And yet the result is the same - you can change the focus point of your image after you have captured it.
But if you feel you must have a light field camera - go ahead - buy a Lytro camera (or wait until this comes out in an apple product). Personally, I will just use my free app and get the same results with out spending anything.
This has already been done in a free app for Windows phones. The app is called Nokia Refocus and it does exactly what the lytro cameras do for FREE! You can change the focus point of your image after the you have captured the image. It also enables you to make the entire frame in focus.
I installed the app on my Nokia 928 and it works great!
You can read more about in the announcement covered by The Verge website:
If you had bothered to read the article that you linked then you would also have noticed that an existing app that does the same thing on iOS (Focus Twist) predates it.
However, as Soli points out, this is not the same as light field imaging - it is focus stacking - a well-established technique implemented in Photoshop and other imaging software that simply takes multiple images with different focal points and either selects individual frames with the appropriate focus or blends them to produce an uniformly focused image. It works, but with currently available burst rates, only on static or quasi-static scenes. Any significant motion during acquisition of the stack renders it useless, at least for blending.
And yet the result is the same - you can change the focus point of your image after you have captured it.
But if you feel you must have a light field camera - go ahead - buy a Lytro camera (or wait until this comes out in an apple product). Personally, I will just use my free app and get the same results with out spending anything.
Cheers!
This has nothing to do with what I feel I need (as I don't Focus Twist and wouldn't use a light-field camera on my iPhone) and everything to do with using the properly terminology and understanding the technologies in place. As muppetry notes this is a well established technique of taking multiple images at various focuses which is a accurate statement unlike yours which claims focus-stacking "does exactly what the [light-field] cameras do." You might as well claim that someone with a Swiss Army Knife can do exactly what a lumberjack can do because they both have saws in their equipment.
"...It works, but with currently available burst rates, only on static or quasi-static scenes. Any significant motion during acquisition of the stack renders it useless, at least for blending...."
Actually - current available burst rates are more than sufficient to suitably freeze almost any motion that you would normally try to capture with a camera phone. The current iPhone 5S can capture 60 frames per second in its slow motion video setting. Stacking 10 frames (what Nokia's app does) would happen in 1/6th of a second or at 16/1000th of a second per frame (or approximately 1/60th of a second).
The Lytro camera has a shutter speed range of 1/15th of a second to 1/250th of a second.
It would be much easier and less costly to do a software change in the slow motion video settings to achieve higher frame rates to better stop action than it would be to do a light-field lens system inside the thin body of a cell phone.
"...You might as well claim that someone with a Swiss Army Knife can do exactly what a lumberjack can do because they both have saws in their equipment...."
And yet all that really matters is the ability to change focus points on a captured image. You can go on and rant about the technology of a light-field lens system - but it doesn't change the fact that using the stacking method of a free app can achieve the same result for the person using the system.
Is the Lytro camera currently better at achieving this goal? Yes.
Is it possible to achieve nearly the same results in most situations using a different method at a much lower cost? Yes.
And yet all that really matters is the ability to change focus points on a captured image.
This is pretty damn simple so it's unbelievable that you can't figure this out. These apps aren't changing the focus of a single image, they are changing the image completely. These are static images that can have their focus changed after the fact unlike light-field images. You could say the results of Nokia Refocus is to mimic that of light-field cameras from the end-user's PoV but you didn't say that, instead you stated it "does exactly what the [light-field] cameras do." This distinction is very clear and it's people like you used to argue that Apple did nothing unique with the iPhone by saying that (resistive) touch screens have been around for years.
"...It works, but with currently available burst rates, only on static or quasi-static scenes. Any significant motion during acquisition of the stack renders it useless, at least for blending...."
Actually - current available burst rates are more than sufficient to suitably freeze almost any motion that you would normally try to capture with a camera phone. The current iPhone 5S can capture 60 frames per second in its slow motion video setting. Stacking 10 frames (what Nokia's app does) would happen in 1/6th of a second or at 16/1000th of a second per frame (or approximately 1/60th of a second).
It would be much easier and less costly to do a software change in the slow motion video settings to achieve higher frame rates to better stop action than it would be to do a light-field lens system inside the thin body of a cell phone.
