Michael Long

Michael Long

Lives in United States Boulder, CO, United States
Joined on Oct 27, 2000
About me:

Canon 1D, 1Ds, SD10, G7, 16-35/2.8, 24/1.4, 28-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 IS,
300/2.8, 1.4EX, 550EX, 420EX, 220EX

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: A smartphone taking good pictures is certainly interesting for many users, but long battery life is much more important IMHO. Using (huge ?) computational power to correct or not lens defects implies a trade-off between lens simplicity/robustness and battery life...

Today's "huge" computational power is tomorrow's 64-bit multiple core accelerated processor.

One also has to consider that for the few (or even dozens) of pictures people take with their phones, a few extra milliseconds of processing power per images is insignificant. You'll "waste" far more power firing up the radios and sending a couple of selected images up to Facebook.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2013 at 00:47 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyefuse: This tech should be implemented for video use. So that you could easily make the perfectly smooth and exact spot on focus pulls - in the post process! That would be truly revolutionary. No need to worry about pumping auto focus, low light focusing problems and moving subjects in all kinds of action, low contrast and messy scenes. Whoa, that would rock!

It should.. and will... eventually. The relatively minor nit is capturing 10x a normal HD frame's data, processing it, and moving it... for each and every frame.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 20:02 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

D1N0: The way it is now, the Lytro is a gadget. Nice to have when you want to spend the money. I wonder if you could get the same effect with a hdr-like technique. Hfr (high focus range) a number of consecutive shots which are then merged into one interactive image, or into one image which is in focus over the entire range. (A fly's eye in the foreground an mount Fuji in the background).

@HowaboutRAW: Moving object? Sure. No problem. You want to capture 10X the data PER FRAME in order to do so?

We barely have the tech to capture 4K. You want to try 40K???

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:56 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

robogobo: I said it from the beginning: this is at best a solution in search of a problem, and at worst a complex gimmick. No matter what research is pointed my way, I still don't see what's so revolutionary about the tech. I've been told I need a phd to understand it. Good luck selling that. In the end it still looks like a bunch of simultaneous exposures at different focus points. Big deal. I think the best they can hope for is that somebody buys their IP and they can break even on the clearance sale.

They compare it to Polaroid. I'm afraid not. Polaroid was a high quality mainstay in the beginning. Only later did they cheapen the process and release junky cameras. Lytro is starting off with junk, and they don't even have a niche to fill. Maybe they can compare to Holgas or Dianas.

@Cy Cheze: You might go on Flckr and note just how many photos come from traditional camera makers vs computer and electronics companies...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:54 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZAnton: Why didn't you make the ISO tests studio pictures and samples?

@falconeyes : It's ALL interpolated, but it might well be higher than you think. Part of the process corrects for lens distortions, chroma, and other aberrations, all at the same time.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:51 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZAnton: Why didn't you make the ISO tests studio pictures and samples?

@HowaboutRAW : It's a special micro lens array placed higher than one normally would be, over a standard bayer sensor.

One thing to note is that he mentions if you could change the distance between the micro-array and the sensors, you could have a "normal" camera that's could also be switched into "Lytro" mode.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:48 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Light field + super hi-res sensor a la Nokia 808 + SONY fab + iPhone interface = good consumer P&S.

@ powerbook duo : Huh. I wonder what the net effect would be if you covered, say, 1/4 or 1/3 of a camera's image sensors with a 1-2 stop ND filter? Could you extrapolate and get single-shot HDR?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:40 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

Petteri Sulonen: The idea has potential though. Just needs more source pixels and a bigger sensor for more DOF control.

If you used the 41 MP one from the new Nokia, it'd be a whole different beast. I bet you could get quite decent focusable 3-4 MP pics from that.

In his thesis, the inventor estimates that you could get 4MP (2k x 2k) out of, say, a full-frame 100+ MP sensor...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:03 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dmitri Alexander: “Light field" technology seems like a needlessly complex way to achieve the goal of selective focus after taking a shot. As the review correctly states, “in a small-sensor conventional camera, you tend to get depth-of-field that stretches from near the camera, out to infinity.” Given that, a camera maker should simply develop user-friendly, in-camera firmware that allows you to selectively defocus everything in the image except what you want to be sharp. In other words, synthetic bokeh. Could that be so hard to invent?

