Reading mode: Light Dark

Never worry about focus again - courtesy of Adobe :)

Go to last post
B

bunyarra

Leading Member
Messages
915
Reaction score
131
Location
Bristol, UK
very interesting, but it that practical in today's 18m pixel camera? there got to be technical difficulties otherwise it should be adopted by canon/nikon and the likes
 
Sounds like a cool idea. But projecting lots of same scenes onto one pixel crowded sensor will get you P&S quality no? :-)

I would rather have smart digital zoom with 10MP constant output. Offering better high ISO through pixelbinding when not using zoom. :-)

How about the idea of taking multiple pics say 20 in say 50fps all at different apertures, but watching for correct exposure.
Outputting that composite in some kind of new RAW format...

Not the same idea bu similar. :-)

--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
 
 
Now I can get rid of that "bokeh" :-)
  • C
 
RomanB said:
Sounds pretty challenging technically imho :) at least if decent resolution is desired.
Click to expand...
Half the technology in my new SLR was "technically challenging" 10 years ago or 5 years ago...
...in the world of technology, it's always just a matter of time.
 
bunyarra said:
Mentioned on and off for years but ...

http://gizmodo.com/5645991/enhance-how-adobe-will-let-you-take-perfectly-focused-images-every-time

"Plenoptic is a stunning new lenses technology. When you use it, you don't need to care about having your subject in focus. You would be able to perfectly focus on any subject in your photography after you take the photo."
Click to expand...
There is no free lunch and the technique will result in loss of resolution and lowering of IQ that would not be acceptable for DSLR photography.

However , for surveillance cameras in low light situations where aperture and DOF have to be traded off against each other, it could be useful since a surveillance camera really doesn't know where to focus. Also for lower-level consumer P&S cameras where the sensors have 12MP and the images are most likely viewed at something under 4MP, this technique could be a better use for all those pixels instead of throwing away information with jpeg resampling.
 
auto focus
auto exposure
super zooms
face recognition
25,000 EI

Now all we need is a camera that decides where to point itself and
we can do away with the real problem...photographers.
 
Zamac said:
There is no free lunch and the technique will result in loss of resolution and lowering of IQ that would not be acceptable for DSLR photography.
However , for surveillance cameras
Click to expand...
My current DSLR produces 18 megapixels of resolution that I don't always need, in most cases its biggest advantage is for cropping. I could see the focus technology being implemented as a tradeoff you get to decide, much like automatic ISO is today.

For example, let's say I have a shot where the focus point was not quite where it needed to be; I need it another two inches back. For that particular shot, knowing the resolution requirements of the job, maybe it would be totally worth it to trade off the percentage of resolution required to get that focus point shifted to where it needs to be. In a camera with even more megapixels, which is totally plausible in the future not to mention for certain sensors right now, it will be easier to trade off resolution for focus flexibility and still produce a great, sharp full page image.
 
graybalanced said:
For example, let's say I have a shot where the focus point was not quite where it needed to be; I need it another two inches back. For that particular shot, knowing the resolution requirements of the job, maybe it would be totally worth it to trade off the percentage of resolution required to get that focus point shifted to where it needs to be.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that you would be shooting the same way, only with a different processing feature.

"First, the lens' optics atomize the picture in thousands of tiny versions of the scene, all different from each other, at different angles and positions".

That means it requires a very special lens. Is this the lens you're going to get for everyday shooting? As one of the posters said, "there is no free lunch", think of compromises this lens will present.

--
Roman
http://www.barshay.org/photo
http://public.fotki.com/rbarshay
 
RomanB said:
You're assuming that you would be shooting the same way, only with a different processing feature.

"First, the lens' optics atomize the picture in thousands of tiny versions of the scene, all different from each other, at different angles and positions".

That means it requires a very special lens. Is this the lens you're going to get for everyday shooting? As one of the posters said, "there is no free lunch", think of compromises this lens will present.
Click to expand...
If you read the Stanford Tech Report (see the link in my earlier post in this thread) you will see that such a camera would be use ordinary lenses. The only modification needed to the camera is the addition of the microlens array over the sensor. Of course special software is neeed for processing the images too.

---
http://www.flickr.com/photos/steveb/
 
SteveBee said:
RomanB said:
That means it requires a very special lens. Is this the lens you're going to get for everyday shooting?
Click to expand...
If you read the Stanford Tech Report (see the link in my earlier post in this thread) you will see that such a camera would be use ordinary lenses. The only modification needed to the camera is the addition of the microlens array over the sensor. Of course special software is neeed for processing the images too.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I know it isn't trivial, but on the other hand, I see this as just another piece of hardware will eventually be added to the camera. The camera I bought five years ago did not include Live View circuitry and HD video capture, a second CPU, a wireless flash controller, a vibration-based dust removal system on the sensor, etc. but they are all on the camera I bought last year. Five years from now, why wouldn't a "flexible focus array" be part of a midrange/high-end SLR?
 
Great in 50 years we won't have to worry about exposure, focus, composition because we can sit at our pc and do it all there.

Yawn..

How boring photography will become with no skill involved!
I appreciate the good shots more because I've seen my bad shots.. ;-)
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Great in 50 years we won't have to worry about exposure, focus, composition because we can sit at our pc and do it all there.
Yawn..
How boring photography will become with no skill involved!
I appreciate the good shots more because I've seen my bad shots.. ;-)
Click to expand...
I can't think of a more inaccurate statement. It seems to reduce photography to a technical exercise. That's not the kind of photography I'm interested in.

If you build a camera that can produce technically perfect pictures, then all you have done is set a new baseline for excellence. No longer can a photographer stand out just because they managed to make a picture where others could not. Now, in order to be recognized as a photographer, you must create pictures with meaningful content, with emotional heft, with creative passion, because those are the functions a camera can't perform but where humanity comes out. I see nothing at all wrong with this.

It's like saying students should not use calculators in higher math classes. Letting them use calculators frees up their brains to solve higher order problems. A technically perfect camera would do the same, it would allow great ideas to be expressed by those who would be held back by lack of esoteric high-priest knowledge, while it would also not confer false superiority to those with technical skills and mediocre ideas because the camera would be the equalizer there, exposing the idea-less technicians for what they are.

The only camera I would feel threatened by is one that can also make aesthetic, emotional, or photojournalistic decisions. Until that happens, anyone who feels threatened by the ease of mere technical perfection, whether conscious of it or not, isn't really pursuing the kind of photography that moves a human being.
 
graybalanced wrote:

it would allow great ideas to be expressed by those who would be held back by lack of esoteric high-priest knowledge, while it would also not confer false superiority to those with technical skills and mediocre ideas because the camera would be the equalizer there, exposing the idea-less technicians for what they are.

Sort of like the gun that won the west?
A great equalizer.
It would only be a matter of deciding where to point it.

Knowing how something works and how to operate it are part and parcel
of the creative process.
I suggest you go back to finger painting -- at least that way there's no
distance between your mind and your medium.
 
I see you're oversimplifying it too.

It doesn't matter if they build a camera that can take perfect exposures. It still matters which photographer chooses the most appropriate f-stop and shutter speed using that camera for the subject matter and intent.

If we must accept your oversimplification we must take your example to the other extreme: You should put down your digital SLR and go back to mixing your own chemicals and building your own cameras and lenses like they did in the beginning. After all, using anything more modern would be handing your photography over to The Machine. Like they used to say in the old days, "You make your art by pressing a button? That's not art."

I thought we were past all that. Technology is part of photography but it's foolish to think that technology is capable of becoming photography...unless you're the one letting it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top