| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: No more focussing problems?
 Posted: 06.22.2011 21:57
|
|
Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 376
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.22.2011 23:16
|
|
Bibliostatus Rex
Joined: 13.07.2010 Posts: 1455
|
|
I'm fairly certain I read about this a few years back, perhaps when this guy's thesis came out. IIRC, at that time they used an array of cameras to capture the image data that the software then used to manipulate the focus.
Pretty cool indeed, assuming it makes it to the dSLR market and has no other drawbacks (aside from image size - I'm guessing its raw image data is significantly larger than a normal camera). |
Last edited by CauseISaidSo on 06.23.2011 00:15; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.22.2011 23:42
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 21.12.2005 Posts: 840
|
|
CauseISaidSo wrote: (aside from image size - I'm guessing its raw image data is significantly larger than a normal camera).
If Thom Hogan (http://bythom.com/) is to be believed, they're using something on the order of 200 imaging sensors in the camera per pixel on the final image (0.09mp output from a 16mp sensor) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.23.2011 18:14
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1599
|
|
| he didn't seem to keen on it did he? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.23.2011 23:47
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 04.09.2008 Posts: 2849
|
|
| I thought they were both an interesting read. As far as a $250 600x600 pixel camera? Well, our first digital camera was nearly $400, used a 3.5" floppy, and filled it with 640x480 "high quality" photos. Yet, somehow, digital cameras made it beyond their infancy despite the fact that 35mm and a good scanner could give you 4-6 MP at the same time. |
_________________
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.
~Leonardo Da Vinci
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.24.2011 09:17
|
|
Joined: 15.12.2006 Posts: 818
|
|
| Personally, I'm not too keen on a camera that lets the viewer select the focus of the result - for a documentarian, it might be a good thing. For me? Not so much. |
_________________
http://photographybanned.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.24.2011 10:58
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 04.09.2008 Posts: 2849
|
|
caradoc wrote: Personally, I'm not too keen on a camera that lets the viewer select the focus of the result - for a documentarian, it might be a good thing. For me? Not so much.
Look at it from the creative aspect, though. You know you want a shallow DoF nice bokeh etc, your subject is moving fast - say a dragonfly in flight. You snap the photo, only to realize in horror after the fact that your focal point was in the middle of his torso, making your shot usesless. With this camera then, you can shift the focal point to the center of his eyes, then export it as a jpg where the viewer then can't change it. Or, I'm sure that software will be out shortly enough, to process each focal layer individually and piece a composite image of infinite DoF. You can run f/1.4 and not worry about DoF at all. Imagine the scientific and technical applications that would open up. It will completely change the game of focus stacking, because every bit of source image will be from the same moment in time. |
_________________
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.
~Leonardo Da Vinci
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: No more focussing problems?
Posted: 06.24.2011 20:59
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1599
|
|
| the way i read these article the camera is geared at P&S consumers, orionid. now two levels of cameras and software would make sense much like we have pro versions now. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.24.2011 21:46
|
|
Joined: 14.01.2009 Posts: 1119
|
|
I actually ruffled a feather ranting about this in the PSAEF, but here I think I should be OK.
Frankly, this camera makes me ill. It takes all the art out of photography. Digital media is a double edged sword, I absolutely would not be doing any photography if it did not exist. Still, at least I make an effort to try to actually work with the equipment. When you take the photographer out of the equation all you have is ambulatory surveillance camera. There is not thought, no emotion, no love in using a camera like this. Hell, even I am guilty of taking a shot without taking the time to make sure I had the exposure right because, hey, I can fix it in Lightroom! Removing the focus, the composition coupled with what we already have of removing exposure and you don't have photography! What you have is a CCD with legs.
I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can't help but believe that photography as an "Art" would be better without it.
Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.24.2011 21:53
|
|
Joined: 27.02.2011 Posts: 671
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
ennuipoet wrote: I actually ruffled a feather ranting about this in the PSAEF, but here I think I should be OK.
