Joseph S Wisniewski

Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.

Comments

Total: 603, showing: 341 – 360
« First‹ Previous1617181920Next ›Last »

Third Android phone announcement. But unlike the polaroid SC1630 or Agio A8, this one is probably going to make it. I knew there was a reason I downloaded that Android SDK. This is going to be fun.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 05:31 UTC as 96th comment
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: This is probably a big deal to the 5 people who actually bought a Lytro.

@AC, More than 5 people bought them. I looked the other day, and 10 people were trying to unload "like new" Lytros on ebay. So, I would hope that they sold at least 11, and there's at least 1 person, somewhere, who likes theirs and is keeping it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 13:51 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

"Single-lens 3D could be created by automatically taking two exposures; the first recording data for one eye, and then the lenses reorganize to capture data for the 'second' eye."

You're failing to grasp a fundamental concept. You need to take those two exposures from locations fairly far from each other. For convincing 3D of things 6-10 feet away, that distance is approximately human eye spacing, around 60mm. The standard rule in 3D work is 30:1, you want to shoot 3D of action 20 feet away, you set the lenses up with a 200mm separation.

Lytro can already do as much ray selection as is possible behind its tiny lens. Problem is, with a 22mm lens, you've got the ability to create your "pair of eyes" 15mm apart, which is a fraction of what is needed for general photography. That's why the examples are shot so close.

There is good reason why humans do our 3D with two small eyes, instead of one giant eye the size of our faces.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 13:47 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

"You continue to make the biggest, and worst assumption of all: that what is is what will be."

You continue to stuff words in my mouth, and it is most unpalatable. I commented on what is possible, given the physics of this particular universe.

"I'll I'm saying is that the technology technically exists"

You are incorrect. Your analogy with cloud-gel windows is false, because lenses do not scatter light, they redirect it. Your knowledge of history is incorrect: flat screens were quite common ten years ago in civilian use (they were more common back then, than your own smart windows example is today).

"you lack the ability to dream big. You lack creativity, Joseph-San."

Oh, jean-chan, you really have no idea who you're talking to. I have dreamed bigger than you ever will, and will continue to do so. You're without dreams of your own. You read a bit of highly skewed marketing literature, full of contrived demos, and think that breathing that second hand smoke is dreaming.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 13:33 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

"I could come up with a long list of famous inventions for which there was no need, but sold like crazy. Flat-panel TVs..."

Flat panel TVs are an excellent example of an invention for which there is a massive need (space saving, weight saving, power saving, decreased cost, increased size, higher resolution, reduced radiation) so that pretty much defeats your argument. Are you aware of the decades of research that went on at places like Sarnoff or SRI to bring the microtip emitter plasma display to fruition? The billions pumped into LCDs by Sharp, NEC, or Samsung?

"But you'r assuming not only that this technology will never improve,"

No. I'm stating that it will not improve to the point where, as guif asserts "tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic". Rather than stuff words in my mouth with your version of what I'm "assuming", why don't you read what I wrote?

You can't turn off microlenses (now, that's a massive assumption) so this will never be a general purpose camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 12:59 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

jeangenie, poor little greenie, I've made no "massive assumptions". I've drawn from Ng's own published papers and my own knowledge of computational optics and volumetric algorithms.

"what if the second or third generations of these sensors could create single-lens 3D video?"

Now, that's a massive assumption. There is something in single perspective point 3D image processing called the occlusion problem, which means that you do not have the information needed to fill in what is occluded by foreground objects in one eye's view, but is not occluded in the other eye's view. Single point 3D looks contrived. You'll notice that most of the 3D examples you see presented by plenoptic researchers are at macro distances. At such distances, you can select rays to create a small stereobase multiple point view, but that base is limited to 1/2 the aperture diameter.

In short, the Lytro can make great 3D images, of stuff about 18 inches away.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 12:57 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Why a tripod? Long exposure night shot?

Like dpReview said when they reviewed it: "Explorable output tends to require contrived compositions."

Tripods are a natural part of a highly contrived style of photography.

They also pointed out its high ISO weakness, another reason you'd want a tripod.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 15:36 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

I find it interesting that you went from saying "There is nothing inherently bad in his invention" to somehow counting it among "great inventions".

I'd define a "great invention" as one that provides a "great benefit". Ng's invention appears to be, at best, a novelty. I see no greatness in that. Yes, it has some great physics and great math, but all that greatness was directed towards a mediocre concept.

Oh, and as a physicist, you should understand the difference between "available technology" and physical limits. There will never be enough sensor resolution to make good on gulf's claim that "all cameras will be plenoptic". To say otherwise is to make what you called "dishonesting comments".

Now, if you believe that someone here, aside from gulf, and possibly yourself, has said something dishonest, then do what an ethical scientist is prepared to do, and provide a counter-argument.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 15:23 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

Now, I use my DSLR with lenses from f1.2 to f32. Remember, you said "tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic". That's 9.5 stops or 710:1 decimation. Double that, like Ng's thesis says we have to, and you've got about 1400:1. To get a 6mp final output, which was what I had back in 2001, you need 6mp * 1400 squared...

That's a 12 terapixel sensor!

It also is an 8 nanometer pixel, 1/500 the wavelength of visible light. The practical limit for a pixel is 700nm, if it's going to be able to capture visible red light. That's 1.7 gigapixels. Which is only 17:1 decimation for a 6mp final image, or 8:1 usable range, according to Ng.

f1.4-f11 if the microlenses are built for that pitch, which means I lose at both the deep end and the shallow end, and give up 2 stops of low light ability (the math is real noisy), and deal with 3.4 gigabyte raw files, all for a dancing bear.

Microcameras like cell phones have the opposite problem. No optical resolution to decimate.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 14:05 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

Now, ignoring that business reality, there's also a little technology issue keeping "all" or even "most" cameras from being plenoptic. It only actually works on a small, select subset of cameras. Plenoptic cameras work by decimation, they decimate a lens's wide-open DOF aperture by a certain factor, allowing various combinations of focus ranges and DOFs within the decimated DOF to be selected.

If you have an f1.4 lens and an f1.4 to f11 (8:1) decimating microlens array, you can, theoretically, select the entire f11 DOF at the focus distance (it's not "focus free") or you can select any subset: like f1.4 DOF near the front of the f11 DOF, or f8 DOF in the middle of the f11 DOF.

In practice, you miss the theoretic limit by over a stop. Ren Ng's first camera had an f4 lens and f4 to f52 decimating (13:1) microlenses, but it couldn't deliver f52 DOF, only f22, a 5.5:1, or 5 stop range.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 13:46 UTC
On article Lytro Light Field Camera now works with Windows (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guif: Sad sarcastic comments, tomorrow all cameras will be plenoptic ... Just as all cameras are now digital, back in the times the same stupid pepple were saying "that is not a camera yada ... Yada ... " and the same crowd cries after the performances of the new canikon toy ..

And you made a sad, sarcastic (and poorly punctuated) response. Digital cameras, from the crude, low resolution, $40,000 monstrosities of 1990 to the DSLRs, P&Ss, and phones of today, filled a need for immediately available, transmittable, and editable results.

Plenoptic cameras don't fill any current or anticipated need. They are what technology forecasters call a "dancing bear". For a few minutes, you look and say "wow, a bear is dancing". Then, the novelty wears off and you say "why do we need a dancing bear?"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2012 at 13:35 UTC

Well, at least we know that the dpReview comment counter goes up to four digits.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2012 at 12:50 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

herebefore: Just another new camera with no VF of any kind.

Designed for those that can see an LCD screen close to the face in the bright sun.

In other words, a camera designed for the clueless, and near clueless.

So, you ordered one in each color?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2012 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

Pentax_Prime: Anyone notice that this is the only site that 'updates' you on 'Lytro'? (A company that has never actually released a product - nor made any sort of actual business sense.) Is this company Amazon owned or what?

Oh, if only it were so.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2012 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

Oahu Kamaaina: Here's an interesting link about the Dycam Model 1 digital camera released in 1990. It had 320x 240 resolution, held 32 pictures, fixed focus lens, and cost $995. [That's 1990 dollars]

http://www.cameracuriosities.com/2012_02_01_archive.html

I'm sure there were lots of comments by film photographers putting down the new technology then, similar to the comments in this blog. The Lytro camera may well fail, it's largely a proof of concept, but I'm surprised that the photographers who don't buy one aren't at least cheering their innovation rather than dissing their attempt to improve the technology.

17 megs is a small amount of data. Most P&S with raw capability produce more.

And again, the Lytro 3D demonstrations are highly contrived, as you'd see, if you cared to search. Single lens 3D techniques do not solve the occlusion problem, as you'd also see, if you cared to search.

No one has demonstrated "all in focus images", and yes, I've searched more than you have, or ever will, because facts would spoil your enjoyment of your cult.

"I joined this discussion thinking I could learn and share information with other Lytro owners"

Now, you know that's not true. All your posts have been defensive, and, as I correctly assessed, deceptive.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2012 at 13:11 UTC

Pretty cool, considering that it's 30g lighter and 1mm shorter than the f3.5 that it's replacing.

But this was already announced back in February, with an expected shipping date in June.

http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm

So, is this another announcement of the lens, or an admission that they blew June?

Then again, the 75mm f1.8 SL II was announced way back in February of 2011 (seriously) and is still not shipping...

Don't get me wrong: I love my Voigtlanders, the 40mm on FF, the 58mm on APS are two of my favorites, but they don't have the best track record for shipping what they announce.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 13:15 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

chris_j_l: And with this, Sigma signals that they have abandoned K mount for macro lenses.

Or that they have abandoned K mount for all new lenses. The big question is, are they still producing the existing K mount lenses, or when the supplies in the warehouse are gone, is Sigma out of the K mount business?

Tamron appears to have pulled out. Cosina (Zeiss and Voigtlander) has pulled out. That would leave Pentax the only camera brand with no third-party lens support.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

NancyP: Joseph Wisniewski: "Breathing" - that is a new term to me. Could you explain what you mean? Optical diagrams I get, but you can't readily show these in comments.

This can be a small amount, an overcompensated lens may breathe 1/2 as much as a unit focusing lens, and you only really notice the breathing because it's "wrong way" breathing, out as you focus in, in as you focus out. Or it can even be more than a unit focusing lens. That's why the Nikon 70-200mm VR2 gets a lot of comments from people shooting video, because it has a lot of that "wrong way" breathing that's so easy to notice. More than a "conventional" lens, and wrong way, to boot.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

NancyP: Joseph Wisniewski: "Breathing" - that is a new term to me. Could you explain what you mean? Optical diagrams I get, but you can't readily show these in comments.

To sum it all up. A unit focus lens is one "extreme". It breathes in, the angle of focus decreases, looking like it's "zooming in" as you "focus in" on closer objects. It's "not compensated" for breathing.

A "perfectly compensated" lens changes focal length exactly as much as would be required to focus, there's no movement of the lens's "rear nodal point" and you get no breathing, at all. Zeiss "master primes", at $15,000 each, are examples of perfectly compensated lenses.

An under-compensated lens changes focal length, but not enough to achieve focus, so it has to move a little, and the end result is it still breathes in as you focus in, but not as much as a unit focusing lens. The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is such a lens, Nikon eliminated about 70% of its breathing.

An overcompensated lens changes focal length more than it should to achieve focus, so there has to be "wrong way" motion to take up the slack. The breathing is more "noticeable" because they breathe out when you focus in.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

NancyP: Joseph Wisniewski: "Breathing" - that is a new term to me. Could you explain what you mean? Optical diagrams I get, but you can't readily show these in comments.

Note that I said "if it were perfect". In reality, it both zooms and moves as it focuses. So, it might use zooming to account for 5 of the 7.7mm that it needs to focus from infinity to 1m, and use movements of some elements near tie aperture to pick up the other 2.7mm. The result, the angle changes, but only 1/3 as much as it would if you used an old-fashioned unit-focus design.

So, the 85mm f1.4 Nikkor is "better" for video than the 85mm f1.4 Cosina Zeiss Planar. The Nikkor is not free of breathing, but it breathes about 1/3 as much as the Zeiss.

Some lenses overzoom. The Nikon 70-200mm VR II is an example. It actually changes focal length from 85mm to about 59mm when it goes from infinity to 1.4m. That's 25.5mm outward, when it only needs 5.5mm. So it "overzooms" about 20mm, and ends up breathing worse than a unit focusing lens that would only have moved 5.5mm.

The older version 1 zoomed much less, and has much less breathing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 20:06 UTC
Total: 603, showing: 341 – 360
« First‹ Previous1617181920Next ›Last »