New Camera tech
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
Wow, very cool! :thumbsup:
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
Very neato! :thumbsup:
Wout
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
I wouldn't hold your breath! How much is it going to cost? And it is as good as the flash demo? I'd like to play with one for a while and see what I get before I part with readies...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
I wouldn't hold your breath! How much is it going to cost? And it is as good as the flash demo? I'd like to play with one for a while and see what I get before I part with readies...
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
And the cost of this camera? Ng says it will be comparable to other consumer-priced digital cameras on the market.
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
Nice to know that creeps taking pictures of girls volleyball games from behind a fence won't have to worry about focus! No seriously though, sounds awesome +5 :thumbsup:
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Nice to know that creeps taking pictures of girls volleyball games from behind a fence won't have to worry about focus! No seriously though, sounds awesome +5 :thumbsup:
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be able to produce a picture where you can focus on any part at will AFTER taking a picture you need to capture a picture with everything in focus as you can't generate detail out of nothing. The only way to capture everything in focus is to shoot with very small aperture, and you need a very good low noise sensor for that. Which is why I think the article mentions new sensitive sensor employed in the camera. So until I hear different, I'm going to conclude that all this camera is doing is capturing everything using small aperture lens and then doing post processing to emulate proper focus, aperture, and depth of field, in which case this is nothing new except a very clever computer trick. It might sound cool, but you will be trading off quality for convenience because if you shoot with small aperture you need either a) a lot of light, or b) high ISO that will impact quality of your photos.
-
Lytro article[^] I've been meaning to get a new digital camera. Guess I'll wait to see how this thing works out. could be very cool.
Amazing...I just bought a Nikon DSLR but don't regret it because I won't be able to afford one of these. (Rich woman bad cough...rich woman bad cough...)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." Kierkegaard, Søren
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be able to produce a picture where you can focus on any part at will AFTER taking a picture you need to capture a picture with everything in focus as you can't generate detail out of nothing. The only way to capture everything in focus is to shoot with very small aperture, and you need a very good low noise sensor for that. Which is why I think the article mentions new sensitive sensor employed in the camera. So until I hear different, I'm going to conclude that all this camera is doing is capturing everything using small aperture lens and then doing post processing to emulate proper focus, aperture, and depth of field, in which case this is nothing new except a very clever computer trick. It might sound cool, but you will be trading off quality for convenience because if you shoot with small aperture you need either a) a lot of light, or b) high ISO that will impact quality of your photos.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be able to produce a picture where you can focus on any part at will AFTER taking a picture you need to capture a picture with everything in focus as you can't generate detail out of nothing. The only way to capture everything in focus is to shoot with very small aperture, and you need a very good low noise sensor for that. Which is why I think the article mentions new sensitive sensor employed in the camera. So until I hear different, I'm going to conclude that all this camera is doing is capturing everything using small aperture lens and then doing post processing to emulate proper focus, aperture, and depth of field, in which case this is nothing new except a very clever computer trick. It might sound cool, but you will be trading off quality for convenience because if you shoot with small aperture you need either a) a lot of light, or b) high ISO that will impact quality of your photos.
i believe this is somewhat different. this is a "light field" or plenoptic camera, which uses a system of "microlenses" to... well, i haven't found a really good explanation, but it doesn't sound like small aperture + software. cool video of the tech[^]
-
i believe this is somewhat different. this is a "light field" or plenoptic camera, which uses a system of "microlenses" to... well, i haven't found a really good explanation, but it doesn't sound like small aperture + software. cool video of the tech[^]
Was just thinking how cool it would be to have full movies shot with this kinda of tech. You could have the entire frame in focus so the viewer could decide what they wanted to see. Course that is if the director doesn't force you to focus on what he thinks is important.
