The colorwheel camera and the system that it was developed for can only be appreciated if one considers the state of the technology at the time (circa 1985).

Consider that video cameras at that time were mostly BW and used vidicon tubes: CCDs were just reaching the industrial level, were expensive, and of not very high quality.

The available color cameras (NTSC, single tube = << 160 TVL) were expensive, and of low resolution.

Flat bed scanners were prohibitively expensive (>> $1K) and were mostly BW; there were a few hand scanners, but of limited utility & quality).

To capture high quality color images into a computer would have required 3 tube studio/industrial cameras costing many thousands of dollars; even then, with few exceptions that camera would have had the limitation of being NTSC resolution (330 TVL = 440 pixels).

Our colorwheel camera consisted of an inexpensive vidicon BW camera with a resolution of ~ 550 TVL (TV Lines); adding a rotating color filter controlled by a special frame grabber card in the PC we could capture a 730 pixel (H) x 485 pixel (V) 64-K colors (16 million if we had used a 24 bit capture card).

Compared to the single tube color camera which required 3 pixels (R,G,B [1]) to equal 1 color pixel, the colorwheel system was perceptually 5 to 6 times greater.

Also consider: because the colorwheel system used only one tube, there was no color registration required as was the case with all 3-tube cameras (a time consuming ritual done several times a day).

To put this camera into today's (1997) prospective: given the COSTS, there are still no cameras of equal or better performance available; however, that gap is closing as I write this!    --gaw 1997

 [1]Color pixel arrangment: R, G, B, R, G, B, R, G, B, ...

The color wheel in the article looked very familiar; it looked a lot like the camera I designed and built for Sarkis Zartarian's "Com Club" project while at IBM (1984/85).

To implement the color wheel and avoid "reinventing the wheel," we went to NASA for assistance, who obligingly sent us a copy of the Space Shuttle manual (odd numbered pages only) which gave a cursory discussion of the camera. We then tried to contact the, then, camera's prime contractor--RCA, with them stone-walling us. Finally, NASA arranged a conference call with two of the RCA engineers responsible for the design: getting any information was like pulling teeth--mine. It was as hard as getting the people at IBM-Boca to talk to us about PCs. 
I finally had to buy a book written by one of the original designers of the PC to get any information.  "Interfacing to the IBM Personal Computer," 1st Ed., 1984,  Eggebrecht, Howard W. Sams  ISBN: 0-672-22027-X
 

So we Improvised! The color wheel shape we choose was very much like the 6 phase pattern that I once used in an electrostatic resolver used for non-contact reading of needle position on a remote power meter.   --Huh?

He had written a paper on inserting overlay directly into NTSC, using an algorithm that determined the proper subcarrier phase for the overlaid video--mumble, mumble (hardware of course--at that time--we were all working on XT platforms, Ugg!).  It needed a highly accurate xtal timebase--I have no idea why. His excuse for why it looked like SHIT was "...the oscillator's drift, (more) mumble mumble..."

I will never forget the scene: They walked in, obligatory 'pleasant chit chat,' and all three lined up in front of the SONY KV-1270-Q hi-res RGB monitor. I turned on the light box which held a colorful transparency, the camera spun-up, and finally I turned on the monitor; as the monitor warmed up, I walked behind and to the side of these three guys and waited. As the image came on the screen, there was an audible gasp from all three, and--so Help-me-GOD--at the same time they all rose up on their tip toes: talk about body language! If they had risen any higher they would have been Levitating! 

The image was perfect! 

To prove we weren't "hosin-em," I went over and put in several other transparencies. 

They said absolutely Nothing! 

They sat through the rest of the demo: voice mail; store & forward video mail; video conferencing in the form of live whiteboard annotation; voice reco--that worked without a head set (keyboard commands). It was Outstanding!. 

They thanked us politely for our time, and left.

The project was CANCELED!   --Sarkis took early retirement.

He pulled it all together and It Worked!

His performance through the entire project was what TRUE Management is really all about (or should be about).  He Deligated to each person the work they were best at, and most importantly, WANTED to do.  He defined the mission, gave his people the necessay resources, shielded them from outside interference, and got the Hell-outa-the-way! 

His weakness--which doomed him: he was not a "glad-hander," he couldn't or wouldn't "Network" within IBM. Sarkis was great at selling it to the USER, but NOT to IBM management.

History is replete with proof that the best ideas don't necessarily win: it's not a technology question as much as it's a people/political question--Bummer!