Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Medical Camera the Size of a Grain of Salt

Posted by Soulskill on from the unlocking-the-mysteries-of-your-salt-shaker dept.

kkleiner writes "The German Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration recently reported the development of a camera with a lens attached that is 1 x 1 x 1.5 millimeters in size, which is roughly as big as a grain of salt. At about a cubic millimeter in size, this camera is right at the size limit that the human eye can see unaided. The camera not only produces decent images but is also very cheap to manufacture — so cheap, in fact, that it is considered disposable."

89 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. if they are so cheap.... by CTU · · Score: 1

    ....then I might want to pick one up to play around with it and maybe find other uses for it

    1. Re:if they are so cheap.... by CTU · · Score: 1

      Why did you have to put such a thought into my head!?

    2. Re:if they are so cheap.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      ....then I might want to pick one up to play around with it and maybe find other uses for it

      Is it wrong that the first application I thought of was to give one of these to the Goatse guy? :)

      Yes. You could get a Panavision film camera in there.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:if they are so cheap.... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. The image is 250 x 250 px at 44 fps.
      2. It's so tiny that there's no way it could have a useful FOV for anything macroscopic, much less be able to focus on anything more than a few cm away.
      3. This is medical technology we're talking about, so there's probably a hundred-thousand licensing fee to even look at it, even if the camera itself is only a few pennies.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:if they are so cheap.... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      TFA doesn't really say much about the cost, but if they follow the general trend of high-tech gizmos, they'll probably be as cheap as peanuts in a few years, if not sooner. As for the FOV, you could put a dozen of these in an array, like an insect eye, and then construct a high-res image in software. As a bonus, you'd also get some range info and limited 3D possibilities.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    5. Re:if they are so cheap.... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Very true, but unfortunately the "general trend of high-tech gizmos" isn't the only factor at work here. The same principles that keep the US cellular network wrapped up in ridiculous pricing are at work in technology intended for hospital use in most developed countries, even moreso because of insurance affordances. The developer will probably never let that gem out of its grasp, as they risk cutting into their own monopoly; at least, not without hundreds of millions of dollars in licensing fees first. Notice how much of the process they have worked out—they're convinced it's a divine cash cow.

      But yes, it would be totally frickin' awesome.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:if they are so cheap.... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Cheap is relative. Most of these cameras are used to avoid surgery or other invasive procedures. Remember, a lot of these types cameras are intended to be swallowed. Which means, even if the camera costs a couple thousand dollars, its cheap. I honestly doubt they are anywhere near that expensive, but my point releases, "cheap" is relative.

  2. You have to take this announcement... by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...with a grain of salt.

    (But watch out, that grain of salt might be a tiny camera.)

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. SI units fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know what would be more amazing. People confusing a 1mm cube for a "grain of salt", or people being unable to see a 1mm cube object without aid. That's like the size of a ball bearing, or short grain rice! I didn't realize SI units were this hard to grasp...

    1. Re:SI units fail? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yeah. 1mm x 1mm x 1.5mm isn't anywhere near approaching the smallest size the human eye can see unaided (remember the iPhone's retina display?). And they probably meant Kosher salt (the kind they put on pretzels).

      I suspect that what they meant was that, the average person would just barely be able to spot one of these stuck on a nearby wall unless they got up close to it, where they'd be able to see it better.

    2. Re:SI units fail? by thynk · · Score: 1

      Oh good, I'm not the only one who noticed that a grain of salt is smaller than a match head. I thought for a moment they were talking about the little dot in the middle of that thing, not the whole device itself. Whew... I may not use mm to measure very often, but I didn't think my perception of it was that off.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    3. Re:SI units fail? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      The actual press release said a grain of "coarse" salt.

    4. Re:SI units fail? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      People confusing a 1mm cube for a "grain of salt"

      A 1mm cube seems to be a pretty good match for a grain of salt and while that is certainly not invisible for the human eye, if you watch it from a meter away you could certainly run into trouble finding it.

    5. Re:SI units fail? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Disposable cameras smaller than a grain of "course salt" have been commonly available for decades.