Samsung just announced a new sensor prototype that records z (depth) information along with the traditional RGB mosaic. Once developed further, that would give you the ability to emulate wide-aperture background blurring via processing.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 19:01 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

deniz erdem: this camera captures a field of image instead of a 2d plane, than turns it into a file that can output different planes of the captured field as far as i understand. right? doesnt that mean it should also be able to manipulate different planes of the image independent of each other? for example, wouldnt it be possible to artificially blur one plane of the image while keeping the other plane sharp? that would create superb bokeh without relying on the optics or the size of the sensor. please correct me if im mistaken.

In his paper he demos a way to effectively have everything sharp. I'm not sure if the math lets you go the other way and get a DOF less than that actually captured.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 18:55 UTC
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Light field + super hi-res sensor a la Nokia 808 + SONY fab + iPhone interface = good consumer P&S.

Read the guy’s thesis last night. In it, there was one estimate that using a 35mm full-frame 112MP sensor you could extract a 2k x 2k image. More and you started running into diffraction issues.

That’s an effective 4MP out of 112MP (roughly a 200MB file), and that’s an awful lot of extra data to get a refocusing trick.

Cool, yes. Practical for consumers?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

Octane: I have the P300 and love it. It is a fantastic little camera. Very quick, great features. But as some others have pointed out, going higher with the megapixel is total nonsense and purely driven my marketing.

The P300 has 12 mp and it is no where near utilizing the resolution. If you zoom in to 100%, you see how the resolution and detail just isn't there. If I compare that to a 12 SLR it becomes obvious how much less detail there is. So the P300 is already unable to make use of 12 mp, how does it help to replace the sensor with a 16 mp one? It's just marketing. In reality you get the resolution of a 6 mp sensor.

The Backside Illuminated sensor could go a long way towards correcting that. Using BSI tech on the 8MP iPhone 4s meant that it had much better image quality than the 5MP iPhone 4.

Of course, they could have gone with 12MP AND BSI... but I'm willing to wait and see some good low-light/nighttime sample images before I take them to task...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 19:14 UTC
On Interview: Tetsuya Yamamoto of Nikon article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: Dear Mr, Yamamoto, enough about toy cameras, where in the heck is the D800? And, people interested in this camera who "want a DSLR without the weight" are confused puppies because the J1 and V1 are not DSLRs. Most people willing to deal with interchangeable lenses can deal with a few more grams of weight. Once the "new" has worn off tiny IL systems, folks will refocus on DSLRs (unless you can stick an APS-C or FF chip in these things ie the flight back to quality). Oh and by the way, if you are concerned about weight, do something about the ridiculous weight of your Pro DSLRs and lenses.

"Oh and by the way, if you are concerned about weight, do something about the ridiculous weight of your Pro DSLRs and lenses."

Pro gear is pro gear. You don't put the amount of glass needed for a FF 300/2.8 into a plastic tube, and expect it to remain optically rigid and stable, nor do you bolt the result onto a plastic camera and expect it to hold up under day-in-and-day-out abuse.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

peterBXL: imagine...
just imagine this being used in photo or video post-production...
imagine your software like photoshop or after effects being able to calculate how far objects are away from your camera...
no need for green keys anymore, just tell after effects to throw away everything that's further away than let's say 3 metres (10 feet for your non-metric people)...
adding objects to your picture or video? just tell photoshop at what distance...

we're just starting to imagine what this could do...

Cool... but again, useless for 99% of the smartphone/snapshot/P&S crowd, who want little more than to send their latest party pix to Facebook or Flickr...

MY holy grail is exceptional low light performance, to the point where we can finally kill off the on-camera flash.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Long: No thanks. Their "miracle technology" drops resolution down by about a factor of ten. A demo showed an 11MP sensor generating a "huge" 1.2MP final image.

I'm more interested in Apple adding Sony's latest BSI sensor than this toy.

Perhaps, but for the foreseeable future it's still a, what? three-trick pony.

1) Change focus point on the 1 or 2% of images where AF and Face Detection and all of the other cool toys on the P&S failed?

2) Change DOF? Like that's a major issue faced daily by the smartphone/snapshot/P&S crowd.

3) Zero shutter lag? Probably it's only saving grace, but still not worth enough to drop resolution and quality down to Sony Mavica levels

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 00:09 UTC

No thanks. Their "miracle technology" drops resolution down by about a factor of ten. A demo showed an 11MP sensor generating a "huge" 1.2MP final image.

I'm more interested in Apple adding Sony's latest BSI sensor than this toy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 23:25 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16