|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Jun 22, 2011 12:45:35 GMT -5
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 22, 2011 13:48:34 GMT -5
I admit I am a Luddite but SEEING IS BELIEVING. I admit I am a skeptic but SEEING IS BELIEVING. I admit I am a disbeliever but SEEING IS BELIEVING. I admit I am a hard sell but SEEING IS BELIEVING. How did that dragonfly eyed camera know that the subject to be in sharp focus was the man rather than the rag or the background? Will the act of focusing after the fact take less time than shutter lag? Brooklyn bridge anyone? Mickey |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2011 15:11:35 GMT -5
Focusing quickly isn't a problem with digital cameras as long and you are willing to spend a little bit on your camera. Focusing after the fact? I'm with Mickey on this one and I don't need a bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by aceroadholder on Jun 23, 2011 23:14:38 GMT -5
Mickey, from the articles that I've read, this camera focuses on everything in the scene. The data is all saved in the picture file and then you pick out what you want to be in focus. The process is detailed in the inventor's 2005 PhD thesis . The core of this thing is that the sensor doesn't work at all like the current sensors or film. The data collected then uses some souped up software to render the collected data as a viewable picture. Since all the data is there, if you don't like the final product, you can redo it again. Here is the link to the website. The link to the thesis is on page 4. www.lytro.com/science_inside |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 24, 2011 8:28:34 GMT -5
Orlin,
After carefully reading your letter and the site you provided and after perusing all the pictures therein I remain unconvinced.
There is nothing unconventional or unusual about those photos. They have areas that are sharply focused and areas that, like conventional photos, gradually become more and more out of focus.
Had I seen a picture of a pin head in the foreground and a mountain range in the background, all needle sharp, and a number of similar photos I might have been convinced.
As it is ... SHOW ME.
Mickey
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jun 24, 2011 9:36:28 GMT -5
Mickey,
I'm ready to accept that this process does exactly what it set out to achieve. I don't think it's a cure for digital shutter lag because as far as I can see it doesn't say anywhere that's it's a cure for camera shake.
What it does, and what is amazing about it, is that after taking the picture you can choose what part is going to be in focus and what parts aren't. A ready-made choice of differential focus without having to worry about focus settings and depth of field.
From the examples I've seen on the internet the actual depth of the picture in sharp focus seems quite shallow. I suppose the next step will let us choose the depth of field so we can get as much or as little of the picture as we want in sharp focus.
It seems to be a big step forward which will let us forget, or newcomers never have to learn, yet another basic principle of older photographic technique and let us just concentrate on "seeing" the possibilities in a picture and composing the shot.
A good thing? Yes, I suppose it is because it seems another step towards enabling someone who is more artistically minded than technically minded to get the picture they want. In a way I suppose it's another step in the direction pioneered by Photoshop - and I long ago ceased to be amazed by what the latest versions of that can do.
If this can be combined with Photoshop it will be another weapon in the armoury of post-exposure lightroom technique, and easier to use than some others.
Those of us who long ago learned the basics of our photographic technique the "hard way" may not welcome it at first, and possibly even feel a touch of envy, until we remember that the sole object of all the technique and technology of photography over the years has had just one ultimate aim, to produce a pleasing picture.
A case of the end justifying the means?
PeterW
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 24, 2011 11:32:16 GMT -5
I have to admit that I did not read the whole article in the link. After playing with the sample in the article to see how this new tech will allow you to shift the plane of focus to the spot of your choosing I am extremely impressed with the possibilities it would have to offer. It really is staggering to think of the implications this may have on the design of lenses alone in the future. PeterW, I think is spot on in his observations. It will be seen as too easy by us old codgers who had to learn the hard way and my have preferred photography to remain somewhat of a dark art. Yes, the end justifies the means. There is also the option of choosing not to use it or any other innovative new tech.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 24, 2011 14:12:51 GMT -5
Deja vu.
The Camera obscura and pinhole cameras, their descendants, capture(d) everything sharply do they not?
I am an old codger. I am willing to learn, though not necessarily utilize, any advancements.
But ................. I have just spent a while playing with those pictures. I hope I am wrong.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 24, 2011 18:27:45 GMT -5
Mickey
I only played with the photo on page 1 with the flowers in the foreground. What they were showing in that one was selective focus with a limited DOF not everything in focus. Perhaps you could do focus stacking with the new tech without taking multiple images, just one shot then create different copies with different points of focus the stack them. You night even be able to tilt and shift the focal plane in PP instead of using an extremely expensive TS lens. I do not worry too much about lens distortion anymore as it can be done in PP and I save on expensive lenses. I convert colour to B&W in PP and that simplifies what I have to carry. It does not matter to if an action is performed at the instant an image is made or later in PP if the result is the same more or less. Doing things in PP give you options not thought of at the time of taking and a second chance at things. No matter where in the process these actions take place the photographer still has to be able to recognize a scene, recognize good light, frame and compose. Garbage in, garbage out still applies whichever route you choose to take.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 25, 2011 6:55:22 GMT -5
It is either a brilliant breakthrough or a monster con. On the other hand it could be somewhere between the two.
Someone has invested a lot of time and money in this project. He certainly won't be telling us the negatives of this new technology. He has to suck people in to get them to invest their time and money. Eventually the real pros and cons will out. We might end up with something of real use, but then again we might not.
|
|
