Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Fine_Art on September 05, 2011, 10:08:36 pm
-
I read this article (linked below) on The Economist where some guys from Stanford had developed a new type of camera system. It captures all the light going through a lens then uses software to retroactively pick bundles of light to focus it all later. Imagine taking fast shots with wide open lenses without focusing. Later in post processing you decide what depth of field you want, focused from where to where.
:o
http://www.economist.com/node/21527019
http://www.Lytro.com
-
Old news...
So, exactly what struck you are "interesting"?
-
Problem with this technology is that resolution is extremely low. Small web pictures is what you can do with it, so it is a toy rather than a tool. But it is indeed interesting that light field technology is finally implemented in a real product.
-
It will grow to bigger sensors just like DSLRs did. They only have to get it big enough for internet marketing pictures for it to keep going.
Why is it interesting? The biggest problem in sports photography or wildlife is missing focus on a moving target. If this gets to a decent size many costs in the camera are wiped out replaced by the cost of the microlens array. It is a very disruptive tech.
-
Actually if the sensor gets big enough for a HDTV it can also revolutionize digicams. In current 3D tech you still focus on what the camera person tries to focus on. With eye tracking this can focus on whatever the person viewing the screen wants to look at.
-
you should patent this;)
-
I've been speculating about this sort of thing for some time. Within five years or so traditional lenses will be phasing out in favor of digital lenses. Ten years from now traditional analog lenses will be found only on ebay.
-
I hope I can retire by then!
-
Yeah I think that technology will take a lot of the fun and skill out of being a successful photographer. When I’m in the field I find myself hunting my prey, my photo. I don’t think it would feel the same for me if I just had to point and click with no real effort of getting all dialed in before I get closer to the butterfly that is about ready to take off.
Anyway, my opinion.
:)
-
But since the professional field is now mostly focused upon digital (post) processing anyways and just wants the optimal image (very pragmatic about it for the most part), anything that allows them to eventually just take a shot and deal with it later will be welcomed.
I see this taking over in about ten years.
-
But since the professional field is now mostly focused upon digital (post) processing anyways and just wants the optimal image...
That is a ridiculous assumption. A true professional uses post-processing as finishing tool, nothing more. The vast majority of work comes before the shutter is event tripped, not after we return to the office.
-
That is a ridiculous assumption. A true professional uses post-processing as finishing tool, nothing more. The vast majority of work comes before the shutter is event tripped, not after we return to the office.
+1. As C.Bresson used to say: "The photographer should be able to "see" the PHOTOGRAPH before he even captures it". Note: A photograph is only the printed image, NOTHING ELSE. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Note: A photograph is only the printed image, NOTHING ELSE. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Note: You are living in the 20th century ... move on!
-
Note: You are living in the 20th century ... move on!
No! I live on the 21st century! .....You move on! ;) Perhaps your suggestion is to abandon books as well..., I am sure your 20th century ideas are very advanced! ;D Cheers,Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
No! I live on the 21st century! .....You move on! ;) Perhaps your suggestion is to abandon books as well..., I am sure your 20th century ideas are very advanced! ;D Cheers,Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
You missed the point entirely. No smiley.
-
You missed the point entirely. No smiley.
You missed to say what the point was... ;) :) ;D Some more smiley therefore ;D Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Tell me this is a joke.
-
Tell me this is a joke.
NO... its the OP as usual with you... ;) Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
I've been speculating about this sort of thing for some time. Within five years or so traditional lenses will be phasing out in favor of digital lenses. Ten years from now traditional analog lenses will be found only on ebay.
I'm sorry, ...no offense meant, but there is no such thing as "digital" lenses, "Digital" as a word of promoting, is used from the industry to trick consumers that the resolution is higher and can cope with the "much better" digital sensors. It has been done before with "digital speakers" (not the ones with active amps on them) "digitally remastered" (you know.. the ones that cropped the frequencies with the noise) and elsewhere...., you 'll find many not "digital" lenses that are more "digital" than the "digital" equivalents (take my Zeiss for Contax645 for example). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
This technology shouldn't take too long to develop, its basically mimicking what nature has already done.
(http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/fly-eye.jpg)
If they can figure out the neural net of a bug all our cameras become obsolete.
-
I'm sorry, ...no offense meant, but there is no such thing as "digital" lenses
Sorry, dude ... but you are YET AGAIN completely wrong.
A lens with its own CPU and firmware can most certainly be described as a digital lens.
Please stop posting nonsense ... it is getting really tiresome.
-
Sorry, dude ... but you are YET AGAIN completely wrong.
A lens with its own CPU and firmware can most certainly be described as a digital lens.
Please stop posting nonsense ... it is getting really tiresome.
Sorry, dude... a lens can only be glass and CPUs have nothing to do with glass, Its complete nonsense to try to overcome physics by playing with words, my Leica R and F100 cameras have CPU and firmware as well does this makes them .....digital? ;D Please keep your nonsense away from me. ;) Cheers, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
This is a lens
http://www.xrayoptic.ru/images/lens_gen5.jpg
This is also a lens
http://www.imt.kit.edu/img/roeoptik5.gif
and this is a lens
http://daveyoder.com/search4davinci/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Smither-006.jpg
and can you guess what this is?
http://www.rpi.edu/news/image/pr092208-hirsa.jpg
So if you want to contest the meaning of commonly used terms, feel free to do so, but try to avoid too generic statements.
While your smileys imply κωμῳδία, your behaviour leads to τραγῳδία
-
This is a lens
http://www.xrayoptic.ru/images/lens_gen5.jpg
This is also a lens
http://www.imt.kit.edu/img/roeoptik5.gif
and this is a lens
http://daveyoder.com/search4davinci/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Smither-006.jpg
and can you guess what this is?
http://www.rpi.edu/news/image/pr092208-hirsa.jpg
So if you want to contest the meaning of commonly used terms, feel free to do so, but try to avoid too generic statements.
While your smileys imply κωμῳδία, your behaviour leads to τραγῳδία
And all these lenses have to do with photography are they? ::) Now we can really play with words...., it's surely κωμωδία that leads to τραγωδία!
-
Ah! Forgot to add, obviously there are people who think that because a microscope is an instrument, it can replace a ...guitar that is also an instrument! Great logic! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Some of them do. The last one could be said to be in the generic following class
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=liquid+lens+cameras
Then, of course, if you wait long enough, say 100 millions of years, you could argue that glass is actually a fluid.
-
Some of them do. The last one could be said to be in the generic following class
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=liquid+lens+cameras
Then, of course, if you wait long enough, say 100 millions of years, you could argue that glass is actually a fluid.
But it is a fluid... This doesn't make it water... does it? But then again you can see through both... Ah! I got it! You mean that Galileo Galilei became blind because he was looking to the sun through a fluid! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
P.S.You see! I didn't argue at all, it did take me 100 million years to reach nirvana.... 8)
-
It can be argued glass is a solid or a fluid, that discussion is very old.
-
Not quite what's being disscussed here but an interestig comparison of where future technology may take photography;...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Th5zlUe6gOE
-
These cameras will ship early next year!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101930lytrocameraannounced.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101930lytrocameraannounced.asp)
-
so does anyone know what the effective resolution of this is?
edwin
-
0.5Mp, 720 x 720 according to Thom Hogan's guess.
Cya,
Johnny
-
The CEO said 1080 vertical at least.
-
When the Lytro gets it to a usable resolution, and you can output from one capture a stack of JPG images with a different focus, you could feed them into a focus stacker and get a really sharp image throughout. That would be a nice and very practical application.
-
I think this is a interesting new toy, but the technology that is VERY interesting. I just hope we will not see another FOVEON case, I hope to see this in the big camera makers products soon, working its way to the top professional cameras. The thought of this in a big resolution raw format camera is very attractive.
-
I'm sorry, ...no offense meant, but there is no such thing as "digital" lenses, "Digital" as a word of promoting, is used from the industry to trick consumers that the resolution is higher and can cope with the "much better" digital sensors. It has been done before with "digital speakers" (not the ones with active amps on them) "digitally remastered" (you know.. the ones that cropped the frequencies with the noise) and elsewhere...., you 'll find many not "digital" lenses that are more "digital" than the "digital" equivalents (take my Zeiss for Contax645 for example). Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
actually this does appear to be an image composed of multiple digital sub-images. digital summation by definition
so I think the nomenclature is appropriate, unlike much of the examples you correctly cite.
-
That is a ridiculous assumption. A true professional uses post-processing as finishing tool, nothing more. The vast majority of work comes before the shutter is event tripped, not after we return to the office.
I find this strange. Most "professionals" that I know in any trade tend to economize their time and equipment, focusing on great end-results, as that is what pays the bill. For some that may mean spending a lot of time in the field, for others it may mean spending more time in front of a PC.
I think it is usually amateurs (like myself) who can afford to do their hobby exactly how they like, independent of end-results.
-h