Re: Microneye software, where?

[zzjoki@gmail.com]

On Nov 22, 8:22 am, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
> <zzj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ad98bdc8-a8ab-4434-b831-64a992cc4633@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com">news:ad98bdc8-a8ab-4434-b831-64a992cc4633@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 14, 6:11 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Toinet wrote:
> > > Dear All,
>
> > > I own a Microneye camera but I lack its software. I would like to know
> > > whether some of you could provide me with a link to download it.
>
> > > A search among the archive of csa2 brought me to several threads and
> > > links but all return in error.
>
> > > I thank you in advance for your help.
>
> > Wasn't that the de-capped DRAM chip adapted for use as a camera
> > (from back when CCDs were very expensive)?
>
> > Circuit Cellar (Byte Magazine) ran an article on it, IIRC, but
> > the principle should be:
>
> > 1. Write all 1's (or all 0's) to the DRAM,
> > 2. Wait for the desired exposure time,
> > 3. Read back the DRAM--any differences are proportional
> > to the received illumination.
>
> > The relationship between address and the image geometry
> > will need to be determined empirically.
>
> > -michael
>
> > ******** Note new website URL ********
>
> > NadaNet and AppleCrate II for Apple II parallel computing!
> > Home page:http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
>
> > "The wastebasket is our most important design
> > tool--and it's seriously underused."
>
> | Yep, it's a de-capped RAM chip. Wouldn't there be a threshold per bit
> | - no "proportional"? Or maybe you could scan at different exposure
> | times to assemble a gray scale image.
>
> | Does anyone know if capped non-Micron RAM chips also be used this way?
> | (I've got a box of "iffy" capped RAM chips)
>
> If I recall correctly, in the Circuit Cellar article a Micron RAM chip was
> used because it was the only one that Steve found that had the memory cells
> laid out in a regular order 2 sets of 256 x 128 (Steve only used one).
> Other chips at the time had the cells in different orders such that the
> position in the chip didn't correspond with the memory address.  That would
> have required a more complex program to put the pixels in the correct order.
>
> Charlie

Makes sense, thanks. It would be fun to try.