| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/22/2005 06:20:08 AM · #1 |
Someone has created a camera where you can sharpen and/or change the dof AFTER taking the picture! Pretty amazing....and maybe controversial?
Discuss. :-)
//wired-vig.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69594,00.html
P.S. I searched to see if this was already posted and didn't see anything. Sorry if it's a dupe.
Message edited by author 2005-11-22 11:21:03.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 06:28:05 AM · #2 |
No, thanks. I might as well just walk up to someone and hand over my camera - let THEM do all my phototaking.
Playing with all the possible variations in DOF, light etc is such a big part of the fun, why take it away?
And if you do this for a living - sounds like absolutely ANY idiot can take perfect photos with this, so no more need for a skilled photographer at all.
Boooooo hisssssss! |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 06:41:38 AM · #3 |
| Judging by the quality of the examples on that news item, it's going to need an awful lot of development yet before it gets anywhere near the quality expected from SLR users. I had a 2MP Canon point and shoot that could take much better quality pics than those 16MP examples! |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 08:12:20 AM · #4 |
There was quite a detailed thread on this a couple months or more ago, but I cannot find it now. Maybe a better searcher than I can do so.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 08:26:40 AM · #5 |
I have a feeling that will never appear in commercial cameras ... probably will be used in security systems, maybe even for space exploration systems.
However, the argument as to this putting photographer's out of business, no it won't. Photography will always require a skilled artist, who knows how to use the technology. So, you can refocus the image after taking it. Would everyone know what and waht not to focus?
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 08:35:38 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I have a feeling that will never appear in commercial cameras ... probably will be used in security systems, maybe even for space exploration systems.
However, the argument as to this putting photographer's out of business, no it won't. Photography will always require a skilled artist, who knows how to use the technology. So, you can refocus the image after taking it. Would everyone know what and waht not to focus? |
That was gone into at length on the other thread. I'm in agreement with you there. Photography is about making choices, basically. I don't see any inherent value-change in making the chouces after shooting vs before shooting. A parallel example would be changing WB in RAW processing. Are you a "better" photographer if you get it right in the camera? A better technician, surely, but... And what about the shots you MISS while trying to figure these things out?
I'd always assumed, myself, that "infinitely-adjustable DOF" was going to appear someday. This is a step in that direction, in that it's infintely adjustable point-of-focus, though the actual DOF is still tied in to the lens aperture.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 08:49:43 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
A parallel example would be changing WB in RAW processing. .... it's infintely adjustable point-of-focus, though the actual DOF is still tied in to the lens aperture.
R. |
Hey, would adjusting point of focus in a RAW Converter be allowable under BASIC rules... lol or changing DoF when/if that becomes a reality.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 09:53:02 AM · #8 |
"....camera pits about 90,000 micro lenses between the main lens and sensor...."
90,000 lenses? Thanx, but I think I'll stick with my FZ20 for now. At least I can carry it around, and no one even knows what this gizmo will cost, or if it will ever be commercially available. It might be good for photography in a lab, but not in the field in a real situation. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 09:57:27 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by ignite:
"....camera pits about 90,000 micro lenses between the main lens and sensor...."
90,000 lenses? Thanx, but I think I'll stick with my FZ20 for now. At least I can carry it around, and no one even knows what this gizmo will cost, or if it will ever be commercially available. It might be good for photography in a lab, but not in the field in a real situation. |
That's what they said about EVERYTHING, in the beginning :-) Did you realize the steam engine was an impractical invention that wouldn't change a thing in our lives?
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:02:32 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I have a feeling that will never appear in commercial cameras ... probably will be used in security systems, maybe even for space exploration systems.
However, the argument as to this putting photographer's out of business, no it won't. Photography will always require a skilled artist, who knows how to use the technology. So, you can refocus the image after taking it. Would everyone know what and waht not to focus? |
That was gone into at length on the other thread. I'm in agreement with you there. Photography is about making choices, basically. I don't see any inherent value-change in making the chouces after shooting vs before shooting. A parallel example would be changing WB in RAW processing. Are you a "better" photographer if you get it right in the camera? A better technician, surely, but... And what about the shots you MISS while trying to figure these things out?
I'd always assumed, myself, that "infinitely-adjustable DOF" was going to appear someday. This is a step in that direction, in that it's infintely adjustable point-of-focus, though the actual DOF is still tied in to the lens aperture.
R. |
This sort of thing really throws the old "photographer Vs equipment" argument into sharp relief. DOF can be chosen post-shot (and the depth of field can be as great or as small as one desires, given careful processing) artistic choices can be made at leisure.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:08:05 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
This sort of thing really throws the old "photographer Vs equipment" argument into sharp relief. DOF can be chosen post-shot (and the depth of field can be as great or as small as one desires, given careful processing) artistic choices can be made at leisure. |
And I'd still say a good photographer will get better results than a hack with infinite technology and processing power.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:09:08 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by AJAger:
This sort of thing really throws the old "photographer Vs equipment" argument into sharp relief. DOF can be chosen post-shot (and the depth of field can be as great or as small as one desires, given careful processing) artistic choices can be made at leisure. |
And I'd still say a good photographer will get better results than a hack with infinite technology and processing power. |
That was my point, although I probably didn't express it very well.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:32:43 AM · #13 |
That's really interesting. So this kind of works as a sort of imitation of the human eye, where (ideally) everything is in focus at all distances all the time? So I'd be able to make a picture as I see it with my eyes, not as my camera sees it, and then work backwards from the digital and make the image as my eyes see it into what a camera sees?
In a way it sounds like a totally different way of thinking about photography, well beyond the "after the fact" adjustments of RAW. Unless I'm missing the point entirely.