      [/pedantic]

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    6. Re:SI units fail? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      You are a little off... 1 mm ~ 0.003 ft, but 1 mm^3 ~ 0.003^3 ft^3 ~ 3.5 × 10^-8 cubic feet

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    7. Re:SI units fail? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Ya, that left me wondering too. Maybe they're measuring the human perception of an object at say 30' or something. :)

          I still don't get this insane concept of size that people keep trying to apply. as big as a grain of sand, car (VW bug or Lincoln Limo?), or as much information as the Library of Congress. {sigh}

          It's not just on here, nor on poorly written news stories. I find people grasping at the idea of how to express size all the time. I always start with "Is it bigger than a bread box?" That seems to throw anyone under about 35, since they've usually never seen a bread box. It lets me have some fun though. "Picture a standard loaf of bread. 30cm x 15cm x 15cm. Now picture a box that would comfortably contain said loaf of bread without distorting its physical shape. They would typically be made from wood, but sometimes other materials are used. So for the sake of this argument, lets assume 2cm thickness on each side. Is the object you are trying to describe more than 34cm x 19cm x 19cm. Or approximately 7,650 cubic centimeters, or 0.27 cubic feet, or 65 gill."

          For some reason, people just give up about half way through it. It's a great way to get them to stop asking stupid questions. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:SI units fail? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Define "course," pseudo-pedant.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
  4. Insect Eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put enough of them together and we might be able to make a decent approximation of the faceted eyes of insects

  5. Privacy Schmivacy by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    Privacy died a long time ago. At least when I get to the age where I have to worry about prostate cancer I won't be quite so... butthurt about it.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    1. Re:Privacy Schmivacy by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      A tiny camera won't do much good for you if you are thinking only of prostate cancer. For that you can use the PSA blood test, but after an anomaly is identified you will have to be subjected to the touch exam. Unless someone makes a device to measure the prostate's volume, texture, density, etc., which will definitely not be a camera.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Privacy Schmivacy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Unless someone makes a device to measure the prostate's volume, texture, density, etc., which will definitely not be a camera.

      It's called an ultrasound. Now, roll up your sleeves and bend over.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. In America.... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the United States, where the hospital bills for a procedure of this kind are likely to run into thousands of dollars, "disposable" has a pretty broad definition.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:In America.... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      That's what I thought too. TFA doesn't say, but the press release (one of the "sources" listed in TFA) indicates that they'll be bringing disposable endoscopes to the market in 2012 for "only a few euros".

      Also, "decent" image = 250x250 pixels at 44 FPS. No indication of whether it's color or grayscale, but I suspect it's grayscale. The press release says it supplies "razor-sharp pictures", but I suspect that's only by comparison to existing endoscopes...

    2. Re:In America.... by NEDHead · · Score: 2

      Maybe 'razor sharp' is like after your wife uses in on her legs but forgets to mention it...

    3. Re:In America.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the United States, where the hospital bills for a procedure of this kind are likely to run into thousands of dollars, "disposable" has a pretty broad definition.

      Yes, because the billable time for the techs, the cost of certification of the equipment and various other overhead costs nothing.

    4. Re:In America.... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I need a car analogy.

    5. Re:In America.... by xenn · · Score: 1

      it's razor sharp, like a car driving under a truck trailer

    6. Re:In America.... by fotbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not if you can bill the customer more for the "latest and greatest".

      Just because it costs health care providers less, that doesn't mean that you should expect it to cost YOU less.

    7. Re:In America.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      It's likely grayscale, but you just put three of them together, one with a red filter, one with a blue filter and one with a green filter and you've got color. 250 x 250 isn't near good enough for medical endoscopy, but you obviously can stack a couple of them together in an array - that's old tech. Extra points for making a radial array and reconstructing a nearly 360 degree image.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:In America.... by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      In the United States, where the hospital bills for a procedure of this kind are likely to run into thousands of dollars, "disposable" has a pretty broad definition.

      Yes, because the billable time for the techs, the cost of certification of the equipment and various other overhead costs nothing.

      I think the point is that if the various overheads you mention are on the order of $5000, an extra $500 "disposable" camera is reasonable, even if in other contexts the idea of throwing away $500 worth of equipment seems unreasonable...

