ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Camera Module: Shutter Redesign Report

ENGR 101 Fall 2013-2014 Engineering Design Lab I Lab Section: Group Number: 088 08 Date Submitted: OCTOBER 30, 2013

Section Faculty:

Peter Herczfeld

Section Fellows:

Marco Janko Ramya Namani

Group Members:

Kamil Sieradzki John Knollmeyer

Danish Dhamani

Abstract
The purpose of the experiment was to modify a camera shutter, and later test this modified shutter to observe if a set of desired results were achieved. Building onto an existing 3D model of a shutter, the goal was to create a shutter of increased shutter speed. Preliminary computer simulations indicated that the modification would boast increased speeds; however due to faults in printing, the shutter was inoperative. This led to the use of a generic printed shutter.

Page 1

ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Motivation
This experiment was conducted to achieve one of two possible results; either making the shutter speed of a camera faster or slower. Although at first this may seem like something that possesses no practical value, the shutter speed of a camera affects its use entirely. Shutter speed is the amount of time that the shutter remains open. High shutter speed applications are useful in fields such as sports photography, where the subject of the photo tends to move very quickly. "The faster the shutter speed, the less blur in a photo [1]." Oppositely, low shutter speeds can be used to take photographs of moving objects, such as water, to result in a blurred fog-like effect. Low shutter speed is also practical in "low light situations, when the shutter speed has to slow down to create a proper exposure [1]." For the purpose of this lab, the goal of the group was to increase the shutter speed. This process was fairly simple. First, a computer generated model of the shutter was observed to determine possible factors in dictating shutter speed. Modifications were made to this computer model by adding material to its side. The modified part was later printed with a 3d printer, and inserted in place of the default shutter.

Shutter Model
In order to increase the shutter speed, a computer generated model was modified using Creo. This model was unique in that it mimicked a fully working unit, with all of the mechanical components included. It was made up of two parts, the base mechanism and the actual shutter. The model took into account the actual dimensions of the shutter, and how they affect its motion. One thing that the model fails to consider is the material that the shutter will be printed of. Minor imperfections in the redesigned, printed shutter can skew results. For instance, if the surface of the printed shutter is rough due to low resolution printing, friction between the printed shutter and the base mechanism sliding past each other can slow shutter speeds. In conclusion, the model is a simulation under perfect circumstances. Preliminary ideas for increasing shutter speed included removal of material (decreasing mass), and changes in the shape of the shutter. It was later observed that when the shutter opens, it is stopped by a contact point along its axis of rotation (Figure 1). Theoretically, if this point were to be reached faster, the shutter speed would increase, as it would be sent back to neutral position faster. To achieve this, material was added to the side of the shutter closest to this contact point. It was assumed that this modification alone would be enough to increase speeds.

Page 2

ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Figure 1: Depicts the movement of the shutter, and where it meets the contact point.

Figure 2: Side by side showing the original shutter model and the fully modified one. Notice, the modification is designed to reach the contact point mentioned above faster.

Simulation
The simulated shutter speed results of the modified shutter showed an increase in shutter speed. The simulation measured and recorded each shutter's angle of rotation against the time that it has been open. The simulated results are shown in Figure 3 below. It can be observed that the modified shutter closed significantly faster, and at a lower angle. The peak of both lines on the figure below represents the point at which the shutter had fully rotated (fully open), and the drop represents them closing again. From observing the figure below, it can be inferred that the modified shutter will perform at much faster speeds.

Page 3

ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Figure 3: Shows the angle of rotation of both shutters compared how much time has passed. An angle of zero represents a fully closed shutter.

Testing
The modified shutter model proved to be insufficient for testing. This error was not due to the design of the modification, but rather by the printer itself. Although the modifications were printed correctly, a small part that holds the spring in place attaching the shutter to its base was deformed, as seen in figure 4 below. This deformity resulted in an inability to attach the newly printed shutter to the camera. Because of this, a generic printed shutter had to be used. Although this seemed to be identical to the original camera shutter, it was made of different material. The generic shutter seemed to weigh less than the original. Test results proved this to be true. To assess the speed of each shutter, they were first inserted back into the disassembled camera unit and placed onto a flash measurement board, shown in figure 5. This board is connected to an oscilloscope, which interprets the data and records the time that the shutter is open. When the tests were complete, each shutter's flash pulse width could be determined from analyzing the oscilloscope graphs, figures 6 & 7. The generic printed shutter recorded speeds faster than that of the original, as seen in table 1. Although they were only a few milliseconds faster, it is still an increase in speed. On the small scale of camera photography, a shutter with speeds differing by even the slightest fraction of a second can have a profound effect on the outcome of the photograph.

Page 4

ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Figure 4: Comparison of the original shutter and the printed one, highlighting its defects.

Figure 5: Explanation of flash measurement board [2]. Table 1: Results from 3 tests of shutter pulse width show the Generic Printed Shutter performs with increased shutter speeds.

Trial 1 2 3 Average Shutter Speed

Unmodified Shutter 11.8 ms 12.55 ms 13.4 ms 12.58 ms

Generic Printed Shutter 10.5 ms 10.7 ms 10.6 ms 10.6 ms

Page 5

ENGR 101, Fall 2012-13

Section 088, Group 08

Figure 6: Unmodified shutters flash pulse seen in green.

Figure 7: Replacement shutters flash pulse. Although this seems like a larger value, the image is zoomed in farther. In reality, the flash pulse width of this shutter was shorter.

Conclusions
The experimental results turned out to be a success, even though the modified shutter was not usable in the experiment. The generic printed shutters results, however, do result in higher speeds. Though the Creo simulation showed that the modifications would result in higher speeds, this cannot be proven without actual testing. For the future, something that could make the experiment more of a success may be printing at higher resolution to eliminate imperfections such as the one that caused the shutter in this lab to fail. The outcome is still plausible, however, because the generic printed shutter seemed to be made of lighter plastic than the original, so the speed was increased.

References
[1] [2] Bradford, Katie T. "Digital Camera Buying Guide." Time Magazine. Techlicious, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. Primerano, Richard. "ENGR design lab Week 1." Lecture 1. Drexel University. Bossone Auditorium, Philadelphia. 23 Sept. 2013. Lecture.

Page 6