Frankly, this camera makes me ill. It takes all the art out of photography. Digital media is a double edged sword, I absolutely would not be doing any photography if it did not exist. Still, at least I make an effort to try to actually work with the equipment. When you take the photographer out of the equation all you have is ambulatory surveillance camera. There is not thought, no emotion, no love in using a camera like this. Hell, even I am guilty of taking a shot without taking the time to make sure I had the exposure right because, hey, I can fix it in Lightroom! Removing the focus, the composition coupled with what we already have of removing exposure and you don't have photography! What you have is a CCD with legs.
I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can't help but believe that photography as an "Art" would be better without it.
Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds.
I'm strongly on your side with this. If I take a photo and it's out of focus, I learn from it. If something like this becomes standard, someone can take a random photo, not caring about exposure, focus, anything, and make it a pretty damn good image with photoshop/lightroom/this software. Photography will become how well you know your software, not how well you know your camera. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.24.2011 22:32
|
|
Joined: 10.11.2010 Posts: 430
Location: Honolulu, HI
|
|
| I can see some really neat applications for scientific uses from this tech, but I really don't think it's something I'd want on my personal camera. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think art should be perfect. Limitations and difficulties are what make art great. The most important lesson I've ever had from this came from my music theory/composition days: the more you limit yourself, the more creative you have to be. As long as you make that effort to be creative, your art will NEVER suffer for the limitations. This development, while kind of cool and potentially useful for technical applications, ain't going to engender creativity. |
_________________
My picasa account: https://picasaweb.google.com/Darth.Java
My flickr (older, not updated frequently): http://www.flickr.com/photos/23333818@N07/
My photography hero: http://www.mountainlight.com/
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.24.2011 22:32
|
|
Joined: 10.11.2010 Posts: 430
Location: Honolulu, HI
|
|
Plamadude30k wrote: I can see some really neat applications for scientific uses from this tech, but I really don't think it's something I'd want on my personal camera. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think art should be perfect. Limitations and difficulties are what make art great. The most important lesson I've ever had in this vein came from my music theory/composition days: the more you limit yourself, the more creative you have to be. As long as you make that effort to be creative, your art will NEVER suffer for the limitations. This development, while kind of cool and potentially useful for technical applications, ain't going to engender creativity.
How in the WORLD did I manage to quote myself? Ah, forum gremlins-an endless source of entertainment. |
_________________
My picasa account: https://picasaweb.google.com/Darth.Java
My flickr (older, not updated frequently): http://www.flickr.com/photos/23333818@N07/
My photography hero: http://www.mountainlight.com/
Last edited by Plamadude30k on 06.24.2011 23:34; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.24.2011 23:26
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 24.04.2011 Posts: 813
|
|
| Plamadude30k: Gary Larson, in his Pre-History of the Far Side says something very similar about limits making him a better artist... having only a single panel with a specific shape to do the image he wanted to make in (he says) made him a better artist. I'm inclined to agree. |
_________________
A day without photography might as well be in black and white
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.26.2011 00:08
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1599
|
|
Plamadude30k wrote: How in the WORLD did I manage to quote myself? Ah, forum gremlins-an endless source of entertainment.
you can delete or edit your own posts. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 06.26.2011 00:28
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1599
|
|
ennuipoet wrote: I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can't help but believe that photography as an "Art" would be better without it.
Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds.
remember Instamatics? hell even the lovely brownie hawkeye. when enough folks got the shutter bug fever then the camera makers had some money for R&D on better stuff. and people ask for better stuff.
same thing is happening with digital. 14MP P&S didn't just come about because the camera companies were bored. but the upside is that technology is in mid and high end DSLRs now too.
like i need to tell you this.
bob ross's happy little trees aren't art (except in the looses sense) but they made folks think about technique and oil vs watercolor and IMO made folks appreciate good art. ok not all folks, see kinkade.
besides "art" is only one measure of photography's usefulness. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
