The Next Point & Shoot - or when Cameras and Phones Collide?

This was an interesting video.



Ricoh has made some interesting cameras. Including this one with phase detect autofocus. Except the phase detect wasn't on the photo sensor - it was a separate module that did phase detect.


Ricoh GRD IV

One of the important things for computational photography (aka "faking the shallow depth of field blur") is actually knowing how far things are away from you, which requires (almost) as many pixels for for depth as for photos.

Cell phones do it with multiple front and back cameras.

Cell phone sensors are getting cheaper and more ubiquitous - see all the Kickstarter cameras out there.

How long until someone makes a serious camera with at least a 1" sensor and a secondary sensor just to have the parallax (and maybe IR/UV sensitivity required to do decent skin smoothing) required to do decent computational photography?

--
"Never argue with someone" - the most unpopular opinion in photography.

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

saltydogstudios said:

...

One of the important things for computational photography (aka "faking the shallow depth of field blur") is actually knowing how far things are away from you, which requires (almost) as many pixels for for depth as for photos.

Cell phones do it with multiple front and back cameras.

Click to expand...

Some Cell phones have a time-of-flight sensor to get the depth information needed for the fake depth of field blur.

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

BTW, my phone is plugged into the wall...so that comment wasn't about me.

FrancoD said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

BTW, my phone is plugged into the wall...so that comment wasn't about me.

Click to expand...

Admittedly this was a bit of a half baked post, but there are other uses. An IR secondary camera could help with subject detection, skin smoothing and autofocus in low light. The parallax too could help with autofocus.

A depth map could help with post processing - ever try to select stray strands of hair in photoshop?

It’s a totally impractical idea but there are some marginal benefits that very few people would care about.

It’s sort of like that multi lens/sensor camera that came out and failed several years ago - in theory it could have had most of these benefits.

FrancoD said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

Click to expand...

Phones often have a limited focal length range - mine does. I prefer small sensor compacts myself. It could be interesting to have good fake background blur capability built into one with a longer telephoto range. That product segment seems to be enjoying a resurgence among the masses, too, so there might be 'many' others who would find it useful.

Sony included fake background blur in some older long zoom pocket cameras. But it's poor at correctly isolating subjects with fine detail, and has been dropped in most of the more recent models. Here's an example at about 110mm equivalent with lens wide open:


Normal shot


Background Defocus feature

As an aside, below is a version using software AI depth masking to selectively apply blur to the original photo without needing distance info:


Software blur

It's more realistic, I think, with a gradual falloff of sharpness. It would be nice if such a feature could be refined and put in long zoom pocket cameras.

time-of-flight sensor. What is that?

I've watched the video twice and I'm still puzzled as to the title and content difference. I just see a short history on smartphone photography. What am I supposed to take away from this? That his old smartphone is "better" than his new one?

What does it have to do with fake background blurring mentioned in the above post? My 12 year old WX50 did a pretty good job of it in-camera. Maybe not for big prints but for online.

Oh well.....

tbcass said:

time-of-flight sensor. What is that?

Click to expand...

It is like an optical radar. It sends light pulses and measure the time until the reflection arrives at the sensor.

jiberlin said:

tbcass said:

time-of-flight sensor. What is that?

Click to expand...

It is like an optical radar. It sends light pulses and measure the time until the reflection arrives at the sensor.

Click to expand...

Like a hand held distance measurer. They are limited in range and the pulse is quite narrowly focused so it seems their accuracy for DOF might be questionable.

The title of the video sort of seems like click bait to me. Then the content doesn’t seem to win the argument of the title, either. My more modern iPhone PRO Raw output is less crunchy, less saturated and contrasty than that from my earlier iPhone iterations, and actually looks more like results from my previous raw workflow from dedicated cameras. It isn’t “terrible” at all. I think increasing numbers of sensible people who are also credible photographers will employ phone cameras in genuinely creative ways of making images over time. I’m not taking the bait of this video, thank you very kindly.

I look at developments such as this selfishly; what will it do for the print I make and put on the wall.

The corollary to that is what such developments might then cost me to realize the benefit(s).

To me the answer to both is nothing and nothing.

My sole photographic interest is scenery. I am after maximum DOF. I am in agreement with ishwanu on his preference for small sensor cameras (although I do have other formats).

There is no collision here. There is so little and so sporadic cell coverage here that our only cell phone is an antique folder for use on the raod when we are out of the mountains. If there is to be a photo, it will be from a stand-alone camera.

I think this development is, at most, destined to be a very niche product.

Howard V said:

The title of the video sort of seems like click bait to me. Then the content doesn’t seem to win the argument of the title, either. My more modern iPhone PRO Raw output is less crunchy, less saturated and contrasty than that from my earlier iPhone iterations, and actually looks more like results from my previous raw workflow from dedicated cameras. It isn’t “terrible” at all. I think increasing numbers of sensible people who are also credible photographers will employ phone cameras in genuinely creative ways of making images over time. I’m not taking the bait of this video, thank you very kindly.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting phenomenon. The old are finally starting to embrace phone cameras as the young are increasingly embracing dedicated cameras.