-
i believe this is somewhat different. this is a "light field" or plenoptic camera, which uses a system of "microlenses" to... well, i haven't found a really good explanation, but it doesn't sound like small aperture + software. cool video of the tech[^]
I'm guessing Ng had something to do with the team at Stanford mentioned in the wiki article.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be able to produce a picture where you can focus on any part at will AFTER taking a picture you need to capture a picture with everything in focus as you can't generate detail out of nothing. The only way to capture everything in focus is to shoot with very small aperture, and you need a very good low noise sensor for that. Which is why I think the article mentions new sensitive sensor employed in the camera. So until I hear different, I'm going to conclude that all this camera is doing is capturing everything using small aperture lens and then doing post processing to emulate proper focus, aperture, and depth of field, in which case this is nothing new except a very clever computer trick. It might sound cool, but you will be trading off quality for convenience because if you shoot with small aperture you need either a) a lot of light, or b) high ISO that will impact quality of your photos.
Hmmm... something doesn't make sense to me... If I shoot using a small aperture, yes, I get a large depth of field. The smaller the aperture, the longer the depth of field, at least until you start getting into diffraction-limited resolution of the lens. The problem with presuming this camera is using a small aperture (which is what I initially thought) is that there's no information in a small aperture picture to indicate which elements are foreground and which are background. Faux tilt-shift pictures tend to work best when there's a smooth transition from foreground to background without overlapping elements. If the elements overlap, then you need to do quite a bit of lassoing to mask the element so that the blur effect is applied properly. Which brings me back to the original imponderable -- how does the sensor/image/software know what is in the foreground and what is in the background so that it can adjust the focus properly? The Wikipedia article about Light Fields[^] describes moving cameras, robotic controlled cameras, arrays of cameras, and a Plenoptic camera[^] using an array of microlenses to capture the light field. Must. Ponder. This. More.
-
Hmmm... something doesn't make sense to me... If I shoot using a small aperture, yes, I get a large depth of field. The smaller the aperture, the longer the depth of field, at least until you start getting into diffraction-limited resolution of the lens. The problem with presuming this camera is using a small aperture (which is what I initially thought) is that there's no information in a small aperture picture to indicate which elements are foreground and which are background. Faux tilt-shift pictures tend to work best when there's a smooth transition from foreground to background without overlapping elements. If the elements overlap, then you need to do quite a bit of lassoing to mask the element so that the blur effect is applied properly. Which brings me back to the original imponderable -- how does the sensor/image/software know what is in the foreground and what is in the background so that it can adjust the focus properly? The Wikipedia article about Light Fields[^] describes moving cameras, robotic controlled cameras, arrays of cameras, and a Plenoptic camera[^] using an array of microlenses to capture the light field. Must. Ponder. This. More.
caspianx67 wrote:
how does the sensor/image/software know what is in the foreground and what is in the background so that it can adjust the focus properly?
They claim to be recording the vector direction of the light. Perhaps by knowing the vectors they can calculate what depth a lens would need to be set at to bring an object into focus. If that isn't it my official answer is magic.
-
Hmmm... something doesn't make sense to me... If I shoot using a small aperture, yes, I get a large depth of field. The smaller the aperture, the longer the depth of field, at least until you start getting into diffraction-limited resolution of the lens. The problem with presuming this camera is using a small aperture (which is what I initially thought) is that there's no information in a small aperture picture to indicate which elements are foreground and which are background. Faux tilt-shift pictures tend to work best when there's a smooth transition from foreground to background without overlapping elements. If the elements overlap, then you need to do quite a bit of lassoing to mask the element so that the blur effect is applied properly. Which brings me back to the original imponderable -- how does the sensor/image/software know what is in the foreground and what is in the background so that it can adjust the focus properly? The Wikipedia article about Light Fields[^] describes moving cameras, robotic controlled cameras, arrays of cameras, and a Plenoptic camera[^] using an array of microlenses to capture the light field. Must. Ponder. This. More.
caspianx67 wrote:
Which brings me back to the original imponderable -- how does the sensor/image/software know what is in the foreground and what is in the background so that it can adjust the focus properly? The Wikipedia article about Light Fields[^] describes moving cameras, robotic controlled cameras, arrays of cameras, and a Plenoptic camera[^] using an array of microlenses to capture the light field.
Must. Ponder. This. More.Look at it this way: it takes a picture of everything, but each focal area/plane/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will be on a different "layer". The 2D display is only of one layer, but you can, via software, change which layer is "in focus". What I want to see is all the layers in focus at one, but separated in 3D, so it'll be like a pseudo hologram, like those Ken Burns documentaries.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