      --
      "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
    9. Re:In America.... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Probably greyscale. They didn't say how large the imager is, but it can't be larger than 1mm x 1mm, probably a bit less, which means even at 250x250 pixels you're dealing with 2um or smaller sensors. From the look of the tiny pinhole of a lens, they're probably already diffraction limited on resolution. To get color using the typical Bayer pattern, you'd need to go to 1um or smaller sensor sites. Ouch!

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  7. Are you blind? by Shin-LaC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A cubic millimeter is hardly "at the size limit that the human eye can see unaided". A fleck of dust is quite a bit smaller than that, and perfectly visible.

    1. Re:Are you blind? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Nor do grains of salt that the typical diner encounters run that size. This is closer to the size of a grain of rice (short grain, uncooked), for those who aren't aware of what a millimeter is.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    2. Re:Are you blind? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      And an exploding ball of gas a million miles apart can be much harder to see than a spec of dust. I'd say whoever came up with that statement is kind of retarded, even ignoring the lack of a distance to the object. After all... compare a single pixel - . - to 1mm x 1mm. That's at least an order of magnitude smaller, yet I can see it comfortably from 3 feet away.

    3. Re:Are you blind? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

      It depends how far away your eye is from it. The claim stands.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    4. Re:Are you blind? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It depends how far away your eye is from it. The claim stands.

      Then you could make the same claim for anything.

      "US Navy reveals a a new battleship that is smaller than the human eye can see*

      *if the human is 5 million miles away from said battleship"

      Reasonably, 'at the size limit the human eye can see' to me means exactly that. There is a size below which you can't see unaided, no matter how close you bring your eye to the object because there's a limit to how closely your eye can focus. That size is at least one, and probably 2 orders of magnitude smaller than this camera.

    5. Re:Are you blind? by Pennidren · · Score: 1

      I can't see the Eiffel Tower from where I am sitting, either. It must be at the size limit that the human eye can see unaided. My claim stands.

    6. Re:Are you blind? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Just as a comparison, the capacitor in this image is about 0.75x0.75x1mm - and I really only use the USB microscope if I need a photograph of the board to show any water damage or anything like that. The transistor below it is about the same size as this camera. I don't even use a magnifier for parts that large.

      There are some SMT parts that actually *are* the size of a grain of salt. I *do* use a magnifier for those.

    7. Re:Are you blind? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Nobody has defined the distance.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Are you blind? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That's before I started soldering it. That's how it left Kenwood. I haven't got any "after" pics.

      About half my work at the moment involves removing lead-free solder from equipment and resoldering it all with leaded solder, just to clean up that sort of mess.

      Slow Down Cowboy!

      Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

      It's been 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

      Dear Slashdot Janitors, please fix your broken site.

    9. Re:Are you blind? by Noren · · Score: 2

      I used to work doing single-crystal X-ray crystallography, one part of the job was mounting a crystal onto the tip of a tiny glass rod. I was looking for a single crystal no larger than 0.5 mm in any direction, and hopefully at least 0.1mm in the smallest dimension, though at times they were smaller than that if they were needles or thin planes. I would sometimes work under a not particularly powerful magnifying glass, though it's quite possible to see a crystal that size with the naked eye, even colorless, transparent crystals as most of these were. Being quite nearsighted was actually a plus, as I could take off my glasses and at 5 cm or so away see objects of that size quite well with the naked eye.

    10. Re:Are you blind? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          So, you're saying the camera is the size of a moon. ... wait ...

          That's no moon ... It's a space station.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:Are you blind? by confused+one · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I need a car analogy..

      a millimeter is the same as a 0.040" spark plug gap.

