It seems to have been released and is available for sale, finally. I am looking for a hands on review.
godwit: The Kodak Brownie 127 film camera from the 50's did just the same. In plan view the camera is elliptical (looked rather trendy in 1953!) and the film was supported at the back in the curved bakelite film guide. That allowed Kodak to use a cheap single-element plastic lens. They were very popular. I have one in my collection. It has only taken 60 years for this to come around again!Of course the ideal shape for the new sensor would be spherical, not cylindrical. That was tricky with roll film but possible with electronics?
@Richard the sensor itself needen't be curved, only the position of the photo cells. So it could maybe be made in a rectangular block of translucent silicone (if it that exists) ...
Adrian Harris: The real problem with curved sensors is that if anyone dares introduce them, their customers current lens line-up will be obsolete overnight. Which company would dare do that??? ...well Sony already have about 4 different lens systems, so what the heck, here we go for a 5th lens line-up!!!
Would Canon or Nikon dare do that? ...which is maybe why it hasn't been done before.
One more reason why it would be used for non-interchangable, fixed focal length cameras.
feraudy: I actually thought of this a year ago, but then I wondered if the curvature would not need to change according to the lens. So it might work very well in a compact camera with a fixed focal length lens. In any case technology always involves tradeoffs.Maybe Ricoh's idea of changing the sensor with the lens would be the rihgt thing here.I hope they cant patent the very idea of a curved sensor.
Thought about this months ago :) I didn't think about variable focal lenses, but then since we're into mimicking the human eye, we might as well skip that. Anyway with a very high res sensor and lens resolution, and also a big aperture - and this technology might make that possible, they is less need for variable focal length - you can just crop.Anyway I figured that what was holding back curved sensors was just the legacy inherited from film, which doesn't really lend itself to curving.Glad this is happening.
Lawrencew: Next step is to dynamically adjust the curvature in camera, so that it is optimised for the focal length chosen by the photographer.
If they can do in body stabilization by moving the sensor, and now build curved TVs where the curvature can be altered, then it wont be long before they can alter the curvature of the sensor in camera too...
(where's the Patent Office btw :-) )
I don't think so, but some curvature, even fixed, will make the lens design much simpler anyway.
Yes definitely "tricky" with film, and when digital cameras started to be produced they just took film camera bodies and replaced the film with the sensor, basically, that is why we don't have spherical sensors yet.
I think the real point of this camera, what makes it interesting is that it runs android and therefore could in theory offer more then one camera interface apps, including 3rd parties. Everyone seems to have missed that.Im not sure of how it is currently implemented and how feasable a custom camera app is, but its surely a step in the right direction and better than most cameras in that aspect.As for 3g/4g I can see that being interesting for professionals in journalism and such. I think the Facebook crowd, at least the majority of them, wont be in such huge hurry to upload their shots.So yeah its all bundled in a weird package, but pushes interesting technologies. Maybe we'll be seeing more of these technologies in the future, but in more coherent packages.
Are the travel photo samples above taken with a Fuji camera?
WalPhoto: The information is partially incorrect - you can NOT create "a general" profile for all lightening situations combining the ICC profiles! This is not "my opinion", this is the fact color correction works. The ICC includes a mathematical matrix transformation from one color space (the concrete colors, how they came) to another color space (how they should have come). So, let's say you light a scene with a strong blueish light, e.g. flash, say with a blueish filter, to have the example even better understandable. Now you create the ICC: it will transform all the blue-cast colors to be more yellowish. This will DESTROY any image when applied to a total different lightening, say yellowish (candle light)! And interpolating those 2 extremes cancels their original reason for creation. I was running an ICC profiling service a few years ago, so I understand it a bit. Peace, Andrej
Isnt that the purpose of wb?Lets say you calibrate your camera using the light of the flash. Cant you then just apply white balance corrections when shooting in a different light?
rgiddings: What WB do you use to shoot the Checker? Auto? Daylight for outdoors? I know most people are going to say it doesn’t matter in RAW, but that can’t be true. If I shoot the same scene twice in Daylight and Tungsten and white-balance in post (in ACR, for instance), I get similar looking images, but surely must be losing some info in the incorrectly set version. In B&W photography shooting through a yellow/red filter makes for darker skies. Does WB not affect what goes into a RAW file?
wb doesnt affect raw directly. But it can cause u to change exposure due to the preview, it also can affect the histogram. Maybe it can affect exposure, but i am speculating here.I shoot auto wb because i can use it as reference in post and i can also use it to quickly produce jpegs if needed.