I have no idea how I would feel about something like this. It would be like working with something totally different than the lenses I have now. I don't know. It would be interesting. But I think it would be sort of like choosing between "shall I draw today" or "shall I make a watercolour". Totally different. I'm rambling.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:43:20 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by ursula:
That's really interesting. So this kind of works as a sort of imitation of the human eye, where (ideally) everything is in focus at all distances all the time? So I'd be able to make a picture as I see it with my eyes, not as my camera sees it, and then work backwards from the digital and make the image as my eyes see it into what a camera sees? |
Yes, that's exactly right. Makes "photography" a closer parallel to "seeing".
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:52:18 AM · #15 |
You know, it would be fantastic if a system like that could be developed.
Now, if it could be then connected directly to a human brain, and allow blind people to see, wouldn't that be something. And if they could do something similar for deaf people, wow, that would be so good.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:55:56 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by ursula:
You know, it would be fantastic if a system like that could be developed.
Now, if it could be then connected directly to a human brain, and allow blind people to see, wouldn't that be something. And if they could do something similar for deaf people, wow, that would be so good. |
For deaf people, they alread yhave. It's a cochlear implant; digital hearing. To a limited extent they have done it for blind people; digital sight. But that's very experimental and it has a long way to go.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 11:00:23 AM · #17 |
The Stanford article on this, by Ng is here.
I just came across it the other day. The gallery has some interesting pictures.
And yes, the possibilities for this are endless...
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 11:10:30 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ursula:
You know, it would be fantastic if a system like that could be developed.
Now, if it could be then connected directly to a human brain, and allow blind people to see, wouldn't that be something. And if they could do something similar for deaf people, wow, that would be so good. |
For deaf people, they alread yhave. It's a cochlear implant; digital hearing. To a limited extent they have done it for blind people; digital sight. But that's very experimental and it has a long way to go.
R. |
They do? But it only works for certain kinds of deafness, right? I've heard about the experimental sight implants (edit, not sure if they were implants or not, but worked directly with the brain to replicate sight) for blind people - looks promising.
Message edited by author 2005-11-22 16:11:14.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 12:09:10 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ursula:
You know, it would be fantastic if a system like that could be developed.
Now, if it could be then connected directly to a human brain, and allow blind people to see, wouldn't that be something. And if they could do something similar for deaf people, wow, that would be so good. |
For deaf people, they alread yhave. It's a cochlear implant; digital hearing. To a limited extent they have done it for blind people; digital sight. But that's very experimental and it has a long way to go.
R. |
They do? But it only works for certain kinds of deafness, right? I've heard about the experimental sight implants (edit, not sure if they were implants or not, but worked directly with the brain to replicate sight) for blind people - looks promising. |
Yes, the nerves have to be intact between ear and brain for cochlear implant to function. I just heard the other day that there is another type of implant out now where they are wiring directly into the brain to bypass that altogether. I don't know anything about it though. Cochlear implants are for people with intact circuitry but ears that don't work, basically.
R. |
|
|
|
11/22/2005 12:14:05 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ursula:
You know, it would be fantastic if a system like that could be developed.
Now, if it could be then connected directly to a human brain, and allow blind people to see, wouldn't that be something. And if they could do something similar for deaf people, wow, that would be so good. |
For deaf people, they alread yhave. It's a cochlear implant; digital hearing. To a limited extent they have done it for blind people; digital sight. But that's very experimental and it has a long way to go.
R. |
They do? But it only works for certain kinds of deafness, right? I've heard about the experimental sight implants (edit, not sure if they were implants or not, but worked directly with the brain to replicate sight) for blind people - looks promising. |
Yes, the nerves have to be intact between ear and brain for cochlear implant to function. I just heard the other day that there is another type of implant out now where they are wiring directly into the brain to bypass that altogether. I don't know anything about it though. Cochlear implants are for people with intact circuitry but ears that don't work, basically.
R. |
Thanks! I am very interested in this (for personal reason). I hope there will be some day a way to help people with nerve damage to their hearing.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 03:16:50 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ursula:
That's really interesting. So this kind of works as a sort of imitation of the human eye, where (ideally) everything is in focus at all distances all the time? So I'd be able to make a picture as I see it with my eyes, not as my camera sees it, and then work backwards from the digital and make the image as my eyes see it into what a camera sees? |
Yes, that's exactly right. Makes "photography" a closer parallel to "seeing".
R. |
This is a very common misconception. Actually, the way the eye focuses is very similar to the way a standard camera does. Cameras were modelled on the human eye in many ways. (The eye's focusing mechanism - distorting the lens - is different but the effect is the same). The lens at the front of the eye has adjustable focus and focuses an image on the retina at the back of the eye. The retina is an almost flat, light sensitive surface and plays the same role as film or a CMOS sensor in a digital camera. Depth of field depends on the same factors as in a camera - distance to subject and size of the opening in the iris.
Its just that the brain is not usually aware of depth of field, e.g if you are looking at your watch and there is a loud noise from two cars colliding 100m away you will look up and focus on the car crash 100m away. The eye cannot actually keep your watch and the crash in focus at the same time, but as focusing takes about the same time as looking up most people are not aware of this. Try it yourself, preferably in bright daylight (the iris opens, reducing depth of field, same as in a camera). The hard bit is paying attention to something without automatically focusssing on it...
If the eye was capable of infinite depth of field glasses and contact lenses would not be required. In fact there are two main types of glasses required - one type for people who cannot focus close, and another for those that cannot focus on distant objects. If you need glasses for close work your distance vision is fine, and vice versa.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/08/2025 03:27:08 PM EDT.
