Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 10 Years Ago  (Read 14229 times)

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
10 Years Ago
« on: July 31, 2015, 08:53:50 am »

I was just thinking 10 years ago I bought my first DSLR a Canon 5D, 10 years later for the same money you can buy a Nikon D810, amazing how technology has advanced!
In 10 more years?
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

Internaut

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2015, 10:19:44 am »

I think we're heading towards a kind of electronic shutter that can expose each pixel differently.  Such an event would make the technical side of photography somewhat boring (perhaps not a bad thing - would separate those who are only interested in the end result, from the gear heads).  The imaging pipeline would be hugely complex, and is very much dependent on the onward advancement of Moore's law, but also perhaps in the consumerisation of quantum computing.  Look to see the following developments:

- Electronic first curtain, with an electronic grad ND (i.e. can expose two parts of the photo differently
- Then, intelligently, three or more areas.
 
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2015, 03:25:09 pm »

The imaging pipeline would be hugely complex, and is very much dependent on the onward advancement of Moore's law, but also perhaps in the consumerisation of quantum computing.

Quantum computers would be very selective in the kinds of operations they'd speed up. The notion of quantum computing as being faster in general than the "classical" variety is naïve. I doubt it would offer any benefit in photographic image processing. Anyway, the technological hurdles to overcome in the quantum realm are formidable to say the least. We're a long ways off, at best, from the general availability of such devices.

Photosite-level exposure control…I expect we will eventually see this, though no idea when.

-Dave-
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2015, 03:05:19 am »

In 10 more years?

I think technology has reached maturity and don't expect cameras to be much different in 10 years.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2015, 04:49:48 pm »

I think technology has reached maturity and don't expect cameras to be much different in 10 years.

If you'd said "current technology" (electronic sensors with global exposure & CFAs, using glass optics, etc.) I might've agreed. But today's "current" will be tomorrow's "obsolete."

-Dave-
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 02:47:11 am »

But today's "current" will be tomorrow's "obsolete."

No. I really think that cameras have reached a point where technical progress will be tiny, if anything. We should not forget that, whatever the electronics do, we are still taking images with photons and the underlying physics put limits on what can be done. We are not that far from these limits.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2015, 03:22:33 am »

No. I really think that cameras have reached a point where technical progress will be tiny, if anything.

I agree...I think the major changes will come no in sensors but in post-processing. Look at the changes that have happened in ACR/LR and how raw captures are being processed now vs a couple of years ago. Easier to improve software than hardware at this point. Hardware is at a level of diminishing returns while software still has rome for improvement.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2015, 03:19:35 pm »

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

This is typically attributed to William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) c. 1900, though there's no real evidence he ever said it. Nevertheless the sentiment was a common one at the time. Five years later Einstein began turning the physics world upside down.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if electronic sensor photography were supplanted by something else before century's end if not earlier. Even before that I expect we'll see liquid lens tech. Then there are the discoveries and developments we can't begin to imagine…

-Dave-
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2015, 04:51:58 pm »

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

This is typically attributed to William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) c. 1900, though there's no real evidence he ever said it. Nevertheless the sentiment was a common one at the time. Five years later Einstein began turning the physics world upside down.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if electronic sensor photography were supplanted by something else before century's end if not earlier.

The thread asked about "in 10 more years". I don't expect a revolutionary photo technology to come to market within 10 years. What happens afterwards, I do not say.

Keep in mind that there have already been times where photo technology did not evolve much. Usually, this happened just after a major change (e.g: the generalisation of the SLR or the introduction of autofocus) and I believe that we are in a such period. We have experienced 10 years of steady progress after the turn to digital. I believe that now is the time for a more quiet period on the photography front.


Quote
Even before that I expect we'll see liquid lens tech.

Actually, liquid lens tech has been tried in cell phones.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2015, 11:01:18 pm »

The thread asked about "in 10 more years".

Yes, true enough. I also don't expect major developments in the next decade, just refinements. But ya never know!

