Why are sensors flat?

There definitely will be NO DOUBT that RAW will be the format king. If you watch the video from the whitepaper on the Stanford site, they are able to correct for mis-focusing AFTER the shot has been taken.

They've also shown that they can MOVE the aperture "pinhole" laterally to offer some change in perspective. They can also move it forwards and backwards changing from an orthographic to a wide angle image...essentially, changing the field of view. Don't mistake this with simple cropping of a wide angle photo, it's not the same. You can see the difference in the demo video.

Seriously, watch the video...YOU WILL BE AMAZED.

I hope someday soon, we'll see this technology in DSLR's. I'm willing to be that a few years after that, we may even see it migrate to prosumer p&s cameras, and then your standard p&s cameras...and then we may see the end of JPG?

This will also completely change the way people view images and software developers will have to find ways to store different versions of the same image within that image. For example, say I shoot an image and send it to my in-laws, they like it but would rather pick a different point of focus/perspective/field of view and they email it to someone else. Since I was the original photographer, is it too much to ask that my original "vision" of the photo be retained somehow and carried out throughout the countless permutations it may go thru as it's being shared?

Those guys at Stanford have no idea the kind of impact their research is going to have on not only photography but THE WAY PEOPLE VIEW their images.

This is really exciting to say the least. I hope Canon or Nikon sees the potential in this and funds their research to expedite it to market.

EricDP said:

Funkmasterta said:

As of now, RAW lets us adjust WB and Exposure after the shot is
taken, but now imagine being able to adjust the...Depth of Field!

Click to expand...

Maybe it will finally put the "RAW vs. JPEG" issue to rest: there
will be even more tangible things that you can do only in RAW.

Click to expand...

EOSLenny said:

I think it will not be too long thill the adaptive optics will come
to photography.

Click to expand...

It's not too hard to imagine a mosaic of tiny sensors mounted on a MEMs-based cantilever, like are used in DLP projectors.

-Paul

Lenses and eye cristalyne works different.

The eye convexity is being done by the iris by pressing the crystalline and changing its curvature. This is something right now cannot be made on solid materials so lense cannot curve themselves.

Based on that. They need to focus on a plane and move that plane forwards (closeups) backwards (infinite) to focus a subject. Given that restriction, Sensors need to be plane.

Even if feasable (imagine in a near future 2020), the eyes focuses only at ONE POINT!!!! not ONE PLANE!!! can you imagine an image where only one point is in focus while all the rest of the picture is out of focus?

If you dont believe this, make the following test. Put a paper in front of you with very big letters you can read perfectly. Read initially the letters in the middle. Without moving your eyes (this is hard to achieve) try to read the rest of the paper. It's impossible!!!

So I guess differences are what they are for some a reason.

Sensors market needs to change but through the way to get rid fo the Bayer filter and building them in 3 RGB layered to take advantage of 20+ Mpix.

Regards.
--

Para hacer buenas fotos sólo son necesarias dos cosas: un CAMARÓN y TALENTO. Y para que no haya ninguna duda:

CAMARÓN: aparato enorme que saca fotos.
TALENTO: no tan rápido.

Paul A Jacobi said:

EOSLenny said:

I think it will not be too long thill the adaptive optics will come
to photography.

Click to expand...

It's not too hard to imagine a mosaic of tiny sensors mounted on a
MEMs-based cantilever, like are used in DLP projectors.

Click to expand...

Nothing is too hard to imagine... its a long way from being practical to make.

Those DLP pixels aren't on cantilevers though, they just tilt, and they work because there is no electric current flowing through the mirror. Calculate the voltage you need to generate enough static attraction to tilt the mirror that is only 10 microns or so above the substrate and you will get an idea of the problem.

As I understand it, the situation with lightfield cameras of this type is that the adjustability of focus, DOF, etc comes at the cost of resolution.

The more adjustability you want, the more pixels have to be covered by the image from each microlens. In the tested camera, they used a 16MP digital back coupled with a lens array containing a mere 90,000 elements so they were able to do far more adjustment to the raw images. If you wanted output images that were anything like good enough for printing, you would need a super high res microlens array and consequently far less ability to adjust in post.

