Massive sensors, image stabilisation by shifting the sensor, using huge pixel counts to allow for uncompromised digital zoom - you realise these are all things pioneered by Nokia very effectively and available now in their high end phones? But lets not give any credit to any company except Apple. As is well known, they are the only company capable of innovation.
Where did I ascribe or not ascribe credit? Where did I mention innovation? I realize a lot of things, it is my area of interest above all other. I stated I hoped Apple to bring these things to market in their inimitable way. Many of the technologies I mentioned have been around a while but not getting traction, take Field Lens systems for example. How are Nokia doing by the way?
Canon has employed optical image stabilisation for over or close to, a decade.
When a scene is captured on two or more frames and the camera knows exactly what the intervening movement was (shake or otherwise - from data supplied by the actuators), the processor can perform sub-pixel interpolation (almost mentioned is one phrase in the article), which produces a physically higher resolution image. This is because each camera pixel samples a little bit of the neighbouring pixel's image field, essentially sampling the image at a higher resolution that the imaging system itself is capable of. Super resolution is a fair description. Apple's implementation might be novel, Canon and others use a different means but producing a higher resolution image this way has been understood for years.
So, no gimmick, physically valid outcome.
Rumour has Apple implementing both a zoom moveable lens, allowing a faster imaging system and sub-pixel interpolation through optical image stabilisation all in a tiny package. Once the iPhone 5 has been on the market for two years, mine will be for the new phone. All possible because some boffin working in a lab discovered that it was possible to produce gain in one of those new-fangled semiconductor materials under the control of another.
Edit - moveable lens for focussing, not a zoom lens, duh.
Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths. 1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more. Which is why I mentioned it being near magic. I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I wouldn't be shocked if Apple come out with a lens that focuses not by traditional movement but by shape shifting like the human eye lens. Then again there is the Field lens technology I hope they pursue with multiple focal planes embedded in one RAW image. That would be fun!
And if they did they would be following in existing footsteps:
Varioptic programmable liquid lens for smart phone cameras
05/05/2011
The B617 programmable liquid lens integrates optical image stabilization and autofocus functionality in the same element, for use in mobile products such as smart phones. It is shock-resistant and uses up to 90% less power than a VCM actuator. It fits into typical phone cameras.
Always someone to poo-poo the cameras that consumers actually love and use. It's not a dumbing down. The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between a pro shot and a good pic with an iPhone 5S.
I do understand the technical debate and that's something many of us enjoy. But I always stop short of saying iTunes sucks and will never be successful because it isn't some wildly huge, complicated file type. Or, like I've heard many photographers say, digital cameras will never overtake film because of x,y,z.
It's the content, stupid. Interesting photos are interesting because of the content.
You are totally correct. Apple as always brings technologies once costing a fortune to a level where people don't even know they have it but just use it. Mind you, if not for the those initially willing to pay the big bucks for new toys and companies always pushing the boundaries there would be no fun for the enthusiasts so i love both ends of the game.
Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths. 1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more. Which is why I mentioned it being near magic. I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.
And if they did they would be following in existing footsteps:
What is your beef? You seem to have an axe to grind here and seem bitter for some reason. I want my AAPL to go up and I want new toys to buy from Apple.
You are welcome to whatever floats your boat and I promise not to spend pages of text finding fault with it. Olympus is great equipment, I have an OM1 and OM2 and a dozen lenses I also use an Olympus Tough for scuba. I have more Canon equipment than I should. I have several Nikons and lenses and I have a Sony HDR and now a 4K video camera. I love technology especially in the video and photography field. So when i enthuse about what i hope Apple have coming please don't feel a need to tear me to shreds ... ok?
That is the first thing that came to mind. Not so much because it is technically impossible, because it isn't, but rather you are adding a lot more variables into the mix. It will probably work well for landscapes but will have little usability for dynamic photos. I'd like to be proven wrong here. Even if I'm right I still see this as a useful feature especially if it means real optical stabilization in iPhones as a default feature.
Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths. 1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more. Which is why I mentioned it being near magic. I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.
Perhaps it didn't read this way but I was adding to, not at all criticising, your comment, sorry. Nice to read the name Olympus actually, really admired their film based SLRs back when...
Another gimmick with all of the rubbish filters and apps they slap on will convince people they are actually photographers. Just another way to dumb down consumers.
The act of taking a picture is an art form that is not tied to the hardware. Good artists accomplish their results with the hardware they have on hand, new tools mean more opportunities to explore their creative potential.
Ha! So says the dumbed down iPad painter David Hockney, if I'm not mistaken.
I haven't seen that new film on the topic have you? I'd like to see it. My mind is open but if I'd been around back then and known some science I'd sure as hell of use the camera obscurer! lol
I haven't seen that new film on the topic have you? I'd like to see it. My mind is open but if I'd been around back then and known some science I'd sure as hell of use the camera obscurer! lol
No, I didn't know about the film, only read reviews of the book, sorry to say. Enormously interesting, though. I'll be looking out for the film.