-Dave-
Logged

sgwrx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2015, 08:14:27 pm »

i sit stunned at the difference between my kodak dc260, canon 10d and my current canon 6d in terms of low noise, color rendering, dynamic range (and the 6d isn't near the top in this) and detail capture.  my biggest thrill is being able to get way more detailed prints at up around 16x20!  i used to marvel at the old spy photos from spy planes or orbit where you could see the stripes and stars on the american flag flying over the whitehouse when looking through magnifying lenses at the print.

i've thought about it for a while now, since i first read about the foveon chip.  i thought why not make a huge sensor and let physics sort out the colors, but realized that you can't get a bigger sensor because you'd loose the 35mm format.  so that's probably what will have to go next unless they can get smaller pixels to perform like larger ones (you know how supposedly a bigger pixel on a sensor can perform better than a smaller pixel? i don't recall the terminology at this time).

the reason i say you'd loose the 35mm format is that would the lenses under-cover the sensor area?  although, could you move the lens out further away from the current sensor plane distance?

we need 6ftx8ft prints that you can use a magnifying lens to see the details :)
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2015, 04:42:38 pm »

Yes, larger sensors require lenses with larger imaging circles. Think medium format.  ;)  You could have a 36mm2 sensor that would be compatible with existing 35mm format lenses, though in many/most cases those lenses wouldn't be able to take full advantage of the extra sensor real estate.

Anyway, my own tendency these days is towards smaller prints and much more use of electronic displays. A 50" TV at 4096x2160 res makes for an impressive presentation medium.

-Dave-
« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 05:27:24 pm by Telecaster »
Logged

davidgp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 758
    • davidgp fotografia
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2015, 04:26:00 am »

Hi,

In terms of sensor, I think the innovation will come from making better smartphone cameras, if from that new ideas in that area can be used for DSLR/mirrorless/medium format cameras they will do it. I base this assumption just looking at the prediction of what CMOS sensors are going to be used in the future:

http://i-micronews.com/images/Media/Imaging_/News_August_2015/Wafer_production_forecast2009-2020_by_application-CMOS-YoleDeveloppement.jpg

Source: http://i-micronews.com/news/imaging/5872-image-sensor-battle-of-the-giants-sony-invests-4b-what-does-it-means-for-the-cis-industry.html

As you can see, even if cameras are selling less and less, image sensor industry it is increasing their sales in significant percents year by year.

We are already seeing this tendency, latest Sony sensor innovations came from their sensors for smartphones. Things like Back Side Illuminated sensors, for example... This is basically an economic decision, it is cheaper to try innovative things if the sensors are smaller, usually, at the beginning, when trying a new idea in the sensor, the smaller the sensor, the higher the probability to get sensors without a defect from the same wafer.

Saying that, what will I expect for the future? I'm seeing some things:

- Better AF, we are already seeing this, cameras like de Sony A7r II has like 399 (or 299... too lazy to look for the specs now) AF points in the same sensor. I expect in the future to have all pixels of a sensor being phase detection AF points, right now the size it is limiting because they lose light for each pixel that it is doing AF, but I read about some patents that solve this problem: http://thenewcamera.com/sony-multilayer-hybrid-af-sensor-patent/ (Canon dual-pixel technology it is also going in this direction, but I think Canon reasons for developing this technology were more related to their high-end video cameras than smartphone sensors).

- Better DR, say goodbye to HDR or grads.

- Foveon type sensors will be ideal for better color... but I think for this we will have to wait a long time, even if I see some patent from time to time for Sony or Canon, I don't see them really interested to push this too much... (very personal opinion here).

- If I said before goodbye to grads, maybe we also say goodbye to polarizers too, Olympus just patented a sensor that has something similar to a polarizer in the sensor, it records the polarization of the light, them in post you can apply as much as you want (if I understood it correctly): http://www.diyphotography.net/30922/

- RAW video. Each generation the cameras get better and better fps, in the next ten years I expect the technology will reach the point that any camera can record easily more than 30 fps in RAW....

Off course, I may be wrong in all points... and as other people commented, I also expect bigger improvements in the software side of things.

Regards,

David

adias

  • Guest
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2015, 10:26:21 pm »

I agree...I think the major changes will come no in sensors but in post-processing. Look at the changes that have happened in ACR/LR and how raw captures are being processed now vs a couple of years ago. Easier to improve software than hardware at this point. Hardware is at a level of diminishing returns while software still has rome for improvement.

True! And RAWs shot 10 years ago (and older) greatly benefit from newer processing too.
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2015, 07:11:12 am »

Honestly I’m not that amazed. Compare this to mobile phones: 2005 was still 2 years off the original (non 3G) iphone and look where we are now.

