Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The World's Smallest Video Camera

Posted by timothy on from the earwax-explorer dept.

fergus07 writes "Medigus has developed what it claims is the world's smallest video camera at just 0.039-inches (0.99 mm) in diameter. The Israeli company's second-gen model (a 0.047-inch diameter camera was unveiled in 2009) has a dedicated 0.66x0.66 mm CMOS sensor that captures images at 45K resolution and no, it's not destined for use in tiny mobile phones or covert surveillance devices; instead the camera is designed for medical endoscopic procedures in hard-to-reach regions of the human anatomy."

17 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Smallest camera you say? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, they know where they can stick that...

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    1. Re:Smallest camera you say? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      They can obviously see Uranus with it.

      Which changed it's name to Urectum because they we're tired of the jokes.

      Actually they got tired of that joke too, so they changed the name again. Something with goats, I think.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Smallest camera you say? by Abstrackt · · Score: 3, Funny

      They can obviously see Uranus with it.

      Which changed it's name to Urectum because they we're tired of the jokes.

      Actually they got tired of that joke too, so they changed the name again. Something with goats, I think.

      Urkidding?

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  2. Translation by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

    instead the camera is designed for medical endoscopic procedures in hard to reach regions of the human anatomy.

    By that they really just mean "up-skirt" shots.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  3. 45k in lines by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

    That's 320x140.

    I always wondered why we don't use fibre for endoscopes etc... Having the CCD fed by fibre to each "pixel" and a few around the perimeter emitting light, then running the lot through a sheath, would surely be smaller than mounting the whole thing on the end of a cable?

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:45k in lines by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thats what they are doing right now. Guess what. 45k individual fibres, even bundled, need a lot more space than a 1mm^3 camera...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:45k in lines by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had to look that up.

      Weak.

      In Soviet Russia, cystoscopy looks up...actually, that's how it works everywhere.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:45k in lines by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      They do use fibre bundles for endoscopes ; they're very expensive ($10,000 kind of expensive).

      CMOS sensors are actually a significant step up in terms of

      * durability - whack a fibre endoscope on the edge of a surgical trolley and you just broke half the fibres in the bundle. Not so with a wire bundle.
      * price - a CMOS sensor, even a medically certified one, is much cheaper than a carefully aligned bundle of photographic class optical fibres

      And I reckon you can probably make sensors of a usable size and resolution, with lenses, much smaller than an equivalent fibre assembly.

  4. Is this what is called .. by cheros · · Score: 2

    .. a bottom up approach?

    Funny that it immediately is mentioned that it's not intended for spy use. Exactly how many seconds do they expect that situation to last? :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  5. But... by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 2

    How do you change the tiny film?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:But... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Tweezers and a very small light proof bag.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  6. Dupe ? by alexhs · · Score: 2

    I thought it was a dupe but actually it is not, this camera being 0.01 mm smaller than the previous one from last month.
    However, at 220x220 pixels, the resolution is also smaller compared to 250x250.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Dupe ? by retroworks · · Score: 3

      I thought it was a duplicate too. But it made my comment on the previous story worth duplicating... "Nine months from now, will these seem large and cumbersome?" The comment got modded down last month, probably foolish to repost.

      --
      Gently reply
  7. Re:Hard to reach by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

    Not with teledildonics.

    I can't tell if that's the next version of the Vibraphone, or a previously unknown book by L. Ron Hubbard.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  8. Too early in the morning by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    For some reason, all this article makes me think of is Rule 34... and Rule 35.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Off topic by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    If someone doesn't change that fucking quote of the day by "Matt Welsh" soon, I'm going to scream and scream and scream until my head falls off and then let my grieving relatives sue slashdot for one trillion dollars.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Re:Diffraction? by wjh31 · · Score: 2

    If you crunch the numbers, the pixel density is equvilant to a 90 megapixel full frame sensor. The calculator on the page on diffraction on cambridge in colour suggest that this only becomes diffraction limited at about f/5.6 The pixel size is about 10um^2, which is larger than that of most compact point and shoot cameras