Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Origami Helps Cellphone Cameras To Focus

Posted by simoniker on 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."

18 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Oh come on now... by WwWonka · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm a guy, I have NO idea how to give the fine ladies an oragami.

  2. This camera is useless t o me... by moehoward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?"

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:This camera is useless t o me... by danitor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This camera is useless t o me... by XMunkki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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) which I've gotten to film and then send via MMS directly to my friends. Oh the simple joys =).

    3. Re:This camera is useless t o me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:This camera is useless t o me... by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 ). 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.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. PZT motors are brittle by Compuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Other applications? Dobsonian focusser? by Trull · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

    --
    -- NSY - SY OOT - Doric signs on local shop doors.
  5. Depth of field by DogIsMyCoprocessor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

  6. What's the point? by elvum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Camera Phones by error502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. How Muscle Fibers Work by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    A cool animation here: San Diego S.U.

  9. You get it wrong... by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  10. Satelitte by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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?

  11. This isn't new, nor is it innovative. Prior art: by Myself · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Canon has used ultrasonic piezoelectric motors 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 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.

  12. How does it move objects in both directions? by aunt_jamima_sr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  13. Just 'cause YOU can't think of an application... by El · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  14. Could be used for "moving" sidewalks!? by ttennebkram · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.