Sensor tech has moved on at a steady but not rapid rate (Canon’s latest offering have about 1 stop of DR over the 5D you reference!) but really the best selling higher end cameras from the top two players now are not much different to the ones then despite this 10 year period covering the start of digital going mainstream for the masses. Each iteration it is ‘a bit more of everything’ with very little innovation: we still have phase detect af with accuracy problems, optical viewfinders a step behind the camera from the 80s, mechanical mirrors and shutters. The 5D’s framerate was 3fps, your D810 is 5fps. The biggest change has probably been high quality video but while it shook up the video world, p&s cameras had live view since day one so technically it was’t exactly revolutionary to record it in a big brick of a body.

Sony cramming arguably the top 35mm sensor into a small body, 4k video, 5-axis IBIS and af with a number of lens lines via adapter is real progress, not the 5D to D810.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2014
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2015, 02:42:38 pm »

I think the biggest determinant of camera improvement in the next few years (or maybe decades) will be economics, and also display. If electronic display overwhelms print display, as it appears to be doing, and if electronic display improvements move slowly, as they will (because new displays have to work through some politically-agreed-upon standards) then there really isn't much need for better cameras. Even now, very small P&S cameras can create images that display quite well even on large video screens. In terms of economics, I doubt that the mass of consumers will pay more for minor improvements that may interest only gearheads and artists who are looking for (and appreciating) the most subtle kinds of changes, and camera companies need that mass purchasing power to justify engineering and research spending. So, I think we may be settling into the kind of environment that we had before 2000, when camera updates came every eight or ten years, and those were of some significance and involved an accumulation of many small changes. Back then, with the major camera companies like Leica, Nikon and Canon, many people were perfectly happy using, say, an F3 when the F5 was available, and their prints were just as good. That may be happening again, with people happy enough to skip new versions of cameras because their old versions provide images just as good (for video display) as the new ones, and lack only the marginal improvements of the new ones. That means that the economic basis driving big imaging changes will begin to wither.

I'm also not so sure about Jeff's suggestion that software will be the big arena for change. I think he's right, but I'm not sure. Really, what do you get from the latest iteration of Lightroom that gives you a massive improvement over what you could squeeze out of Lightroom 4? Where's the payback for Adobe if people begin skipping new versions of Lightroom and Photoshop (which is the reason they're gong to a subscription basis, I think -- people were beginning to skip new versions, and in large numbers.)

I really comes down to the function of the human eye and brain. If you create a camera sensor that gives you greater edge sharpness, but 95% of the people can't see it...will they pay more for it? If there's a better ergonomic design that requires people to relearn how to use a camera, will they buy it, even if it's "better?" Or will they stick the familiar? I suspect that the biggest changes will come in really pedestrian ways -- not in brilliant new sensors, or fantastic new lenses, but in long-lasting batteries, for example.
Logged

adias

  • Guest
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2015, 07:38:20 pm »

...
I'm also not so sure about Jeff's suggestion that software will be the big arena for change. I think he's right, but I'm not sure. Really, what do you get from the latest iteration of Lightroom that gives you a massive improvement over what you could squeeze out of Lightroom 4?

There's a huge difference in image quality between Lr1 and the 2012 RAW processor (Lr4?). Between Lr4 and Lr6 important advances in local processing.

Acceptable 2002 D60 RAW images when processed in 2002 with DPP (and others), are beautifully rendered  when reprocessed from scratch with Lr6. It's possible that at the pixel level, demoisaicing (and such) improvements will slow down, but let's hope there will be still some.

Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2015, 12:51:41 am »

True! And RAWs shot 10 years ago (and older) greatly benefit from newer processing too.


I've pulled out images from almost ten years ago and reprocessed them with current ACR.  I thought "Oh no." Now I have to reprocess everything.  I won't of course, but what a difference a decade makes.

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2015, 11:41:11 am »

I was just thinking 10 years ago I bought my first DSLR a Canon 5D, 10 years later for the same money you can buy a Nikon D810, amazing how technology has advanced!
In 10 more years?
Marc

We bought a 5D then too - but I do not think the difference between then and now is anything like the change between my first DSLR, a Canon D30 (3 megapixel) and the 5D over a time of about five years.  The pace of image quality improvement has certainly slowed.

Jim
Logged

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475
Re: 10 Years Ago
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2015, 05:09:41 pm »

I've pulled out images from almost ten years ago and reprocessed them with current ACR.  I thought "Oh no." Now I have to reprocess everything.  I won't of course, but what a difference a decade makes.

A great side-by-side example of lightroom's process version advances was this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/tonal-adjustments-in-the-age-of-lightroom-4/
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up