If we are talking about video-resolution imaging then the framing rate that you mention is achievable, but two points; firstly 1/6 s is still too slow to eliminate motion between frames, and secondly you seem to be ignoring the additional requirement to refocus between frames - is the Nokia actually bracketing focus at that rate?
In an earlier post in this thread I did mention that I think high-speed focus stacking is more achievable than light field imaging in small devices, but until the hardware allows focus bracketing over 10 images or so in a few hundredths of a second at most, I don't think it can be regarded as a comprehensive solution. That will require more rapid focus adjustment, and sensor gate times (and thus sensor sensitivity) at least an order of magnitude higher than we currently have.
"... you seem to be ignoring the additional requirement to refocus between frames..."
Actually, all that is required is a variable aperture that goes from wide open (largest aperture) to almost entirely closed (small aperture) spread across the 10 shot burst. (This works on the Nokia especially well since it does open up to an f/2.0 aperture. One of the largest available on any camera phone.)
That system would give you the ability to adjust the focus point since all portions of the image would be in focus at one of the ten aperture settings.
Personally, I will just use my free app and get the same results with out spending anything.
The sum total of your entire account is summarized thus: Ignorance is bliss.
Originally Posted by Maestro47
…using the stacking method of a free app can achieve the same result for the person using the system. Is it possible to achieve nearly the same results in most situations using a different method at a much lower cost? Yes.
Why waste your time shilling so hard? You got your 5 cents a post already; move on.
Originally Posted by Maestro47
The Nokia app does for the end userEXACTLY what the Lytro camera does.
Just stop lying.
Originally Posted by Maestro47
(This works on the Nokia especially well since it does open up to an f/2.0 aperture. One of the largest available on any camera phone.)
Oops, that’s Nokia Marketing Point #14, but you forgot to reference #6.
The Nokia app does for the end userEXACTLY what the Lytro camera does.
"Just stop lying."
That's right. Attack the messenger when you cannot refute the statement with any facts.
The FACT is that the Lytro camera and the stacking method both achieve the same goal - the end user can adjust the focus point after the image has been captured. Nothing you or any other person can post can change that FACT.
"... you seem to be ignoring the additional requirement to refocus between frames..."
Actually, all that is required is a variable aperture that goes from wide open (largest aperture) to almost entirely closed (small aperture) spread across the 10 shot burst. (This works on the Nokia especially well since it does open up to an f/2.0 aperture. One of the largest available on any camera phone.)
That system would give you the ability to adjust the focus point since all portions of the image would be in focus at one of the ten aperture settings.
Cheers!
I think that you may be misunderstanding basic optics. Changing the aperture varies the depth of field, not the focus plane, so that method will not work. Changing focus plane requires moving the lens relative to the sensor plane. A very small aperture (high f-number) certainly buys a large depth of field in just one image (infinite, in fact, at the pinhole limit), especially with a wide-angle lens, albeit at the expense of long exposure times, but very large depth of field alone is not what you are trying to achieve.
His business card says "Brand Engagement through Social Media Platforms".
I may vomit. As fun as I do think it is to spice up stupid, menial jobs with long titles, when you know what’s behind the fancy words it can sometimes make you upset. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
And yet the result is the same - you can change the focus point of your image after you have captured it.
But if you feel you must have a light field camera - go ahead - buy a Lytro camera (or wait until this comes out in an apple product). Personally, I will just use my free app and get the same results with out spending anything.
Cheers!
This has nothing to do with what I feel I need (as I don't Focus Twist and wouldn't use a light-field camera on my iPhone) and everything to do with using the properly terminology and understanding the technologies in place. As muppetry notes this is a well established technique of taking multiple images at various focuses which is a accurate statement unlike yours which claims focus-stacking "does exactly what the [light-field] cameras do." You might as well claim that someone with a Swiss Army Knife can do exactly what a lumberjack can do because they both have saws in their equipment.
I surfed the web but couldn't find anyone (of any job description) that had a hand saw in his equipment...
But I did find this Google Earth satellite image of a church:
Here is a picture of a nice fluffy rabbit to take your mind off this story
A man has been taken to hospital in Australia after his penis and groin got caught in the machinery at a saw mill.
The Adelaide Advertiser reports that the accident is not thought to have had life-threatening consequences, but that there was a degree of uncontrollable bleeding involved.
The thirty-year-old man was taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
A spokesman for Parafield Gardens Saw Mill said: ‘He got caught in the log moving mechanism on one of the saws.’
The spokesman maintained that the man’s injuries were not serious. Which is easy for him to say.
What? I’m attacking the statement. The statement is a lie.
Shut up and go away. There are pathetic trolls and then there are just really pathetic ones.
His business card says "Brand Engagement through Social Media Platforms".
I think you may be onto something. His approach was a little odd though - a strange mix of actually attempting to debate the technical side but with no understanding of the underlying concepts or their implications. I doubt he'll be back.
I am about the farthest thing form a camera expert there is.
I've been doing a lot of surfing/research about cameras in the last several days...
My 17-year-old (18 in January) thinks she is interested in photography. She has suggested to her parents and to me that instead of buying her separate Christmas, birthday and graduation gifts -- that we pool the money so she can spend $1,500-$2,000 on a good DSLR camera, lenses, filters, bag, accessories...
Her dad feels that $2,000 is too much for a starter camera -- especially since she only thinks she is interested.
As a practical matter, a 17-year old should be finding way to pay for a $2000+ camera herself, or at least come up with a better plan than "asking for more expensive gifts"
I personally think a 17-year old needs to start solving problems with, and living within resource constraints. It's a crucial skill.
It also suggests that if it was her money, she might pick more modest equipment to learn photography with. I mean, if someone wants to learn to be a race car driver, Formula One is not the place to start. Let the $2000+ camera be the goal, not the starting point.
Of course, you are correct!
Here's what we came up with.
Her Mom, Dad and I will each contribute $150 ($50 x Christmas, Birthday, Graduation) == $450. My granddaughter will contribute $150 from savings for a total of $600.
We can use the Pentax K-Mount lenses with almost any DSLR with a $12-$50 adapter.
The rest of the Pentax kit (bag, lenses, lens cases, filters, straps, tripod, etc) is in great shape *, so all she needs to buy new is a decent starter DSLR body and Pentax adapter.
* We spent an hour using a toothbrush, rags and Tannery to clean up the old camera bag -- it's about 35 years old and looks brand new... I surfed around and you'd spend $200 plus for a bag of that quality, today.
She plans on doing a few freebee shoots for church, soccer (3 soccer teams in family) to develop her style and show her stuff -- then try to charge money to earn her way to better equipment, as needed.
If it doesn't work out, all we/she have invested is $600 and her time. If we get a decent DSLR body, she should be able to recover about $300 by selling it on eBay.
So, she has $600 to spend (hopefully tax free and free shipping, online). We don't think it is proper to "showroom" at local stores with no intent of buying...
Got $600 to spend on a decent starter DSLR body and K-Mount adapter...
Maybe I missed the comment, but nobody seems to have noticed that the captions for the high resolution mode and the low resolution mode are reversed. They don't correspond to the descriptions of the modes or make sense optically. The writer might want to correct that.
Comments
But if you feel you must have a light field camera - go ahead - buy a Lytro camera (or wait until this comes out in an apple product). Personally, I will just use my free app and get the same results with out spending anything.
Cheers!
This has already been done in a free app for Windows phones. The app is called Nokia Refocus and it does exactly what the lytro cameras do for FREE! You can change the focus point of your image after the you have captured the image. It also enables you to make the entire frame in focus.
I installed the app on my Nokia 928 and it works great!
You can read more about in the announcement covered by The Verge website:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/13/5099000/nokia-refocus-download-for-pureview-lumia-windows-phones
If you had bothered to read the article that you linked then you would also have noticed that an existing app that does the same thing on iOS (Focus Twist) predates it.
However, as Soli points out, this is not the same as light field imaging - it is focus stacking - a well-established technique implemented in Photoshop and other imaging software that simply takes multiple images with different focal points and either selects individual frames with the appropriate focus or blends them to produce an uniformly focused image. It works, but with currently available burst rates, only on static or quasi-static scenes. Any significant motion during acquisition of the stack renders it useless, at least for blending.
This has nothing to do with what I feel I need (as I don't Focus Twist and wouldn't use a light-field camera on my iPhone) and everything to do with using the properly terminology and understanding the technologies in place. As muppetry notes this is a well established technique of taking multiple images at various focuses which is a accurate statement unlike yours which claims focus-stacking "does exactly what the [light-field] cameras do." You might as well claim that someone with a Swiss Army Knife can do exactly what a lumberjack can do because they both have saws in their equipment.
"...It works, but with currently available burst rates, only on static or quasi-static scenes. Any significant motion during acquisition of the stack renders it useless, at least for blending...."
Actually - current available burst rates are more than sufficient to suitably freeze almost any motion that you would normally try to capture with a camera phone. The current iPhone 5S can capture 60 frames per second in its slow motion video setting. Stacking 10 frames (what Nokia's app does) would happen in 1/6th of a second or at 16/1000th of a second per frame (or approximately 1/60th of a second).
The Lytro camera has a shutter speed range of 1/15th of a second to 1/250th of a second.
http://support.lytro.com/entries/21082737-What-is-the-shutter-speed-on-the-Lytro-camera-
It would be much easier and less costly to do a software change in the slow motion video settings to achieve higher frame rates to better stop action than it would be to do a light-field lens system inside the thin body of a cell phone.
"...You might as well claim that someone with a Swiss Army Knife can do exactly what a lumberjack can do because they both have saws in their equipment...."
And yet all that really matters is the ability to change focus points on a captured image. You can go on and rant about the technology of a light-field lens system - but it doesn't change the fact that using the stacking method of a free app can achieve the same result for the person using the system.
Is the Lytro camera currently better at achieving this goal? Yes.
Is it possible to achieve nearly the same results in most situations using a different method at a much lower cost? Yes.
Cheers!
This is pretty damn simple so it's unbelievable that you can't figure this out. These apps aren't changing the focus of a single image, they are changing the image completely. These are static images that can have their focus changed after the fact unlike light-field images. You could say the results of Nokia Refocus is to mimic that of light-field cameras from the end-user's PoV but you didn't say that, instead you stated it "does exactly what the [light-field] cameras do." This distinction is very clear and it's people like you used to argue that Apple did nothing unique with the iPhone by saying that (resistive) touch screens have been around for years.
Yes. You are correct.
The Nokia app does for the end user EXACTLY what the Lytro camera does.
It allows the end user to change the focus points after he/she has pressed the shutter release button one time.
Again - to the end user - it is really irrelevant how this is achieved. Software... Hardware.... it really does not matter.
I apologize if my earlier post confused you and caused you consternation.
Cheers!
If we are talking about video-resolution imaging then the framing rate that you mention is achievable, but two points; firstly 1/6 s is still too slow to eliminate motion between frames, and secondly you seem to be ignoring the additional requirement to refocus between frames - is the Nokia actually bracketing focus at that rate?
In an earlier post in this thread I did mention that I think high-speed focus stacking is more achievable than light field imaging in small devices, but until the hardware allows focus bracketing over 10 images or so in a few hundredths of a second at most, I don't think it can be regarded as a comprehensive solution. That will require more rapid focus adjustment, and sensor gate times (and thus sensor sensitivity) at least an order of magnitude higher than we currently have.
"... you seem to be ignoring the additional requirement to refocus between frames..."
Actually, all that is required is a variable aperture that goes from wide open (largest aperture) to almost entirely closed (small aperture) spread across the 10 shot burst. (This works on the Nokia especially well since it does open up to an f/2.0 aperture. One of the largest available on any camera phone.)
That system would give you the ability to adjust the focus point since all portions of the image would be in focus at one of the ten aperture settings.
Cheers!
The sum total of your entire account is summarized thus: Ignorance is bliss.
…using the stacking method of a free app can achieve the same result for the person using the system. Is it possible to achieve nearly the same results in most situations using a different method at a much lower cost? Yes.
Why waste your time shilling so hard? You got your 5 cents a post already; move on.
The Nokia app does for the end user EXACTLY what the Lytro camera does.
Just stop lying.
