Computational Photography

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
PhotoFactor Veteran Member • Posts: 3,306
Re: Computational Photography

Jake2046 wrote:

why would camera companies need computational when their picture quality is way better than smartphone camera? What they need to do is add social media features...so the picture can be shared instantly.

Because they could be way better, still.

Because I'd like my ILCs to handle high DR shots, by default, better than my phone does, without need for manual RAW processing.

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
PhotoFactor Veteran Member • Posts: 3,306
Re: Computational Photography

Lee Jay wrote:

Jake2046 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Jake2046 wrote:

why would camera companies need computational when their picture quality is way better than smartphone camera? What they need to do is add social media features...so the picture can be shared instantly.

Unless you're a journalist, I can't imagine a reason to share an image instantly.

Smartphone cameras only popular cause photos can be shared with ease among friends and families.

I thought they were popular because you already bought the thing for other purposes and always have it with you for communication. So the cameras are just the lowest-common-denominator.

In the 7 or so years I've had a smartphone, I've shared one image instantly, and that one was unnecessary.

But you don't represent everybody's (or even most peoples') use case.

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,143
Re: Computational Photography

PhotoFactor wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Jake2046 wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Jake2046 wrote:

why would camera companies need computational when their picture quality is way better than smartphone camera? What they need to do is add social media features...so the picture can be shared instantly.

Unless you're a journalist, I can't imagine a reason to share an image instantly.

Smartphone cameras only popular cause photos can be shared with ease among friends and families.

I thought they were popular because you already bought the thing for other purposes and always have it with you for communication. So the cameras are just the lowest-common-denominator.

In the 7 or so years I've had a smartphone, I've shared one image instantly, and that one was unnecessary.

But you don't represent everybody's (or even most peoples') use case.

Okay, then give me a reason a photograph has to be shared instantly when it's not a journalistic or editorial reason.  I mean, I've shown my wife an item at the store and asked if she wanted it or if it was the right one, but I'm not talking about that sort of thing.

Why does your vacation image (or whatever) have to be shared instantly or it's of no value?  I think 99.99% of instantly-shared images are shared instantly for no good reason other than the person doesn't want to have to think about it later.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,143
Re: Computational Photography

PhotoFactor wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

what has google done? I don’t want a heavily processed jpg that can only hold up to viewing on a 6” phone with a limited attention span. Seems like the next major step will be when Capture One or “that which shall not be named” add these features to their software.

Adobe already has done. The Auto button works far better than any crappy cell phone processing.

Ten parameters with one click.

Assuming that's true (I have some doubts), that's great.

Take a picture.

Copy it to computer.

Open LR, find photo.

Hit auto button.

Save file.

Then share or print it.

Lots of steps there.

Multiply by 200 or more for a photo session.

Editing on a phone is a nightmare.  In fact, editing on a 17 or 15 inch laptop is a nightmare.  I always edit on a desktop with a bit monitor (currently 40 inch) and I can definitely do it faster than anyone could on a phone.

Now, you're going to say you don't have to with a phone.  BS.  The phone has no way to know how I want each image to look.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
chipmaster
OP chipmaster Veteran Member • Posts: 3,042
Re: Computational Photography

Hope you all know me well enough, I wrote this from a very extreme prospective.

I lug aground a D5 / D810 and 24-70, 70-200 and Chubby a lot of places.  Usually two phones in pocket and I see and shoot under a lot of different conditions.

Technology moves fast, don't underestimate what or how the business could evolve.

Some are trapped by their belief of IQ and what if the majority of people only care about good enough.

Was it one silly poster who bases his relevancy of phone and sharing to the fact he only did it once so not relevant, important, or a viable business.   That is another form stupidity to be so trapped by one's own bias.

For somethings clearly ILC / DSLR with big sensor and big lens is the right tool, sadly for most other things an Iphone/smartphone is good enough.   The ability for the high volume solution to iterate and eat enough of the business and changing it has come and gone.  The only question is what is left and how they can / will innovate-iterate their business.

For sure they must improve workflow --> My assessment here no progress

For sure they could/should expand computational capability --> My assessment they want to but don't have the money/resources nor capability.

Solution must partner with the big guys driving this, the question is who will make that leap, likely gets a leg up and then then wall is broken and they all make alliances.  We've seen this in other industries again and again, often it never goes well for the old guys.

-- hide signature --

" Today's Pictures Are Tomorrow's Memories "

 chipmaster's gear list:chipmaster's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon Df Nikon 1 V3 Nikon D810 Nikon D5 +21 more
JT26 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,739
Re: Computational Photography
2

You have a point Lee, 99% of all images shared instantly might be unnecessary. But not as unnecessary as constantly commenting on a type of photography you don’t care for or have any interest in. Isn’t that a waste of your time and energy? Let everyone else do whatever they want to do...

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 55,143
Re: Computational Photography

JT26 wrote:

You have a point Lee, 99% of all images shared instantly might be unnecessary. But not as unnecessary as constantly commenting on a type of photography you don’t care for or have any interest in. Isn’t that a waste of your time and energy? Let everyone else do whatever they want to do...

The very last thing I'd want to become common in cameras is a SIM card and another $40 a month required charge.  Thus, I oppose any requests for a need like that.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Entropy512 Senior Member • Posts: 4,758
Re: Computational Photography

chipmaster wrote:

An interesting article on the new phones., after all this site is about digital photography.

Now why is the thrust being led by the most marginal of companies with the smallest sensors, because they were so behind and necessity is the mother of all invention.

Why the traditional big boys didn't do it, because they were so preoccupied with their market share and competing against their decades old rivals and a classic case of innovator's dilemma.

Now the laggards have for the most part beaten the incumbents for total % of pictures taken by the majority.

Yeah press/sports/wedding/nature/hobby they cling to the old, but once the new leaders figure out zoom and low light action who knows.

So let's not debate the phones and their quality, what I want to know from you all which of the big old companies will lead in the computational ? The laggards or the big three, I'd say the laggards likely have the most to gain to try, but do they have the resources, or do they partner with a google, or could any of the big three swallow their pride and approach google

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/technology/personaltech/google-pixel-photography.html

Right now Sony is ahead here, simply because the A9 is the ONLY camera with a stacked BSI sensor in APS-C or FF formats. Stacked BSI is a key "underlying technology" here to achieving the high burst rates techniques like HDR+ rely on.

Beyond that, I am of the opinion that it is NOT the job of a camera manufacturer to implement computational photography onboard, it is their job to ensure that the data provided to the postprocessing workflow is suitable.

For algorithms like HDR+ - this means minimal rolling shutter and maximum framerate for a burst, as HDR+ doesn't handle rotation very well, so you want to keep the burst short.

https://www.timothybrooks.com/tech/hdr-plus/ - HDR+ for any camera

https://github.com/Entropy512/hdr-plus/commit/135273bad4d75f9b0e9bd695f97c10120355bf13 - a work in progress hack of mine that allows saving the aligned/merged RAW, permitting tonemapping and demosaicing to be done in an alternate workflow.

-- hide signature --

Context is key. If I have quoted someone else's post when replying, please do not reply to something I say without reading text that I have quoted, and understanding the reason the quote function exists.

 Entropy512's gear list:Entropy512's gear list
Sony a6000 Pentax K-5 Pentax K-01 Sony a6300 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads