To attempt to supply a bit of clarity--
=====
From the application:
"The lens driving device includes at least one lens, a lens barrel that holds the lens, and N (N is an integer equal to or greater than 2) linear motors each of which includes a first coil and a second coil that generate a driving force in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the lens in the lens barrel and a magnet assembly forming a Halbach array, at least one of the first coil and the second coil includes a bent portion, and the linear motors are arranged at intervals of 360 / N degrees along a circumferential direction around the optical axis of the lens."
Credibility is important.
Some regular posters here (to be clear, not the author of this informative article)...but some regular posters here on CR (actually, one in particular), in an incessant effort to 'be right', in a sheriff sort of way...thoughtlessly fall far short when it comes to credibility, and at times lessen enjoyment of the site (and affect a desire to contribute). In other words, the CR juice is occasionally not worth the squeeze.
A comment here in this very thread (ignored by yours truly on the forums themselves but visible to me on the article's front page) illustrates this perfectly.
Perfectly.
[My ears are burning a bit, so to speak. I doubt it's the case, but if I am misinterpreting your post, apologies.]
Your clarity is extremely murky. So that's a fail.
I'd be interested to know where in this thread my credibility falls short. I made two brief comments, one being that 0º = 360º (in rotational notation), the other being that 90º ≠ 270º (in rotational notation). Do you disagree with those statements?
I also find it interesting that you imply that the 'author of this informative article' is credible. Consider that Simon (the author) stated, "
Canon’s new design uses two or more linear motors placed evenly around the lens barrel up to 360 degrees apart," which is what
@koenkooi quoted in the post to which I was initially replying. As you point out in the patent (which I had not looked at before this), the overview actually states 360 / N where N ≥ 2, meaning the spacing is not 'up to 360 degrees apart' as Simon states, but rather up to 180º apart. Credible?
Incidentally, in a previous main page article, Simon
suggested that the purpose of a stacked sensor was to improve dynamic range and ISO performance (comparing the R5 to the R5II, but those are not the purpose of a stacked sensor, at all). Credible?
Simon also posted
this 'very informative' article two weeks ago about the Nikon Z9 II in which he states the EOS R1 and Sony A1 II are
upcoming cameras that are, "
expected to push the boundaries of still and video performance in 2025." Credible?
Well, at least it's clear that I can safely ignore your impugning my credibility. It's perfectly evident that you wouldn't know credible if it bit you in the ass. Perfectly.
Have a nice day.
Ps. Even though you added me to your Ignore list, it seems I am still living rent free in your head. LOL.