    12. Re:Are you blind? by Barsema · · Score: 2

      I found a picture of the submitter explains alot :-)

    13. Re:Are you blind? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, I can't see it unaided.. but maybe that's why I got these -6 glasses.

      but if it's so cheap, how about making a 1000x1000 grid of those.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Are you blind? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      There used to be an ad running in EE Times, showing a bunch of gains, with the caption "the larger ones are pepper" -- an add for someone's 0201 passive components, I think. These are 0.6 mm × 0.3 mm, and you can definitely see them, though forget it if you drop one on the floor. Still, much better under a microscope. I once hand soldered an 01005 part (0.4mm x 0.2mm) under a microscope... not easy. And yeah, you can see it without the scope, but not well enough to really recognize it as anything but a spec.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  8. Poetry by bigattichouse · · Score: 2

    Sprinkle vision on the wind,
    like grains of sand I see.
    motes of thought they drift and float,
    and bring my data back to me.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Poetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The was a young lady from Carolina
      Who got grains of sand in her vagina
      Though some were cameras yet
      And the whole internet
      Shocked her into attack of angina

    2. Re:Poetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tiny camera
      Engineered in Germany
      Pushes the limit

  9. Re:"considered disposable" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    It better be disposable, because at that size you're bound to lose a few of them here and there.

    However, the authors of the article seem to have very bad eyes, if 1x1x1.5mm is already at the limit of what they can see unaided.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  10. an App for that... by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    might be cool to see blood coursing through your veins, or the contents of your stomach on your iPhone :)

    --
    meh
    1. Re:an App for that... by CaptainLard · · Score: 1
      Sure, but finding a good place for the processor and transmitter in your veins might not be so easy. This thing is JUST the camera (but a cool invention none the less).

      The stomach however, isn't a problem. I've heard of people putting much stranger things in their digestive systems...

    2. Re:an App for that... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      might be cool to see blood coursing through your veins, or the contents of your stomach on your iPhone :)

      A technical embolism?

  11. Limit of human vision? by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

    I must have amazing vision because I can see things way smaller tha 1x1x1.5 mm.

  12. Surveillance / espionage uses! by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    Bab Shaw's book Light of Other Days makes a very good case for why something like this should NEVER be developed.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. Re:"considered disposable" by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

    However, the authors of the article seem to have very bad eyes, if 1x1x1.5mm is already at the limit of what they can see unaided.

    ...limit of what the human eye can see at a distance of...

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  14. Re:Privacy by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Privacy, we're fucked....

    Since a long time ago.. This makes it easier to fight back. Let the damn cops try to find the camera now.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  15. "Considered Disposable" by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

    Well, they better be, if any sort of recovery device is going to be several times the size of the camera itself...

    --
    Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  16. Re:Privacy by djdanlib · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting take on the situation... except you still have to hook it up to a power supply and a recording system in order for it to be useful, and provide some sort of environmental shielding around the camera and the cable. The bulk of a camera today isn't found in the sensor.

  17. My Margarita! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    My Margarita has a thousand eyes! GAHHH!

  18. Light Source? by theVP · · Score: 1

    Okay, the tiny camera is good, but I didn't see any mention of a light source.

    It's kinda, you know, dark in there.

    --
    "No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
    1. Re:Light Source? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I would think the light source is easy - a fiber optic cable about the diameter of a human hair, connected to an external light source. Disclaimer: I know nothing about endoscopy.

  19. Diminishing Returns by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Nine months from now, will these seem large and cumbersome?

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Diminishing Returns by nblender · · Score: 1

      I hadn't thought of that application but it's interesting... I imagine that after 9 months, the baby you've been filming will seem a lot larger and more troublesome than the pesky camera..

  20. Re:"considered disposable" by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    ... at any distance.

    There are objects which are large enough that you can see them, provided they are in a place where you can see them (this place depends on the size of the object). This includes stars, plantes, tennis balls, flees. Then there are objects which are so small that you cannot see them with the naked eye, regardless of where they are. This includes electrons, atoms, molecules, bacteria. The limit of things you can see is somewhere between bacteria and flees. It definitely is much smaller than 1x1x1.5mm.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  21. Porn! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    Sperm cam!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  22. Here's an idea. by siberian.dodo · · Score: 1

    Make this wireless, and people wont have to have giant tubes stuck down their throat during endoscopy. Or keep the giant tube, shove a whole bunch of these boys in, and create street view of the entire digestive system...

    1. Re:Here's an idea. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      We already have that. It's called capsule endoscopy and it has been in use since 2001.

      It's just that it's more expensive than traditional endoscopy so it isn't widely used yet, except in cases where traditional methods can't reach.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  23. Picture of the camera by dominious · · Score: 1

    In case you didn't check the link, here how the camera looks like:
    .

