mpgxsvcd: What I fail to see is how 16 tiny sensors with equally tiny lenses are going to equate to the depth of field control of a large sensor and equally large lenses. Just because you can focus at multiple points simultaneously doesn’t mean you will achieve the shallow depth of field and pleasurable out of focus regions that a DSLR can achieve.
The total area of all of those lenses doesn’t come close to the area of a wide aperture DSLR lens. There is no way these cameras could ever achieve the light gathering capabilities that a DSLR can achieve.
In the end I bet this camera will almost achieve the results that a single 1” sensor could achieve.
No razor thin DOF for you. What you are seeing here is the first prototype of the software driven imaging. There is a lot of data to massage given the number of sensors and focal lengths. It will take years to refine the codebase for this type of device but the results will amaze you. Optically this thing surely will not defy the laws of physics.
"I saw the future: ...Multi-lens phones - arrays of micro lenses capturing different parts of the image."
- My comment from Feb 24, 2014 - http://connect.dpreview.com/post/6430831685/shooting-raw-with-the-nokia-lumia-1020?comment=0575432894
The future is now!
ssh33: The distribution method needs some research.
That too, I was referring to win8 app.
Johannes Zander: When I click on the video here from Germany it says:Dieses Video ist privat
What the Duck!?!
Follow the link on the bottom http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/hyperlapse/
The distribution method needs some research.
Yeah... No. Portraits with shallow depth of field look different. You know, eyes are in focus and the rest of the face is slightly blurred giving the skin smoother appearance and what some refer to as "3D look". This is not it. On the photos shown here the effect looks fake.
That said, I like candid portraits and see no value in a posed shot (no story) - studio people might appreciate it more than I do.
I refuse to use anything "cloud" out of principle. The files I pay for or create are going to live on my hard drives or my colocated servers.
G Sciorio: It's a beautiful lens. Shame they don't make one with a native M43 mount. I ended up buying the parts and built my own which cost me about $150 and a few days of time. Mine is not as pretty, nor does it have aperture control but the bokeh rocks like nothing else.
Do share you project G Sciorio! In regards to a M43 version: search ebay for "25mm f1.4 m43" and treat yourself to a $20 wonder with field curvature gone wild, non-round diaphragm opening and some vignetting. I use it wide open for video indoors. Tons of fun without the price tag of the above.
I hope "simple" lenses paired with these sensors are going to be CHEAP.
Sony has a lot of cool (hot?) , competitively priced bodies that I'd love to get my hands on but the better lenses from Sony are overpriced. Other brands offer more bang for the buck on enthusiast/pro level just yet.
Michael Ma: Options are always better than no options. It looks like you can squeeze out a little, maybe even a lot depending on how much you value extra detail and flexibility. That sky in the shot with the building is horrendous in JPEG. If I had the option, I'd always shoot with RAW knowing at the minimum I can squeeze out a JPEG of the same quality.
With that said, imaging on the smartphone is going nowhere until we can figure out how to either increase the size of the sensors or there's a breakthrough in sensor technology.
I saw the future:
Small BSI sensors with very small pixel pitch and the same single lens first. These will have amazing quantum efficiency.
Multi-lens phones - arrays of micro lenses capturing different parts of the image.
oselimg: Ok, Nokia raw gives slightly better DR but slightly grainier/noisy look than Nokia jpeg, it's a trade off. But how about technically comparing it to an ordinary DSLR or M4/3? I can't imagine people suddenly shedding their cameras for Nokia phones even as hobbyists. Another gimmick for wannabes.
Apples to oranges. It's a phone. If you want a camera, buy one.
Ivan Lietaert: In my opinion, the jpegs are superior. Why bother with raw in this case? There's little or no improvement at all.
> the jpegs are superiorNo.
You like in-phone JPEG processing better than the author's.
The tiny gain in DR is priceless. I love it! Thanks for the review.
MarcLee: Gotta say I have been playing with Aftershot Pro for a while today. It's built on Bibble, but without the kindergarten interface early versions of that had. Fast and a LOT of options.
I was pleasantly shocked to see it also IMPORTS PRE-EXISTING LIGHTROOM ADJUSTMENTS.
What it misses, I can find elsewhere.
I would not even have looked at this without the help of Adobe's CEO. There's a special upgrade price if you have Lightroom pr PSP.
Try Zoner, it costs the same, has a free trial too. I tried it along with Aftershot aka Bibble and favored Zoner. http://zoner.com
ssh33: So, what are the Photoshop and Lightroom alternatives on the PC and Mac?
I used Corel when dinosaurs roamed earth - it was a full featured suite and I switched to Adobe just because everyone else seemed to use it at the time. Photoshop was not any better as far as the functionality goes. Is Corel any good now?
Corel AfterShot Pro is only $59, looks like the perfect Lightroom replacement.http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071
I like GIMP, use it on Linux.http://www.gimp.org/
What are the others?
Just tried Zoner - now we're talking! The best so far!
Kinematic Digit: I wonder how many people would complain if you could use a new Nikon D800E, Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx or a Canon 5Dmk3 for $19 a month and then after a year decided to return it?
...but neither worked in the field if it happened to be the monthly internet authentication time, and the pictures you took with it could not be opened after the rental.
Downloading the trials now...
Tried Corel AfterShot Pro (Bibble) - very nice! It only imports photos from an existing folder not giving the option to copy and catalog into a filesystem automatically. I might be missing something - I only had 10 minutes to play with it yet. Other than that it is awesome.
So, what are the Photoshop and Lightroom alternatives on the PC and Mac?