital conversion device and on a die to die 
basis there will be variations that while within the manufacturer's, 
(Kodak), specifications could be characterized on a die to die basis. A 
designer could simply design for the nominal spec and not worry too much 
about the effects of variation as a result of the CCD manufacturing 
process. However the ultimate would be to measure the characteristic of 
each individual die and use those parameters in the control logic that 
is processing the digital output of the die. To do this the parameter of 
the die have to be stored somewhere. In watching the video it's stated 
that the control board is "paired" with the sensor assembly. That tells 
me that characteristic parameters for the sensor is stored on  the 
control board, not on the sensor assembly, (where I think they should be 
stored). I would put them on the sensor assembly because it makes repair 
much easier. If the cost of repair is not an issue then fine, it's 
usually the customers money anyway. I assume that Jenoptik made this 
decision and Leica accepted it but I think Leica should have pushed back 
on this one. Maybe it would delay the introduction of the camera, I 
don't know.

The ultimate objective would be to have the algorithms and equations in 
the control board driven completely by parameters from the sensor 
assembly. If achieved, then you could upgrade a camera by changing just 
the sensor assembly. Could it be done? I don't know, but I do think it 
should be a design objective. An extreme upgrade could run into a 
processing power issue where the speed of the control board doesn't 
allow the camera to meet the design objectives, too slow. In either 
case, depending on how much firmware is involved, you can come away with 
general purpose firmware so that new models don't entail firmware 
rewrites, and that can save a lot of time and money.

Shims are undesirable in any manufacturing process. Good design will 
almost always obviate the need for shims. At first I thought the issue 
was the frame the sensor is mounted it, it looks like a sheet metal 
stamping. But I wondered about the mechanical specifications on the 
Kodak sensor. Looking at the KAF-10500 data sheet, I just picked one 
available online, the mechanical specifications are surprisingly loose 
so it seems to me the shimming is not within Leica's control. I realize 
this is probably an issue that all digital camera manufacturers have.

I have no doubt about Leica's use of technology to measure I also have 
no doubt about Nikon, Canon, etc., ability to measure. Most likely the 
difference in use of those measurements is use of robotics to make 
adjustments, possibly using screw based adjustment mechanisms.




Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
> Dennis the matching of the sensor to its board is performed by Jenoptik and
> there is no insight in that video as to Jenoptik's processes at all.
> What is the issue in your opinion with the shimming process?. It is a Leica
> response to the criticality of sensor placement to extract the best from 
> the
> lens performance. Leica are using very modern precision measurement
> processes that report the shimming adjustments needed and down to one
> hundredth of a mm increments at three points. I would be very surprised if
> any other camera company works to that level of accuracy. Can you provide
> examples of how it should be done differently?
> You might like to read some of the reporting that has surfaced recently
> regarding the digital back  sample variations in high end medium format
> cameras for comparison.
>
>
> 2009/9/15 Dennis <dennis at hale-pohaku.net>
>
>   
>> Ok, Luminous Landscape titled it "M9" but all I saw was M8s.
>>
>> From what I saw Leica needs to look at improving their manufacturing
>> processes. The matching of the sensor to the control board would be a good
>> place to start. No wonder it costs  a fortune to replace a control board.
>> The sensor assembly should include all the sensor parameters needed by the
>> control board. I could talk a lot about this but doubt anyone is 
>> interested.
>>
>> The shimming of the sensor is another issue.
>>
>> Well, it was about the M8, maybe the M9 has improved processes.  Somehow I
>> doubt it.
>>
>>
>> Vick Ko wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> See the video about the M9 at Solms?
>>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/m9-video.shtml
>>>       


Replies: Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms? (long & boring))
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms? (long & boring))
Reply from wbabbott3 at comcast.net (William B. Abbott III) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms? (long & boring))
In reply to: Message from vick.ko at sympatico.ca (Vick Ko) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms?)
Message from dennis at hale-pohaku.net (Dennis) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] See the video about the M9 at Solms?)