Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: interesting idea: shoot now focus later

  1. #1
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Threads
    260
    Thank You Posts

    Default interesting idea: shoot now focus later

    You just shoot - later at the computer you decide what you want in focus:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/te.../22camera.html

  2. #2
    Super Moderator arash_hazeghi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, California, United States
    Posts
    18,545
    Threads
    1,318
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    This idea has been around since 2005, a company was also formed and tried for several years to commercilize this technology but unfortunayely due to technical limitations it seems very unlikley that it would be used in a normal SLR camera. There were some more interesting ideas developed here between 2006-2008 inclusing a multi-aperture sensor sensor for 3D image capture. The filed of image sensor has matured in the last few years and there is really no more academic research being done. From all of these ideas that existed, only the X3 technology survived which is also struggling now. The rest has just turned into a scaling problem just like microprocessors and memory.

    This is the original technical manuscript if you are interested

    http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/...era-150dpi.pdf
    New! Sony Capture One Pro Guide 2022
    https://arihazeghiphotography.com/Gu.../Sony_C1P.html


    ------------------------------------------------
    Visit my blog
    http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/blog

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Arash,

    Thanks for the link, very interesting. The camera that was made for the study needed ~14x14 more pixels, using a 4000 x 4000 pixel array to make 292 x 292 pixel output images. That is a big hit in resolution. Plus matching the f/ratio of the microlens array to the main lens, further limits functionality.

    I think most would choose conventional 16 megapixels over a 0.085 megapixel high depth of field camera. But I'm sure there are specialized applications.

    Roger

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    142
    Threads
    15
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    There has been subsequent work on acquiring light fields by other means such as coded aperture and using a mask to build a heterodyned light field camera. Ramesh Raskar and Todor Georgiev are two of many that have done work in this area:

    http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/Mask/
    http://www.tgeorgiev.net/

    Though the resolution penalty is much less severe with these techniques, they do require a lot of computational processing (some of which can be done on the GPU) and unfortunately also have a tendency to create nasty bokeh (some of which at least Todor et al. have tried to start addressing).

    Its an interesting area of research, but I suspect not ready for commercial applications for a while yet.

  5. #5
    BPN Member Chris Ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas, Ya'll
    Posts
    1,490
    Threads
    108
    Thank You Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    But would it be "sharp enough"? :)
    Chris


    0 .· ` ' / ·. 100
    I have a high sarcasm rate. Deal with it.
    include('sarcasm.php')

  6. #6
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,588
    Threads
    643
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    And here's the original dissertation.

    http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics