edwinvs: If you're interested in Mr. Seruyan's technique you should have a look at these two pictures on his 500px gallery:
Both show exactly the same seed, but with a different background and with the snail clinging to it in a different position. Obviously this is the result of compositing in Photoshop; it has very little to do with macrophotography.
You are 100% correct. He is skillful at digital photo compositing and image manipulation.
Having said that, his photo art are at times magnificent.
The Photo Ninja: If I buy a lens, it better work without me having to buy a dock to fix it.
Yeah good luck with that one. There are a lot of variances from copy to copy and the fact that Sigma provides a way to tweak the performance and parameters of the lens is a BIG PLUS.
BruceBorowski: No one is closed minded to new techniques just apples propaganda.............
I would not put anything beneath an apple that has fallen off its tree!
M Jesper: Is this prototype meant to be reality any time soon ? Because if it does i must remember to win the lottery asap.
I saw 4K displays on sale for approx $22,000 USD (for a 65" LG model, on a recent trip to Seoul). Let's say that is 20 times more expensive than a 1080p display...then you REALLY have to win the lottery (or be filthy rich) to afford a $440,000 USD 8K display!
stanginit: Really nice. Shot really works. Would like to know what she is doing with her hands. ;)
She is holding a handgun and it's about to be pointed at YOU! lol
ZAnton: As usual insane pricing: Price of the 18-55 STM > Canon 18-55 IS mkII + Mount adapter.
Remember that the fit, finish, and quality of the materials play into the pricing, and from the looks of it, the STM has a metal mount and far better fit/finish.
They are going about it the wrong way. I would prefer they take a simpler approach: gouge out a human eyeball (or perhaps an "eagle eye"), wire it up digitally, done...they can call it the DARPA's ALIVE-2 camera...maybe in a few years...just have to figure out how to keep the organic parts metabolizing...and the whole system would only require 5mW of power instead of 430W. I would donate an eyeball or two but mine have been experimented on long time ago.
Zafar Kazmi: Sorry to say, but these images are not impressive at all.
...and you are missing the point of this article. It's not to show off impressive images. The images are there to distinctly illustrate the effects of on vs off axis lighting, single source.
Sounds exciting....but sadly it also sounds very expensive...
Tape5: People please stop having kids...And if you do, please don't give them so much pocket money.
Don't buy them so many phones and ipads with the hope that they will not reject you when they grow up.
Soon all we are going to be left with is big business chasing each other down the idiot trail for the last penny middle class parents have shoved into their kids' pockets.
Please. Take your mindless blathering somewhere else, thank you.
Compared to the RAW version, this JPEG version really struggles to retain details! Especially true in the shadows of the distant trees, and the tree bark of the foreground trees
Wow...the JPG loss of fine detail is frighteningly stark compared to the RAW conversions (see the forest/tree scenes). This is a strictly RAW only camera...at least coupled with the 24-105.
Likely a limitation in the EXIF due to byte space constraints. (8 bits)
Deeso: To sum up: These are two great cameras but people also need a true sucesor for the D700. Affordable, moderate resolution, standard DSLR body and high speed.
Shame on you for thinking MP is the only differential between the two cameras.
mdava: Surely 10,000 units is not a *limited* edition in any meaningful sense of the word.
How many X100s have been sold in total so far?
Likely the vast majority of buyers seriously contemplating this camera would have already bought one, or will be holding out for the X-Pro1.
Meaning 10,000 units of a "limited" edition may turn out to be 10,000 units too many!
whtchocla7e: With all due respect to Dr. Fossum, I tend to ignore his insightful remarks about any new technologies that he is not personally involved with.
All eyes on Fuji and I hope they change the game.
My thoughts exactly.
He's probably a bright fellow, but I found his commentary to be dry and uninsightful, laced with obvious bias.
In your AF tracking example, I see you comment on the contribution from the very large DOF...I venture to say that most of the so-called performance can be attributed to the large DOF! Nice try, Nikon.
Najinsky: Just playing with the numbers, the images, and the above soundbites, I'm guessing each ray is getting split to 9 detectors (11 megarays giving 1080 HD could suggest 10 but given the square format I go with 9). This perhaps gives 9 fields of focus, and when you play with the images, you certainly get the feeling of switching between different focus zones rather than smooth refocussing. I guess more zones are possible through interpolation and I suspect that's what the 3D software they are working on is trying to do.
In this current incarnation, the appeal is the playing with the images to reveal hidden subject interactions. It's a high tech toy. At least for now.
Aside from where it might go in the far future, I think this has a lot more potential for video. Both in terms of current resolution and limited IQ (far objects have such small resolution, focus is almost irrelevant) but the ability to pan focus from subject to subject (after shooting) would definitely appeal to film makers.
If you read carefully, implied is a "continuous" ability to move the plane of focus, and when you upload your lightfield image, you are uploading a subset of the data, which implies that you will send information at discrete planes of focus, which is probably why when you play with the available demo images via their flash tool, you only get certain "zones" of focus.