Canon’s Latest Autofocus Patent Could Make Lenses Smaller, Smoother, and Quieter

[scyrene]

This sort of thing really makes me miss @Richard CN.

Has he left us?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Has he left us?

AFAIK, yes. CanonNews lives on, though.

 

[EricN]

Great complaining as usual. Go and poison another forum.

I can never resist going off topic: my girlfriend says coffee gives her diarrhea

 

[Del Paso]

I can never resist going off topic: my girlfriend says coffee gives her diarrhea

Are you sure it's from the coffee?

 

[EricN]

Are you sure it's from the coffee?

That's what she says. One thing's for certain: it's not from sex (with me).

 

[TinTin]

Ehm, has Canon switched to the French system of 400 degrees in a circle? 360 degrees apart means it's back at the starting point.

Isn't that gradians (not to be confused with radians, or with steradians for solid angle) rather than degrees? The "logic" being that there are 100 gradians in a right-angle; hence, 400 in a complete circle.

 

[TinTin]

...
Credible?

... Credible?

... 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.

I see your point, neuro, but doesn't this raise the point that someone can retain what might be described as "credibility" while lacking infallibility?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see your point, neuro, but doesn't this raise the point that someone can retain what might be described as "credibility" while lacking infallibility?

If I ever run across someone who is infallible, I’ll let you know.

 

[Aaron D]

Describing two motors in a line as being 360º apart probably sounds better than being 0º apart. Both are correct.

Neither is correct. Think about it: two physical things at 360 or 0 degrees apart would have to occupy the same space.

Sorry to beat a dead horse...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neither is correct. Think about it: two physical things at 360 or 0 degrees apart would have to occupy the same space.

Sorry to beat a dead horse...

Just to flog that poor, deceased equine further, I stated 'two motors in a line' meaning they would not occupy the same space but rather be positioned like a cart that was either before or preferably after the aforementioned equine prior to its unfortunate demise and subsequent pummeling. I don't think it makes sense to design a lens that way, it was just a general comment about geometry based on Simon's incorrect interpretation of the patent.

The patent does not phrase it that way, because the spacing of the motors is ≤180° meaning they can be in the same position along the optical axis of the lens.

 

[EricN]

Neither is correct. Think about it: two physical things at 360 or 0 degrees apart would have to occupy the same space.

Sorry to beat a dead horse...

To answer in a slightly different way from @neuroanatomist :
In two dimensions they would be in the same place, but a lens is three dimensional.