I started with phone cameras and couple of years ago transitioned to an actual camera. Zero regrets. It's a more engaging and fulfilling experience for me. Plus I find camera tech interesting and the different characteristics of lenses.

StrugglingforLight said:

Howard V said:

The title of the video sort of seems like click bait to me. Then the content doesn’t seem to win the argument of the title, either. My more modern iPhone PRO Raw output is less crunchy, less saturated and contrasty than that from my earlier iPhone iterations, and actually looks more like results from my previous raw workflow from dedicated cameras. It isn’t “terrible” at all. I think increasing numbers of sensible people who are also credible photographers will employ phone cameras in genuinely creative ways of making images over time. I’m not taking the bait of this video, thank you very kindly.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting phenomenon. The old are finally starting to embrace phone cameras as the young are increasingly embracing dedicated cameras.

I started with phone cameras and couple of years ago transitioned to an actual camera. Zero regrets. It's a more engaging and fulfilling experience for me. Plus I find camera tech interesting and the different characteristics of lenses.

Click to expand...

I really do understand what you're saying. I used dedicated cameras starting with 35mm film SLRs, in the sixties. Probably my digital camera apex was a Fuji X-T4 kit with four lenses. But all of that lugging around of gear in a bag just doesn't work for me, anymore (going on 77).

Howard V said:

StrugglingforLight said:

Howard V said:

The title of the video sort of seems like click bait to me. Then the content doesn’t seem to win the argument of the title, either. My more modern iPhone PRO Raw output is less crunchy, less saturated and contrasty than that from my earlier iPhone iterations, and actually looks more like results from my previous raw workflow from dedicated cameras. It isn’t “terrible” at all. I think increasing numbers of sensible people who are also credible photographers will employ phone cameras in genuinely creative ways of making images over time. I’m not taking the bait of this video, thank you very kindly.

Click to expand...

It's an interesting phenomenon. The old are finally starting to embrace phone cameras as the young are increasingly embracing dedicated cameras.

I started with phone cameras and couple of years ago transitioned to an actual camera. Zero regrets. It's a more engaging and fulfilling experience for me. Plus I find camera tech interesting and the different characteristics of lenses.

Click to expand...

I really do understand what you're saying. I used dedicated cameras starting with 35mm film SLRs, in the sixties. Probably my digital camera apex was a Fuji X-T4 kit with four lenses. But all of that lugging around of gear in a bag just doesn't work for me, anymore (going on 77).

Click to expand...

At the end of the day they are all just tools. If it works for you...it works. I don't give anyone grief for the tool they choose or don't choose.

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

Click to expand...

Phones often have a limited focal length range - mine does. I prefer small sensor compacts myself. It could be interesting to have good fake background blur capability built into one with a longer telephoto range. That product segment seems to be enjoying a resurgence among the masses, too, so there might be 'many' others who would find it useful.

Sony included fake background blur in some older long zoom pocket cameras. But it's poor at correctly isolating subjects with fine detail, and has been dropped in most of the more recent models. Here's an example at about 110mm equivalent with lens wide open:


Normal shot


Background Defocus feature

As an aside, below is a version using software AI depth masking to selectively apply blur to the original photo without needing distance info:


Software blur

It's more realistic, I think, with a gradual falloff of sharpness. It would be nice if such a feature could be refined and put in long zoom pocket cameras.

Click to expand...

you could have that feature but you don't need, any lens can produce background blur.

Distance and scale ( that you don't want to use ) but even with slower lens that's possible but much harder to achieve than with a faster lens.

Your example ( maybe on purpose ) reveals the shortcomings of a slower lens

your subject it's too big, the background it's too close for the thicker D.O.F.

But you can achieve the exactly same end result where a fast lens can't reach

lomoapontaechuta said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

Click to expand...

Phones often have a limited focal length range - mine does. I prefer small sensor compacts myself. It could be interesting to have good fake background blur capability built into one with a longer telephoto range. That product segment seems to be enjoying a resurgence among the masses, too, so there might be 'many' others who would find it useful.

Sony included fake background blur in some older long zoom pocket cameras. But it's poor at correctly isolating subjects with fine detail, and has been dropped in most of the more recent models. Here's an example at about 110mm equivalent with lens wide open:


Normal shot


Background Defocus feature

As an aside, below is a version using software AI depth masking to selectively apply blur to the original photo without needing distance info:


Software blur

It's more realistic, I think, with a gradual falloff of sharpness. It would be nice if such a feature could be refined and put in long zoom pocket cameras.

Click to expand...

you could have that feature but you don't need, any lens can produce background blur.

Click to expand...

