Skip to toolbar

No more focussing problems?

Forums Forums News Articles and Info No more focussing problems?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2285
    LeicaLens
    Participant

    Saw this article today, thought it might interest some of you.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?src=me&ref=general

    It looks like the product will be out this year, but I wonder if it will find its way over to DSLR cameras anytime soon?

    #39492
    CauseISaidSo
    Participant

    I’m fairly certain I read about this a few years back, perhaps when this guy’s thesis came out. IIRC, at that time they used an array of cameras to capture the image data that the software then used to manipulate the focus.

    Pretty cool indeed, assuming it makes it to the dSLR market and has no other drawbacks (aside from image size – I’m guessing its raw image data is significantly larger than a normal camera).

    #39491
    sleeping
    Participant

    (aside from image size – I’m guessing its raw image data is significantly larger than a normal camera).

    If Thom Hogan (http://bythom.com/) is to be believed, they’re using something on the order of 200 imaging sensors in the camera per pixel on the final image (0.09mp output from a 16mp sensor)

    #39499
    Curious
    Participant

    he didn’t seem to keen on it did he?

    #39496
    orionid
    Participant

    I thought they were both an interesting read. As far as a $250 600×600 pixel camera? Well, our first digital camera was nearly $400, used a 3.5″ floppy, and filled it with 640×480 “high quality” photos. Yet, somehow, digital cameras made it beyond their infancy despite the fact that 35mm and a good scanner could give you 4-6 MP at the same time.

    #39497
    caradoc
    Participant

    Personally, I’m not too keen on a camera that lets the viewer select the focus of the result – for a documentarian, it might be a good thing. For me? Not so much.

    #39505
    orionid
    Participant

    Personally, I’m not too keen on a camera that lets the viewer select the focus of the result – for a documentarian, it might be a good thing. For me? Not so much.

    Look at it from the creative aspect, though. You know you want a shallow DoF nice bokeh etc, your subject is moving fast – say a dragonfly in flight. You snap the photo, only to realize in horror after the fact that your focal point was in the middle of his torso, making your shot usesless. With this camera then, you can shift the focal point to the center of his eyes, then export it as a jpg where the viewer then can’t change it. Or, I’m sure that software will be out shortly enough, to process each focal layer individually and piece a composite image of infinite DoF. You can run f/1.4 and not worry about DoF at all. Imagine the scientific and technical applications that would open up. It will completely change the game of focus stacking, because every bit of source image will be from the same moment in time.

    #39504
    Curious
    Participant

    the way i read these article the camera is geared at P&S consumers, orionid. now two levels of cameras and software would make sense much like we have pro versions now.

    #39503
    ennuipoet
    Participant

    I actually ruffled a feather ranting about this in the PSAEF, but here I think I should be OK.

    Frankly, this camera makes me ill. It takes all the art out of photography. Digital media is a double edged sword, I absolutely would not be doing any photography if it did not exist. Still, at least I make an effort to try to actually work with the equipment. When you take the photographer out of the equation all you have is ambulatory surveillance camera. There is not thought, no emotion, no love in using a camera like this. Hell, even I am guilty of taking a shot without taking the time to make sure I had the exposure right because, hey, I can fix it in Lightroom! Removing the focus, the composition coupled with what we already have of removing exposure and you don’t have photography! What you have is a CCD with legs.

    I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can’t help but believe that photography as an “Art” would be better without it.

    Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds.

    #39502
    Farktographer
    Participant

    I actually ruffled a feather ranting about this in the PSAEF, but here I think I should be OK.

    Frankly, this camera makes me ill. It takes all the art out of photography. Digital media is a double edged sword, I absolutely would not be doing any photography if it did not exist. Still, at least I make an effort to try to actually work with the equipment. When you take the photographer out of the equation all you have is ambulatory surveillance camera. There is not thought, no emotion, no love in using a camera like this. Hell, even I am guilty of taking a shot without taking the time to make sure I had the exposure right because, hey, I can fix it in Lightroom! Removing the focus, the composition coupled with what we already have of removing exposure and you don’t have photography! What you have is a CCD with legs.

    I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can’t help but believe that photography as an “Art” would be better without it.

    Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds.

    I’m strongly on your side with this. If I take a photo and it’s out of focus, I learn from it. If something like this becomes standard, someone can take a random photo, not caring about exposure, focus, anything, and make it a pretty damn good image with photoshop/lightroom/this software. Photography will become how well you know your software, not how well you know your camera.

    #39501
    Plamadude30k
    Participant

    I can see some really neat applications for scientific uses from this tech, but I really don’t think it’s something I’d want on my personal camera. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think art should be perfect. Limitations and difficulties are what make art great. The most important lesson I’ve ever had from this came from my music theory/composition days: the more you limit yourself, the more creative you have to be. As long as you make that effort to be creative, your art will NEVER suffer for the limitations. This development, while kind of cool and potentially useful for technical applications, ain’t going to engender creativity.

    #39500
    Plamadude30k
    Participant

    I can see some really neat applications for scientific uses from this tech, but I really don’t think it’s something I’d want on my personal camera. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think art should be perfect. Limitations and difficulties are what make art great. The most important lesson I’ve ever had in this vein came from my music theory/composition days: the more you limit yourself, the more creative you have to be. As long as you make that effort to be creative, your art will NEVER suffer for the limitations. This development, while kind of cool and potentially useful for technical applications, ain’t going to engender creativity.

    How in the WORLD did I manage to quote myself? Ah, forum gremlins-an endless source of entertainment.

    #39498
    Yugoboy
    Participant

    Plamadude30k: Gary Larson, in his Pre-History of the Far Side says something very similar about limits making him a better artist… having only a single panel with a specific shape to do the image he wanted to make in (he says) made him a better artist. I’m inclined to agree.

    #39495
    Curious
    Participant

    How in the WORLD did I manage to quote myself? Ah, forum gremlins-an endless source of entertainment.

    you can delete or edit your own posts.

    #39494
    Curious
    Participant

    I regret all those years I wasted not pursuing something I am passionate about. I love how digital gave me back a window the world. Still, I can’t help but believe that photography as an “Art” would be better without it.

    Or, I should tie an onion on my belt and start shouting at clouds.

    remember Instamatics? hell even the lovely brownie hawkeye. when enough folks got the shutter bug fever then the camera makers had some money for R&D on better stuff. and people ask for better stuff.

    same thing is happening with digital. 14MP P&S didn’t just come about because the camera companies were bored. but the upside is that technology is in mid and high end DSLRs now too.

    like i need to tell you this.

    bob ross’s happy little trees aren’t art (except in the looses sense) but they made folks think about technique and oil vs watercolor and IMO made folks appreciate good art. ok not all folks, see kinkade.

    besides “art” is only one measure of photography’s usefulness.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.