The act of taking a picture is an art form that is not tied to the hardware. Good artists accomplish their results with the hardware they have on hand, new tools mean more opportunities to explore their creative potential.
Personal example I have to prove your point. In the days of dark rooms and chemicals when i was a teenager, I totally gave up on extreme shallow DOF macro photography which I longed to perfect. Only when I got to see the 8 x 10 would i discover the focus just missed the tip of a fern frond or a butterfly's antennae. It was too costly and frustrating for me. Thanks to DSLRs, preview zoom and IS and so on, now 40 years later, I can select which part of the antennae is in focus and know what the results will look like as I take the photograph.
Prior art: This same technique has been used by JPL for the last couple of decades to create super resolution images from mars rovers. Doing the same thing with a smart phone or any other camera is an obvious extension of the original idea. "Super resolution" is even the same name JPL used. I have been looking for ways to use this trick long before this patent and I am less than ordinarily skilled in the art of digital photography.
What is our incessant need to know this information. Especially stuff that apparently puts Apple ahead of the game. Let's just get it out there so Samsung can start working on it too and call it something else. Gee freaking whiz.
Well, it’s public knowledge, so it’s not as though our knowing about it makes Samsung know it any sooner. Not sure how you could believe that.
Prior art: This same technique has been used by JPL for the last couple of decades to create super resolution images from mars rovers. Doing the same thing with a smart phone or any other camera is an obvious extension of the original idea. "Super resolution" is even the same name JPL used. I have been looking for ways to use this trick long before this patent and I am less than ordinarily skilled in the art of digital photography.
Agreed. I suspect nano technology will be brought to play in this field if it isn't already. Also i suspect arrays of many nano sensors will be better than one large one. Given a fabulous lens (sapphire??) the potential is mind boggling. The paradigm shifts coming in digital photography are going to be a wild ride ...
Always someone to poo-poo the cameras that consumers actually love and use. It's not a dumbing down. The vast majority of people can't tell the difference between a pro shot and a good pic with an iPhone 5S.
Nor should they be able to. It isn't the camera that makes a pro shot professional. At least not for professionals that take any effort at all when it comes to composition. A sports photographer on the other hand is very dependent upon his hardware.
I do understand the technical debate and that's something many of us enjoy. But I always stop short of saying iTunes sucks and will never be successful because it isn't some wildly huge, complicated file type. Or, like I've heard many photographers say, digital cameras will never overtake film because of x,y,z.
Having worked for the last thirty years In Rochester NY, I've seen first hand many comments to the effect : "digital cameras will never overtake film because of x,y,z". Sadly that attitude caused many people to loose their jobs. In a similar vain cell phone cameras rapidly decimated the consumer low end point and shoot market as the technology rapidly became more than good enough.
It's the content, stupid. Interesting photos are interesting because of the content.
Exactly! A professional in fact may employ many types of cameras to create the results he wants. He chooses the camera based upon what he is trying to create, the content. That content originates in the brain first.
Super-resolution images only if you hold the light-weight device even steadier than you have to already.
Fear not, technology will take care if that for you
Plus I think you maybe confusing optical zoom with sensor cropping. For the same picture taken under the same conditions: A sensor with the appropriate lens that is 10 x the size (of a 35 mm equivalent) requires the exact same exposure as a tiny 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR.
To zoom in by cropping on the super image might result in the same size and crop as using an optical zoom but the latter has the square law to contend with and thus a choice of F/Stop and shutter to compensate.
Comments
Where did I ascribe or not ascribe credit? Where did I mention innovation? I realize a lot of things, it is my area of interest above all other. I stated I hoped Apple to bring these things to market in their inimitable way. Many of the technologies I mentioned have been around a while but not getting traction, take Field Lens systems for example. How are Nokia doing by the way?
Canon has employed optical image stabilisation for over or close to, a decade.
When a scene is captured on two or more frames and the camera knows exactly what the intervening movement was (shake or otherwise - from data supplied by the actuators), the processor can perform sub-pixel interpolation (almost mentioned is one phrase in the article), which produces a physically higher resolution image. This is because each camera pixel samples a little bit of the neighbouring pixel's image field, essentially sampling the image at a higher resolution that the imaging system itself is capable of. Super resolution is a fair description. Apple's implementation might be novel, Canon and others use a different means but producing a higher resolution image this way has been understood for years.
So, no gimmick, physically valid outcome.
Rumour has Apple implementing both a zoom moveable lens, allowing a faster imaging system and sub-pixel interpolation through optical image stabilisation all in a tiny package. Once the iPhone 5 has been on the market for two years, mine will be for the new phone. All possible because some boffin working in a lab discovered that it was possible to produce gain in one of those new-fangled semiconductor materials under the control of another.
Edit - moveable lens for focussing, not a zoom lens, duh.
Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths. 1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more. Which is why I mentioned it being near magic. I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.
I wouldn't be shocked if Apple come out with a lens that focuses not by traditional movement but by shape shifting like the human eye lens. Then again there is the Field lens technology I hope they pursue with multiple focal planes embedded in one RAW image. That would be fun!
And if they did they would be following in existing footsteps:
http://www.gizmag.com/samsung-liquid-zoom-lens-plans/16851/
in 2010.
Varioptic programmable liquid lens for smart phone cameras
The B617 programmable liquid lens integrates optical image stabilization and autofocus functionality in the same element, for use in mobile products such as smart phones. It is shock-resistant and uses up to 90% less power than a VCM actuator. It fits into typical phone cameras.
Varioptic
Lyon, France
www.varioptic.com
You are totally correct. Apple as always brings technologies once costing a fortune to a level where people don't even know they have it but just use it. Mind you, if not for the those initially willing to pay the big bucks for new toys and companies always pushing the boundaries there would be no fun for the enthusiasts so i love both ends of the game.
What is your beef? You seem to have an axe to grind here and seem bitter for some reason. I want my AAPL to go up and I want new toys to buy from Apple.
You are welcome to whatever floats your boat and I promise not to spend pages of text finding fault with it. Olympus is great equipment, I have an OM1 and OM2 and a dozen lenses I also use an Olympus Tough for scuba. I have more Canon equipment than I should. I have several Nikons and lenses and I have a Sony HDR and now a 4K video camera. I love technology especially in the video and photography field. So when i enthuse about what i hope Apple have coming please don't feel a need to tear me to shreds ... ok?
Ha! So says the dumbed down iPad painter David Hockney, if I'm not mistaken.
That is the first thing that came to mind. Not so much because it is technically impossible, because it isn't, but rather you are adding a lot more variables into the mix. It will probably work well for landscapes but will have little usability for dynamic photos. I'd like to be proven wrong here. Even if I'm right I still see this as a useful feature especially if it means real optical stabilization in iPhones as a default feature.
Olympus's sensor shift IS has overtaken what Canon in lens stabilisation can achieve at all but long focal lengths. 1.5 to 2 second hand held exposures are possible with an E-M1 - or around 5 stops or more. Which is why I mentioned it being near magic. I am well aware in lens IS has been around for quite some time.
Perhaps it didn't read this way but I was adding to, not at all criticising, your comment, sorry. Nice to read the name Olympus actually, really admired their film based SLRs back when...
The act of taking a picture is an art form that is not tied to the hardware. Good artists accomplish their results with the hardware they have on hand, new tools mean more opportunities to explore their creative potential.
I haven't seen that new film on the topic have you? I'd like to see it. My mind is open but if I'd been around back then and known some science I'd sure as hell of use the camera obscurer! lol
No, I didn't know about the film, only read reviews of the book, sorry to say. Enormously interesting, though. I'll be looking out for the film.
Personal example I have to prove your point. In the days of dark rooms and chemicals when i was a teenager, I totally gave up on extreme shallow DOF macro photography which I longed to perfect. Only when I got to see the 8 x 10 would i discover the focus just missed the tip of a fern frond or a butterfly's antennae. It was too costly and frustrating for me. Thanks to DSLRs, preview zoom and IS and so on, now 40 years later, I can select which part of the antennae is in focus and know what the results will look like as I take the photograph.
The guy behind the video toaster (if you are old enough to remember that) made it.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/tim-jenison-johannes-vermeer/#!K5vHI
Well, it’s public knowledge, so it’s not as though our knowing about it makes Samsung know it any sooner. Not sure how you could believe that.
Agreed. I suspect nano technology will be brought to play in this field if it isn't already. Also i suspect arrays of many nano sensors will be better than one large one. Given a fabulous lens (sapphire??) the potential is mind boggling. The paradigm shifts coming in digital photography are going to be a wild ride ...
Exactly! A professional in fact may employ many types of cameras to create the results he wants. He chooses the camera based upon what he is trying to create, the content. That content originates in the brain first.
Super-resolution images only if you hold the light-weight device even steadier than you have to already.
Fear not, technology will take care if that for you
Plus I think you maybe confusing optical zoom with sensor cropping. For the same picture taken under the same conditions: A sensor with the appropriate lens that is 10 x the size (of a 35 mm equivalent) requires the exact same exposure as a tiny 1.6 crop factor Canon DSLR.
To zoom in by cropping on the super image might result in the same size and crop as using an optical zoom but the latter has the square law to contend with and thus a choice of F/Stop and shutter to compensate.
LOL
Then there was Johannes Vermeer who seems to have had the best of both worlds.
Love Vermeer's work. Beautifully rendered lives of often ordinary people.
Me too. Personally, if he used science to help, all power to him. It doesn't distract from the work to me at all.