(This works on the Nokia especially well since it does open up to an f/2.0 aperture. One of the largest available on any camera phone.)
Oops, that’s Nokia Marketing Point #14, but you forgot to reference #6.
The Nokia app does for the end user EXACTLY what the Lytro camera does.
"Just stop lying."
That's right. Attack the messenger when you cannot refute the statement with any facts.
The FACT is that the Lytro camera and the stacking method both achieve the same goal - the end user can adjust the focus point after the image has been captured. Nothing you or any other person can post can change that FACT.
Cheers!
That's right. Attack the messenger when you cannot refute the statement with any facts.
What? I’m attacking the statement. The statement is a lie.
Shut up and go away. There are pathetic trolls and then there are just really pathetic ones.
I think that you may be misunderstanding basic optics. Changing the aperture varies the depth of field, not the focus plane, so that method will not work. Changing focus plane requires moving the lens relative to the sensor plane. A very small aperture (high f-number) certainly buys a large depth of field in just one image (infinite, in fact, at the pinhole limit), especially with a wide-angle lens, albeit at the expense of long exposure times, but very large depth of field alone is not what you are trying to achieve.
His business card says "Brand Engagement through Social Media Platforms".
LOL!
I may vomit. As fun as I do think it is to spice up stupid, menial jobs with long titles, when you know what’s behind the fancy words it can sometimes make you upset.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I surfed the web but couldn't find anyone (of any job description) that had a hand saw in his equipment...
But I did find this Google Earth satellite image of a church:
http://socialnewsdaily.com/18659/behold-the-second-coming-penis-shaped-church-flushes-its-fire-hydrant-photo/
And then this:
Man in unfortunate saw-mill penis incident
Here is a picture of a nice fluffy rabbit to take your mind off this story
A man has been taken to hospital in Australia after his penis and groin got caught in the machinery at a saw mill.
The Adelaide Advertiser reports that the accident is not thought to have had life-threatening consequences, but that there was a degree of uncontrollable bleeding involved.
The thirty-year-old man was taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
A spokesman for Parafield Gardens Saw Mill said: ‘He got caught in the log moving mechanism on one of the saws.’
The spokesman maintained that the man’s injuries were not serious. Which is easy for him to say.
http://metro.co.uk/2007/03/29/man-in-unfortunate-saw-mill-penis-incident-231597/
What? I’m attacking the statement. The statement is a lie.
Shut up and go away. There are pathetic trolls and then there are just really pathetic ones.
His business card says "Brand Engagement through Social Media Platforms".
I think you may be onto something. His approach was a little odd though - a strange mix of actually attempting to debate the technical side but with no understanding of the underlying concepts or their implications. I doubt he'll be back.
Of course, you are correct!
Here's what we came up with.
Her Mom, Dad and I will each contribute $150 ($50 x Christmas, Birthday, Graduation) == $450. My granddaughter will contribute $150 from savings for a total of $600.
We can use the Pentax K-Mount lenses with almost any DSLR with a $12-$50 adapter.
The rest of the Pentax kit (bag, lenses, lens cases, filters, straps, tripod, etc) is in great shape *, so all she needs to buy new is a decent starter DSLR body and Pentax adapter.
* We spent an hour using a toothbrush, rags and Tannery to clean up the old camera bag -- it's about 35 years old and looks brand new... I surfed around and you'd spend $200 plus for a bag of that quality, today.
She plans on doing a few freebee shoots for church, soccer (3 soccer teams in family) to develop her style and show her stuff -- then try to charge money to earn her way to better equipment, as needed.
If it doesn't work out, all we/she have invested is $600 and her time. If we get a decent DSLR body, she should be able to recover about $300 by selling it on eBay.
So, she has $600 to spend (hopefully tax free and free shipping, online). We don't think it is proper to "showroom" at local stores with no intent of buying...
Got $600 to spend on a decent starter DSLR body and K-Mount adapter...
Any recommendations will be greatly appreciated!
Maybe I missed the comment, but nobody seems to have noticed that the captions for the high resolution mode and the low resolution mode are reversed. They don't correspond to the descriptions of the modes or make sense optically. The writer might want to correct that.