Think about a device called an image sensor.

This month's issue of Imaging Information Industrial, a trade publication, contains an article on image sensors as shown in the title. The article covers image processing equipment from the viewpoint of image sensor manufacturers and image sensors from the viewpoint of image processing equipment manufacturers.

It is interesting to read about the current state of both of these industries, which are similar in application but have created completely different industries.

I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, "WOW, THAT'S GOOD!" I THOUGHT, "IF VISUAL INSPECTION IS 100, SI'S CUSTOM IMAGE PROCESSING CAN INSPECT ABOUT 50, WHICH IS HALF. HOWEVER, THE IMAGE SENSOR CAN COVER 40, NOT 25, WHICH IS HALF. MANUFACTURERS OF IMAGE SENSORS SEE IT THAT WAY. AND MANY USERS ARE AWARE OF IT. THIS IS A GOOD POINT.

I agree. It varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, but I think it is almost a hit.
What I would like to note in this comment is that image sensor manufacturers are aware that their products are 40/100 products and sell them. This is not a bad thing, but I think it is a correct business model and a low-cost offering based on the concept of "present the finished product to the user for evaluation, and if that is sufficient, sell it".
Another point is the recognition that even custom image processing is 50/100. Even if you spend a lot of money on development and customization, it is only realistically that low, and the business model of being able to judge that only after the equipment has been delivered and is running is already at a standstill, I think. (The same is true even if the finished product cannot be fully evaluated...)

This is an article that can be taken in many different ways, depending on the reader. Please read it.

An aside ... You know, I once spoke with the editor of Imaging Information Industrial and asked him, "Why don't you do an article on image sensors?" I asked him, "Why don't you write an article about image sensors? It finally came true, didn't it?