It's not just about background blur. It's also about subject distance, angle of view, perspective, and composition.

lomoapontaechuta said:

Distance and scale ( that you don't want to use ) but even with slower lens that's possible but much harder to achieve than with a faster lens.

Click to expand...

It's not possible to duplicate the fake blur shot with that camera operated in the normal way. I'd have to stand outside of my house and shoot through the window to even try it, and the photo would have a different composition and perspective, and maybe still not achieve the same background blur.

lomoapontaechuta said:

Your example ( maybe on purpose ) reveals the shortcomings of a slower lens

Click to expand...

Of course it does. That's exactly the point. It's a pocket camera with a small sensor and a small lens with a small aperture. It cannot achieve the same optical background blur that a large camera with a large sensor and a fast lens can. They'd be two very different photos.

lomoapontaechuta said:

your subject it's too big, the background it's too close for the thicker D.O.F.

Click to expand...

The subject is not too big and the background is not too close for a fast 100mm lens on a full frame camera to optically create that kind of background blur.

lomoapontaechuta said:

But you can achieve the exactly same end result where a fast lens can't reach

Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not exactly the same result. A different result.

ishwanu said:

lomoapontaechuta said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

ishwanu said:

FrancoD said:

Why do you want a camera for "faking the shallow depth of field blur" when there are many cameras that give you REAL DOF blur ?

Click to expand...

The answer is obvious: Not everyone loves the size/weight/cost factors of a purely optical solution for narrow DOF. Many would prefer having a 'similar' capability in a smaller and more budget friendly form.

Click to expand...

My guess is that those "many" will just be as happy with their phone....

Click to expand...

Phones often have a limited focal length range - mine does. I prefer small sensor compacts myself. It could be interesting to have good fake background blur capability built into one with a longer telephoto range. That product segment seems to be enjoying a resurgence among the masses, too, so there might be 'many' others who would find it useful.

Sony included fake background blur in some older long zoom pocket cameras. But it's poor at correctly isolating subjects with fine detail, and has been dropped in most of the more recent models. Here's an example at about 110mm equivalent with lens wide open:


Normal shot


Background Defocus feature

As an aside, below is a version using software AI depth masking to selectively apply blur to the original photo without needing distance info:


Software blur

It's more realistic, I think, with a gradual falloff of sharpness. It would be nice if such a feature could be refined and put in long zoom pocket cameras.

Click to expand...

you could have that feature but you don't need, any lens can produce background blur.

Click to expand...

It's not just about background blur. It's also about subject distance, angle of view, perspective, and composition.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. For a slow lens to achieve background blur, distance and scale is paramount , so angle of view, perspective and composition would be out of the window

ishwanu said:

ishwanu said:

Distance and scale ( that you don't want to use ) but even with slower lens that's possible but much harder to achieve than with a faster lens.

Click to expand...

It's not possible to duplicate the fake blur shot with that camera operated in the normal way. I'd have to stand outside of my house and shoot through the window to even try it, and the photo would have a different composition and perspective, and maybe still not achieve the same background blur.

Click to expand...

I doubt you could do this particular shot even standing outside your house or with a newer model ( longer reach ) your background is still too close to your subject and both would be in the same plain

ishwanu said:

ishwanu said:

Your example ( maybe on purpose ) reveals the shortcomings of a slower lens

Click to expand...

Of course it does. That's exactly the point. It's a pocket camera with a small sensor and a small lens with a small aperture. It cannot achieve the same optical background blur that a large camera with a large sensor and a fast lens can. They'd be two very different photos.

Click to expand...

Yes to a certain point, in your example, you are correct and in this one too ( mainly due to user error). but even at 6.3 we can see a bit of background blur happening, because the background was further back than the background in your example, a simple ad basic error but well, it is what it is ( I could easily go to 3.5 and obliterate the background or almost, but having this whopper of a spider close to my face...i was not relaxed )



Like i did in these ones





Distances and scale

ishwanu said:

ishwanu said:

your subject it's too big, the background it's too close for the thicker D.O.F.

Click to expand...

The subject is not too big and the background is not too close for a fast 100mm lens on a full frame camera to optically create that kind of background blur.

Click to expand...

Oh no, your example is perfect for a fast 100mm lens, hands down, no question about it, they are perfect for ( can i call it studio photography? ), the problem is in real world application where this can happen.

the short comings of a fast lens





Works too well for my taste, so well that my subject is not in focus. but if i stop it down, no problem

ishwanu said:

ishwanu said:

But you can achieve the exactly same end result where a fast lens can't reach

Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not exactly the same result. A different result.

Click to expand...

But why wanting defocus features in a camera, yes i had it in my HX50, ( i don't know if i have in the HX99 ) , i played with it in the past and i didn't find anything special, better results can be achieved with fast or slow lens

So much talk about background blur (which, to me is not important I like lots of depth of field).
To me, the biggest difference is long optical zoom (not some wimpy 50mm equivalent 'telephoto' mode) without electronic fakery.