UVaRob - Slashdot User

Robotic Prostheses For Human Faces 111

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 16, 2009 @06:37PM from the make-them-wireless-for-fun-and-amusement dept.

holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on a patent application that suggests implanting polymer muscles beneath the skin of people suffering paralysis of the face to give them control of their features. The technique has already been used successfully to reanimate the eyelids of human cadavers. Movement could be returned to other facial features and even paralyzed limbs in the same way, the surgeons at University of California Davis say. The full patent application is also available on the WIPO site."

Mars Lander Instrument Waving In the Martian Wind 46

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 16, 2008 @02:54PM from the more-proof-of-fraud dept.

Matt_dk writes "This series of images show Phoenix's telltale instrument waving in the Martian wind. Documenting the telltale's movement helps mission scientists and engineers determine what the wind is like on Mars. On the day these images were taken, one of the images seemed to be 'out-of-phase' with other images, possibly indicating a dust devil occurrence."

Comment Re:Same Image Quality?!? (Score 1) 546

by UVaRob on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:52PM (#10377561) Attached to: Canon's new 16.7MP Digital SLR, with WiFi

The MTF stuff is not really relevant to my argument, they're really just showing off how capable film is.

My argument is that with a sampling period of 7microns in the CMOS you cannot have an image of the same quality as the film can produce.

You're saying that since most lenses have a resolution of 100 lines pairs per mm, which equates roughly to a 5micron resolution between objects. Now that's resolution!, not pitch. Sampling theory tells us that if we can image (throught the lenses) objects 5 microns away, then sampling at more than 2.5 micron distance is redundant and less than 2.5 microns is not enough. The digital sensor still isn't cutting it.

So the "medium speed microfilms' are better than what is common. So film has a greater capability but that capability isn't typically utilized. Whereas they finest pixel pitch on the market that I could find was 3.5micron (FillFactory IBIS). Again, the digital isn't up to snuff.

So when it comes to the shutter speed, I'm almost with you - CMOS is slow. However with a more expensive CCD with 100% fill factor you could get away with 50microsecond integration times. I personally have never used a film camera that can integrate that fast, then again, I've never seen a CMOS camera that can integrate enough light for a decent image at less than 500us.

Blah Blah Blah, I'm wasting time when I should be working.
Nice discussing this with you.

Slashdot Top Deals