    Seriously!

  24. Haiku by skidisk · · Score: 2

    Camera small, like dust
    Travel by wind, or fiber
    Fantastic Voyage.

    1. Re:Haiku by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Ah! Dropped the damn thing

      Where are my glasses? Oh no

      Trod on it. The pain

  25. Disposable Endoscopes already exist by ue85 · · Score: 1

    Pill sized disposable endoscopes already exist, though much larger than this. Most combine some sort of light with them as well because without it they are fairly useless. This won't perform anything novel when it comes to endoscopy but rather has more potential patient compliance as well as novel imaging of smaller pathways rather than just upper and lower GI. (Example: http://www.wolfsonendoscopy.org.uk/capsule-endoscopy-information.html)

  26. Re:"considered disposable" by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

    I can't see flees. That's a verb. I can see fleas though.

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  27. Re:That's some big ass salt. by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Seriously.
    This ain't your run of the mill table salt.

  28. Re:Privacy by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    That's all okay. It doesn't have to look like a camera. And you don't have to look like you're filming anything, so nobody can identify the cameraman. So even with their twisted interpretation of wiretap law, nobody can be charged. You might not be able to use the video (nor want to, without giving yourself away) as evidence in court, but you can still tag the cop on youtube.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  29. Awesome by Married+to+Christ · · Score: 1

    development for hotel owners and land lords. You could easily set up multiple angle shots in shower cubicles.

  30. Re:In Soviet Russia by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    Soviet Russia had universal healthcare, so at least the disposal wouldn't cost you anything. ;)

  31. Metric rulers by l00sr · · Score: 1

    Actually, if you've ever wondered why rulers don't have millimeters markings on them, this is why--they can't be seen by the unaided eye!

  32. Re:Put them in an array by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    You can have something way better than an array of these. There's one in every digital camera. I'm not sure how you get 3D with it though, or what "true 3D" is.

  33. This is just dumb by cvtan · · Score: 1

    An object 1x1x1.5mm is near the resolution limit of the human eye? This is ridiculous. Human hair is finer than that and I remember in grad school being able to see pulled glass fibers a few microns in diameter (without a microscope).

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  34. Re:In Soviet Russia by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    And then Stalin disposes of the doctors.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  35. This leads to questions: by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Who is going to load the tiny film? /serious note, what is the interface; wireless?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  36. Resolution by martijnd · · Score: 1

    From the article: So how good is the camera? For endoscopy, pretty good. The resolution is 62,500 (250 x 250) pixels and can produce a frame rate of 44 per second at this resolution

  37. measurement ... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

    1 x 1 x 1.5 millimeters in size ... right at the size limit that the human eye can see unaided

    Let's be serious here, 1 millimeter is not the limit of what the eye can see.
    1/10 mm would be more like it.

  38. Re:Privacy by Calydor · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure that can all be managed by hooking the cameras up in a pair of sunglasses or the like.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  39. 3D version...from JPL by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Jet Propulsion Laboratories has come out with a 3D camera, for brain surgery (developed in conjunction with a brain surgeon). It's not as small as this, but it's the size of a coffee bean. The constraint was 4mm; that's the largest passage they can make in a brain without causing serious harm.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  40. Science reporting hyperbole by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    From TFA:
    "...At about a cubic millimeter in size, this camera is right at the size limit that the human eye can see unaided...."

    AFAIK the smallest thing viewable by the unaided human eye is 0.1-0.2 mm (100-200 microns).

    I would hardly say that an order of magnitude is "right at the limit"?
    How bad would your vision have to be to have trouble seeing this camera?

    --
    -Styopa
  41. boon for laprosopy by vmaldia · · Score: 1

    this could be a boon for laparoscopic surgery in the third world. if the camera is small enough and the resolution high enough, you could add cheap LED lights and slip it into an incision. That way you would have a laparoscopic camera without expensive fiber optics since the light source and the camera are within the body. This compounds the lower cost of the camera, making lap surgery cheaper for poor people

  42. Re:Privacy by daem0n1x · · Score: 2

    On the other hand, having had my stomach examined a few times, this sounds like heaven. Not even mentioning the guys that took it in the other end...