Steven R. Rochlin: Am a longtime journalist in the field of CE, with that said DRM has worked pretty much never.
'DRM' video tape was easy to defeat
DRM CD was easily defeated
DRM video discs also defeated
DRM'ing anything you put on the Internet is a waste of time.
And yes there is Watermarking and only way that works is to broadly watermark the image so as to make it hard to alter said image to remove the watermark.
Encryption is the way to go, yet, ummm, good luck encrypting images to then have it freely displayed online. Even then, once someone has the key, they can easily find a way to copy said file in an unencrypted manner. DRM JPG images online... what is to keep either a screen capture or getting the image file from your browser's cache and then using software to defeat the DRM?
While I like the DRM concept if you insist on such things, it'll never work in the real world. Strong encryption with no back-door access is the only way to go at this time if you desire security.
Encryption, no matter how strong, won't guard against somebody saving a screenshot, or (if the images can only be seen through a signed app that disables screen capture) photographing the screen.They'd also have to lobby the camera companies to detect the © symbol in the field of view, and disable the shutter button :)
RidgeRunner22: One issue I see is the problem of handheld 42mp shoots. Without any form of IS I think this was meant for the tripod.
Well, people also routinely check image sharpness by viewing the images in 100%. It's a huge magnification and overkill, but it's also a very common practice.
A higher resolution sensor has a *potential* benefit. It gives an ability to use larger magnification (or more cropping) before blur becomes visible.
So if you need higher magnification, you have to hold the camera more steady, but you'll end up with sharper images (I mean, the cropped/magnified end result will be sharper).
If you don't need higher magnification, the higher resolution sensor doesn't really benefit you at all - and it comes with larger files, slower camera operation, and higher price tag.
What's confusing here, is that talking about anything "pixel-level" or "100%" automatically ties magnification to resolution.
"But that blur will look exactly the same in the photograph"Yes it will. That's why "sharpness" is different from "pixel-level sharpness"Pixel-level sharpness may be needed for images that will be magnified to huge sizes, or heavily cropped. Depends on the intended use of the image.
"Increasing resolution doesn't increase camera shake. Camera shake is exactly the same wither you are shooting 4 megapixels or 40 megapixels or 400 megapixels."
It matters if you want pixel-level sharpness. Looking at a 40 MP image at 100% means you're using about 3x the magnification of a 4MP image.
The same camera motion that blurs a 4MP image by 1 pixel, will blur the 40MP image by about 3 pixels, and the 400MP image by 10 pixels.
"That 1/fl shutter speed rule of thumb was for the film era, Probably useful for up to 12MP digital cameras today."
I'm pretty sure it's based on the 1/1500 of image diagonal, which is somewhere around 2MP. 2MP puts about 5 times less pixels across the FOV than 42MP does.
So, at 35mm all you need for a pixel-level sharp image is 1/5 of 1/35s, which is around 1/200s.
"You need 1/35sec, which isn't a problem"1/35sec will only give you a sharp-looking image. It looks sharp at normal viewing distance, but if you zoom in, you'll see the motion blur.Pixel-level sharp image doesn't show motion blur when you zoom in all the way to 100%. It requires a (much) shorter exposure time, or a much sturdier tripod.
Now that I though about it, to get a pixel-sharp 42MP, all you need about 1/200s. So it's not really a huge deal.
"The pixel density on 42 MP FF is same as 18 MP APSC"It's not the pixel density, it's how many pixels you have across the field of view. A 42 MP sensor puts about 1.5 times more pixels across the FOV.
If you need 1/2000s to get a pixel-sharp shot on a 18MP sensor, you'll need 1/3000s on a 42MP sensor (assuming equivalent focal lengths).
There's a difference between "sharp" (as in, looks sharp when you view the image from a normal viewing distance) and "pixel sharp" - when during exposure, the image doesn't move more than 1/2 a pixel.
An image looks sharp if the smear is under 1/1500 of the image diagonal. That's about 2MP, give or take.
For pixel-level sharpness, the more pixels you have, the less smear you can tolerate.
To take pixel-level sharp 42MP image without any kind of stabilization, your exposure time would need to be about five times shorter than what you'd need for a sharp-looking picture, and about two times shorter than what you'd need for a pixel-level sharp 10MP.
Photato: I like the concept of this camera.Utmost quality in a small package.The quality I am sure is there but the small, hmm not so much.I would like to see this concept expanded for a larger market using smaller bodies with crop sensors and accesible prices.
RX1 Mini APS-CRX1 Nano 1"
I think this would be a better value proposition.
"Ricoh GR II $499"You have a point there. But Ricoh GRs have a tiny niche market. If Sony was to barge in, they would've split the market. The less units you sell, the higher your price has to be - and it's not a linear dependency. Halving the number of sales can easily quadruple the unit price.
Yeah, tripod, flash, or broad daylight. And yet, if I said that 5mp was overkill for handheld 100mm without IS, I'd be chased out of here with pitchforks and tar.
I would think hand-holding 42mp at 35mm is about the same as hand-holding 5mp at 100mm, no?
"Please explain how the RX100 line does not meet what you're discussing."RX100-s are zooms.(Though I wouldn't think a fixed-lens prime would be super-successful in a "larger market", so "accessible prices" aren't likely.)
Mike99999: I like it. The pop-up viewer is a great addition. I'm not 100% sure I see the point of a 42 mpix sensor in there. I guess they just want to make Leica look bad there :)
"the point of a 42 mpix sensor in there"Yes, getting 42 mpix from a camera that's primarily designed to be used handheld, is not likely.But having lots of pixels is good in other ways. Your artifacts are smaller, your noise patterns are finer-grained.And of course, it gives you a digital zoom / cropping ability that's actually usable.
Absolutic: I am not clear, is build-in ND filter included - don't see it in the specs, that was one of the problems I had with my RX1, you want to shoot wide open at F2 where the shutter speed is only 1/2000 I believe, and there are problems, most similar cameras like Fuji X100, Sony's own RX100 III and IV all have ND filter. did they do it?
With an F:2.0 lens with a FF image circle, the built-in ND filter would've been quite large, especially when you add a slot to retract it when not in use. The camera has filter thread, right?
limlh: For it to be viable, it has to be put into a smartphone.
The innovative part is the lenses and the board they are mounted on. In order to drive the touchscreen, with the pinch-zoom and whatnot, they pretty much had to use off-the-shelf hardware. Which nowadays either already have the cell radio, or offer it as an option.
So it's probably not a huge stretch for the engineers to add the phone functionality, but I imagine, they'd have to go through a more difficult process to get it approved for sale.
sh10453: Lite deserves credit for the innovation, but I doubt that this camera will appeal to many. Lytro is struggling to sell their camera, and recently it was selling at very heavily discounted price.
I hope a start-up group/company will someday concentrate their effort on a Medium Format camera. I'd think there would be a lot of interest in such camera if they approach the design in a new and innovative idea that keeps the field photographer in mind (as opposed to the studio / tripod photographer), as well as the careful selection of lens mount.If they do it right, and the price is significantly less than that of the big names, that would be a game changer in the Medium Format category.
In that case, I'd be happy to send my $200 deposit.
@peterwr:Pelican Imaging made a big deal about the importance of making sure that each lens and sensor in the array are precisely positioned and aligned. They actually specialize in software that helps to overcome problems in positioning and alignment, and (IIRC) hold patents in this area.
And, judging by the images on their site, Pelican Imaging array is manufactured and marketed as a single unit.
In the video you mentioned, the separate camera modules are just plopped directly on the board individually. This doesn't look like a high-precision operation to me.
Either this is followed by an elaborate alignment procedure, or they don't care about placement precision. Who knows, perhaps Light developed a better software fix for alignment issues than Pelican did.
Or (more likely) I have no idea what I'm talking about ;-)
Marcelobtp: I think this idea has more appeal than what lytro did, but...This seems too big and heavy to be called pocketable.I don't know what kind of math they used to make it but i would prefer a 35 and a 150 only for a smaller lighter and pocketable device.Great Idea indeed but the price requires a perfect product from the start.The images are noisy and overprocessed, not a FF quality image. I liked the dynamic range, i liked the colors. Maybe the second iteration or third, for that price it really had to be perfect.
"the price requires a perfect product from the start".Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "perfect product". For example, FL is a preference. you might want 35 and 150, I prefer 25-50-100mm (with the wide end being more important).
It's way too early to make any kind of judgment on the image quality, but the potential is there.
Multiple sensors can allow it to capture very wide DR - I'd say, challenging FF is not out of the question.
I think this could be an excellent travel camera (if they can get decent battery life).
I wonder if they have plans to make it work as a phone as well. They are bound to be using off-the-shelf hardware for the back side, so most likely, the chips will be there anyway.
futile32: I'm guessing there is no RAW file if its a composite? Might be interested in it otherwise.
From what I know, DNG is just a container. They could just dump RAWs from all 16 sensors into it. Which would mean that even though your software of choice might read DNG, it will still need to be updated before it could do JPEG conversion.
Alternatively, they could record 16 RAWs for each shot.
falconeyes: This is a better video: https://vimeo.com/141273968It shows there are three groups of cameras and some use a mirror to reflect light to horizontally oriented lenses. Appearently, the mirrors are programmed to control the parallax effect.
I am relatively excited about their approach. The result should beat an RX10m2 at about the same price in a smaller form factor. Beat in terms of IQ and AF capabilities. IQ both wrt noise and bokeh. AF both wrt speed and versatility.
And Shiranai, no, an array of small lenses CAN replace a single big one. Its just physics. However, physics dictates limits to this approach which Lytro choose to ignore because their investors don't know about.
"This is a better video: https://vimeo.com/141273968"Excellent find, thank you!
The waterproof "rugged" cameras (like the recently released Olympus TG-4) have been using folded light path for a while, though they use a prism, rather than a mirror.
Folded optics is a brilliant way to miniaturize a camera. Unfortunately, it is often viewed as a source of IQ limitations of those cameras.