489 Megapixel DIY Digital Camera for little money. 

Agreed. They can be found not that expensive if you look for one without shutter. You would have to mess around though with fixed aperture holes since that is usually embedded in the shutter.

For example a rodenstock sironar 150mm is quite good in resolution, most of those have an image circle between 4x5" or 5x7"

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I remember, having considered them, but after the first google search I originally discarded these lenses for being too expensive... However, there seem to be many used large format lenses for below €100 on eBay. I think this might be the next step towards legit 500mpx :)

IMHO this is the main reason I've considered building a scanner camera.

@@yunuszenichowski Another suggestion: Have you thought about trying an old enlarging lens? An old 135mm Wollensak Rapter or a Schneider Kreuznach Componon 135mm (covering 4 x 5 inches) can be found online for about $35US, and a 210mm Componon (covering 5 x 7 inches) for about $70.

Thank you, I am happy to hear that. Might upload another video with more images, since I now have the required filter to shoot in natural light.

@@yunuszenichowski please, do so!

@@yunuszenichowski please do! I used to take pictures of artwork for a job and this would be a wonderful gift to certain institutions.

Yes, please do. And as soon as you feel like you have the design worked out please post the updated plans. I would love to try my hand with this project.

True tbh, you could compact it down as well by removing the lens and just placing the negative directly against the scanner. Wait...

​@CulturalCats lol

Such a smart workaround, I will absolutely try that, thank you :)

Really good idea as those lenses are quite literally made for the purpose of projecting a huge picture! And they come with apertures

10 months later, I watched the video again and i was about to get another heart attack at that "48 bits per channel" lol

Thank you for the ideas. I am unsure if the camera would be able to capture the dim light of stars. You also can't make long exposure shots with this camera. But I will definitely test that at some point.

@@yunuszenichowski Just need a lens that is large enough. Like a liquid lens.

I'm also definily interested in the possibility of AP with this type of camera, will definitely be needing a star tracker since I'm not sure if this is fast enough to not have distortion from the slower exposure time. Image stacking might help with the low light and the high res images could be an upside if it doesn't take a ridiculous amount of time to take a bunch of pictures to stack😅

@@Joshplv At a certain focal length, you just need the sensor stick, without the motor. You just let earth rotation do the swipe. 😁

Thank you so much :)

It makes me happy to hear that it did inspire you :) The ISO is controlled by regulating the power the scanners LEDs get, which are used for calibration before (and after) each scan, using resistors (effectively regulating their brightness).

@@yunuszenichowski oh wow! That makes sense. If it calibrates the white balance that way then it would also change the sensitivity. So you could alter the ISO and white balance if you used LEDs that changed color and intensity. Did you make your own led board or cut down the stock one? I’m wondering if I could make a diffused light source with amber and white LEDs.

I just cut down the stock one, but I think it would be very easy to change the LEDs for different ones. It is just connected over 6 power lanes and 1 ground lane with a ribbon cable. However, you could also power your lamp with a different source, since the scanner does not care if the LED is disconnected, it only throws an error, when it is too dark for the calibration. Also, I diffused the light, like they did in the scanner, using a white piece of paper, which the LED points at rather than at the sensor directly.

@@yunuszenichowski this is very helpful. Thank you. I got the case printed last night I have a scanner on order need to print the gear and other internals on my resin printer next. Thank you for all your hard work. I think I will make a video on this project as well. Show what works and what doesn’t.

Let me warn you, this is not a finished project and I would assume replicating it would take quite some time and experience, mainly because the 3d model is unfinished! You will have to think about cable management, how to integrate the limit switch, etc.

I essentially just removed the case of the scanner and reorganized all of the parts, required for the operation of the scanner, to fit in the camera form factor. You can look at it in detail in the 3d model. It uses the standard software. I wish you great success with your build!

Thank you! Yes, that is very much a problem. I designed it in a way that allows vibration to travel to the sensor, which I only realized later.

Daddy

Avery whens the next video?

@@SenpaiSkyy soon!!! hopefully within the next few weeks :333

@@AveryDelMiller Can't wait!

The only requirement for the scanner is to have a CCD sensor, but you would have to adapt the design, when using a very different model. However, I know that the v370 should definitely work. The v30 and v33 look like they have very similar designs as well. I feel like I should mention this again. The 3d model is not complete and should only be used as inspiration for your own design. The camera is in fact designed quite badly, because I was under pressure to finish the project (there is a lot of double-sided sticky tape involved).