Clever though it is, there doesn't seem to be any free lunch with this technology.

Maybe I am wrong, but I really don't see any problems with the photographic images produced on flat sensors or flat films.

-Andre

Edward in Chicago said:

I posted this over in Leica talk but this one can be a bit more lively.

I'm not an engineer or optics designer but I've always wondered why
sensors are flat? Film I get, but if the sensor has a slight concave
structure as the eye has and as the lens itself delivers the light to
the sensor, then couldn't post processing render the picture flat?
After all that's what the brain does with a curved image. This would
perhaps solve the microlens issue (Leica) and allow for a larger
sensor with a bigger sweet spot and more resolution/less noise. Put
paid to vignetting too. (I'm also confused by what a shutter is for
exactly - another day).

Click to expand...

1) The image projected by all lenses is (almost) flat, not curved. So, your suggestion means new lenses all over.

2) Manufacturing a curved sensor? Are you mad??? S Would require entirely new technology.

3) Vignetting is caused by the lens, not the sensor. Or perhaps more correctly, with only a very minor contribution from the sensor. Several tests between film and the 5D sensor shows no meaningful differences in vignetting. People just tend to forget the film vignetting... So your curved surface sensor wouldn't change a thing. Leica's problem is the fact that there is no mirror, and some of the lenses utilizes this by sitting very close to the sensor, resulting in large angles of attack. Not with SLR's, the mirror prevents that. And a slightly curved sensor surface wouldn't change that fact much. It would have to be strongly curved to really matter.

4) The shutter could be dispensed with, in fact some of the highest shutter times on some SLR's are handled electronically.

Edward in Chicago said:

Maybe I'm a bit nuts but the whole design of digital cameras seems to
be a bit like motorized horse carriages. Maybe a radical new design
paradigm is needed?

Opinions welcome.

Click to expand...

Dispense with the mirror + optical viewfinder. Wideangle lenses can then be optically much better (a là rangefinder), and the sensor becomes the viewfinder - the latter is already happening with Live-View modes in the lastest models. Some problems with this approach:

1) New lenses, but old ones can still be used with an extender ring (no optics) put between camera body and lens.

2) The sensor vignetting problem a là Leica. Better micro lenses, or more shallow pixel well design, could take care of that.

3) If an eyepiece finder like the current SLR ones is deemed necessary it must be made using an electronic finder - but with the development of high resolution displays that shouldn't be a problem in a few years - with resolution matching what the eye can discern.

4) No current manufacturer would dare making such a system change...

Advantages:

1) Much better wide angles.

2) Lighter camera.

3) No mirror vibrations.

4) Much less mechanical parts. In fact close to none.

--

• Jan

There have been some lab stuff where they built things atom by atom, eventually we will get to the point where this is common enough they can do it for larger and more complex items. This technology will eventually lend itself to all sorts of things that are impractical today, but it is still in the early lab stages, so give it 20 to 50 years from now.

Until then companies will choose the most economical method of producing what the customers will buy and flat sensors are cheaper then curved ones.
--
Save the Model, Save the Camera, The photographer can be repaired.

Jan Madsen said:

Dispense with the mirror + optical viewfinder. Wideangle lenses can
then be optically much better (a là rangefinder), and the sensor
becomes the viewfinder - the latter is already happening with
Live-View modes in the lastest models. Some problems with this
approach:

1) New lenses, but old ones can still be used with an extender ring
(no optics) put between camera body and lens.

2) The sensor vignetting problem a là Leica. Better micro lenses, or
more shallow pixel well design, could take care of that.

3) If an eyepiece finder like the current SLR ones is deemed
necessary it must be made using an electronic finder - but with the
development of high resolution displays that shouldn't be a problem
in a few years - with resolution matching what the eye can discern.

4) No current manufacturer would dare making such a system change...

Advantages:

1) Much better wide angles.

2) Lighter camera.

3) No mirror vibrations.

4) Much less mechanical parts. In fact close to none.

--

• Jan

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I'd be first in line for a new, affordable, discreet, rangefinder-esque camera system. Not holding my breath, though.

--
http://www.pbase.com/thejaybird