Kodachrome200: I find this obsessing over exact color to be a bit odd. I will say i find alot of the adobe standard profiles un appealing they make peoples skin pinkish. But color does not need to be this exact a science. we never worried about this in the film days. You could compare four different film stocks and theyd all have widely different colors . perfection wasnt possible and we didnt seek it. We just wanted pleasing color. I actually like the uncalibrated color of the portrait image better than the calibrated
What obsession? Besides, I find lack of interest in accurate colors to be odd. What exactly is a camera and a photography? Isnt it supposed to capure a visual image of the scene? Cameras dont always achieve accurate colors. If they did we wouldnt need to discuss that topic. Many cameras tend to oversaturate colors. I prefer to do any image improvements myself.
Higuel: What a royal CRAP!!!To think i come to dpreview thinking about learning something about a camera (like for instance... let's say... Oh! a REVIEW!) or at least some (INTERESTING!) article about photography! and i almost lost 4minutes of my life watching this...I cannot help but feel a bit sorry for whoever thought that «the resulting video is surprisingly entertaining»?!?!Man, maybe you need to start thinking about better uses of your time, but FOR SURE YOU CAN start right now thinking better about better things to show on dpreview, last time i checked, it was (still) not just one more personal blog in the vast Internet!!
Yadda yadda I didn't even bother reading your second post I have better to do. The level of your rhethoric is going down with every post. If you keep posting you'll end up reduced to writing stuff like "Arrrr! Arrr!" so yeah it might be in everyone's best interest that you stop. Althought that would be more entertaining than watching a video of a dishwasher cycle, if it ever happens.You can go around ranting and caps-locking as much as you want; maybe I'll read your "#2" post when you bother using quotes when quoting me, for example.I hope you feel better after all you cathartic crapping in dpreview comments.
Since the discussion drifted away from the original topic: what the hell is an "advanced 360&background removal brand"?And Higuel what you are doing is the equivalent of screaming and borders harassment. You can have your opinion but nobody asked you for it and you're expressing it out-of-topic in multiple seemingly agressive posts and using caps lock all over the place. I would not expect Barney Britton to spend much time bothering with answers. It's nice to give a frank and uncensored opinion but somehow it has to stop, too much is not good.
Nukunukoo: Where's the light coming from???
It was meant to be funny. I don't think the GoPro casing glows. That would be nice though.
Uh why is this turning into a "dpreview is going backwards" vs whatever debate. This was about this video and how "entertaining" it is to watch a dishwasher machine cycle.
I've lost more than a couple of shots already due to the un-intuitiveness and hidden secondary effects within the interface. If you're the type who like to fiddle with settings and have some amount of control over exposure, expect to waste shots during the first months as you get acquainted with the interface and it's traps, quirks, limitation and bugs. It can be a real concern, and it's hard to trust this camera. If you can pay $100 - $200 more take a good look at what Panasonic has to offer, it might be worth it. If you're more the type to shoot full auto or only use a small subset of the camera's interface (ex: always shoot aperture priority and not use video) or only shoot landscape or are not interested at all in low light or action photography then this does not apply to you.
The bundled software is very slow as well.
Yes, it very fast and responsive for a camera of this class. It is compact, the image quality is great, and it's a bargain.
But don't take the rest for granted.
It looks like an anal probe.
Mssimo: I guess it cant do 4k video as rumored.
@jaaboucher why not?If the still camera can do RAW video (which remains to be seen), then what would the dedicated video camera have over it?
Dr. Leonard: In addition to a mirrorless design to save weight and complexity, how about doing away with the focal plane shutter and use lenses with leaf shutters. Ups x sync also. No mirror, no pentaprism, no shutter - how expensive could it be?
I think that the mirror, pentaprism and even shutter would be relatively inexpensive compared to the cost of the sensor or other more "high-tech" components. I'd rather pay a little more and have an optical viewfinder, if that's the only advantage.As someone else said - I don't think putting the shutter in the lens would create any cost reduction.Okay, there will be some substantial weight reduction without the OVF, but probably not so much size reduction because the distance between the lens and the sensor has to stay the same. So I"m still not sure that's interesting.
Good way to check if your dishwasher is working properly.I'm not so sure about posting it on the internet as something "entertaining".Have you ever heard of YouTube?