I can probably answer some of these things. I have a Pentax APS-C camera that makes use of the optical stabilization platform to take high-res images. I don't know how many other cameras do this. The mechanics are a little different though -- the sensor is shifted around by just half a pixel. Some fancy computation is needed to create the resulting image, as the pixels in the four source images overlap each other. Moving a cheap sensor in this way would be incredibly difficult, as you'd need to reliably be able to move it by only half a pixel. It would also mean that your resulting sensor area is still absolutely tiny, and the low amount of light captured would make it hard to take advantage of the increased resolution. Scanning the sensor across the image (as in this video) probably wouldn't work very well either. Because the sensor is square, you'd need to scan in two dimensions - adding mechanical complexity and making each shot take longer. You'd also be getting much more data than you actually need, unless you're only using one row of pixels.

Thank you. I did not eliminate it, since it is necessary for the calibration of the sensor. I used ribbon cable breakout boards to get access to the ground wire, which was then connected to a diy limit switch I made using a spring steel piece from the scanner and two screws, so that the light could only turn on in the home position.

@@yunuszenichowski Thank you so much for elaborating on that. Really clever integration. I bought an Epson V39 and hopefully I can reproduce your results with this scanner. I was thinking about adding a Nikkor lens for the optics. Thank you again!

That must have been me, such a weird coincidence :D

Why scan negatives, if you can just scan the scene directly :D

Haha, I actually made this camera mainly for art class. There are much crazier images than the ones I showed in the video. It's especially interesting when motion is involved.

@@yunuszenichowski I can imagine I'm honestly quite jealous. You have insane talent

Pardon me, but why on earth would one want that sort of convoluted setup? The moving sensor thing in this case works specifically because it is very light, and still it is causing issues. Your idea would require a geared down stepper motor for the rotation I gather, but you'd have an issue with the focus at the edges of the image circle VS the center I think, so the top and bottom of the image would likely be both much dimmer, and have different focus than the center, one or the other being in focus but not both. Also, I think I've seen long interval rotating mounts made for cameras pre-digital, I don't remember how they were set up but it would be easier not to have to fab the thing to test the idea.

Think more a simple linear camera that rotates about its' axis - the sensor is attached to the lens and the whole assembly rotates. Look up "slit camera" for the film version of this. It obviously provides perspective distortion, but the tradeoff is unmatched resolution. Alternately, if the camera were attached to a slider, the image could be captured without distortion as it sweeps from side to side. The lens is best at the center; why not move both? @@noth606

but noise will probably be a big problem, but if I'm honest the noise thing is a quite common problem for night sky and with tradtional cameras it is solved by taking many pictures. So maybe moving the sensor so that it scans the night slower than earths rotation would and so more time for the light to come to the sensor.

I believe linear sensors are also used to monitor conveyor belts, so it is definitely a thing. However, the maximum duration of a scan with my scanner is about 10 minutes, so you wouldn't be able to capture the whole night sky.

I had implemented a mechanism that controls the light using a diy limit switch and potentiometer (I believe 0-50k ohm). There should be some information about the details in the comments already.

Thank you so much! The resolution is this high, because it is a linear sensor, moving along some axis. This effectively results in an image of size sensor-pixel-count^2 or more, depending on how far the sensor moves. I was using the hardware from an Epson v37 scanner. I would advise against building one, if you don't really want to. The information provided in the video and the 3d model, is absolutely not sufficient to quickly build one. You would have to figure out most things on your own. I sadly didn't really finish the project, which is why there is no tutorial or anything. With a tutorial, it would be very easy to build one :/

@@yunuszenichowski thank you for your reply! Now I understand the megapixel part. This camera genuinely have great potential to take great experimental pictures, if printed can be sold as artworks ha ha. I am kidding. But if you would like to take back and work on this project. I am up for helping you out with this project. Anyhow I can do it. But I would love to collaborate with you if you feel comfortable.

@@TheHitesh74 The reason I didn't continue to work on the scanner camera idea is that there is a huge bottleneck for how good and especially practical/usable the camera can be, due to the fact that it is basically an off the shelf scanner, packaged in a new enclosure with some hacks. For example, you have to keep a laptop attached, since it is still just a scanner. Originally, I was interested in building a scanner camera from scratch, even designing the circuit boards, but then I realized how unattainable that goal was with the time I was willing to spend on it. So I just skipped that idea. If you are by any chance a high speed circuit designer, then I would love to collaborate :) Designing just a slightly refined scanner camera that is again based on some consumer scanner does not really interest me.

Exactly, annoyingly it has to be connected to something like a laptop or windows tablet, in order to work. Maybe it could be improved by integrating a raspberry pi, but that wouldn't be cheap.