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.
Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.
Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.
Super-resolution images only if you hold the light-weight device even steadier than you have to already.
Yep I see highly mixed results for a number of reasons.
Which brings up another question/complaint/want, when will Apple come up with a standardized mounting system? 1/4-20 is probably too big so maybe something different like a dovetail that uses an adapter to existing tripod 1/4-20 studs. As camera quality increases there is a real benefit to being able to use tripods and other camera mounts.
Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.
Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.
Couldn't agree more.
I never got my hands on the sort of camera you describe, I'd have loved that. Yes with 35 mm it was a lost cause. The only work a round was taking many shots and hoping you nailed one, not exactly a very artistic approach plus as a poverty stricken student I could't afford the film, paper or chemicals for that approach. The other problem was I was trying to use real subjects such as a mossy bank by a river and natural light, of course there was always air movement. Now I realize I should have taken chunks of real life back to a controlled studio environment but back then I was too idealistic and that would have seemed cheating. lol
The trouble with this approach, as I see it, is that you most need stabilisation in low light, when the camera is going to have to resort to a slow shutter speed. A slow shutter speed makes it rather difficult to take multiple exposures in a reasonable time frame.
It will be very interesting to see if this makes it into production and how effective it will be.
Olympus make cameras with OIS that is bordering on magic.
It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...
All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics. Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane. In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels. I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago. This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque. Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet. The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.
By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics. This is a great thing. It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.
Yep I see highly mixed results for a number of reasons.
Which brings up another question/complaint/want, when will Apple come up with a standardized mounting system? 1/4-20 is probably too big so maybe something different like a dovetail that uses an adapter to existing tripod 1/4-20 studs. As camera quality increases there is a real benefit to being able to use tripods and other camera mounts.
It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...
All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics. Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane. In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels. I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago. This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque. Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet. The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.
By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics. This is a great thing. It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.
Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.
Thompson
I think optics is exactly where Apple seems to be working the hardest just now.
It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...
All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics. Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane. In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels. I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago. This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque. Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet. The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.
By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics. This is a great thing. It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.
Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.
Thompson
Apple might be taking on a moveable lens (for focussing), which would permit faster optics and I think, a better PSF. Have to think about this but it's after midnight here, so...
Have you any idea how much more we photographers are willing to pay for IS on a Canon pro lens? Do you think they dumb down the DSLRs?
We aren't talking about DSLR's are we? We are talking about image stabilization that will be put into a phone and the sure to follow marking barrage that will suddenly convince the unknowing that they too can shoot like a pro. As for knowing about the cost of IS in a pro lens, I know quite well, considering I have: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 15mm Fisheye f/2.8. That's roughly $19k in lenses. All image stabilized except the 24-70mm. So yeah, I know a bit or two about the cost of image stabilized lenses.
His ability to maintain context and contact <span style="line-height:22px;">displayed</span>
brilliance. We are so much better off for his toils through adversity.
BTW, have you seen the new film regarding the likely use of the camera obscurer in his work? I know it has long been a theory but this new documentary, which in no way tries to diminish the art, seems to confirm it pretty much. It explains the super human ability with perspective not common in the day, I suspect a chap called Leo in Italy a few centuries earlier also figured this out.
I take it you're still using a pinhole camera and wet plates? Those guys were real photographers, but they were accused of dumbing down painting.
Sorry, was in the darkroom and couldn't come out until just now. As from my post above, I have nothing wrong with IS in a camera or phone. My "problem" is that this will give the impression that the average house wife can just pick up an iPhone and shoot images just like a pro. Throw in a filter or 7 and that's all it takes.
We aren't talking about DSLR's are we? We are talking about image stabilization that will be put into a phone and the sure to follow marking barrage that will suddenly convince the unknowing that they too can shoot like a pro. As for knowing about the cost of IS in a pro lens, I know quite well, considering I have: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 15mm Fisheye f/2.8. That's roughly $19k in lenses. All image stabilized except the 24-70mm. So yeah, I know a bit or two about the cost of image stabilized lenses.
I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.
Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.
Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding ....
Sorry, was in the darkroom and couldn't come out until just now. As from my post above, I have nothing wrong with IS in a camera or phone. My "problem" is that this will give the impression that the average house wife can just pick up an iPhone and shoot images just like a pro. Throw in a filter or 7 and that's all it takes.
That sounds a bit defensive to me. You over estimate the general public, they don't read the manuals, they don't know what their iPhones do, they just take pictures. They are not trying to be pros so relax
Very interesting. I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way. Actually, the first transistor radio, the first SLR, well, you get the idea.
Very interesting. I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way. Actually, the first transistor radio, the first SLR, well, you get the idea.
Talking of old video systems, back in the early 1970s I had access to a 1 inch reel to reel black and white video deck to play with that Proctor and Gamble threw out when they upgraded. Seeing TV from a tape at the time blew my mind. Amongst the tapes were some of their old TV commercials, interestingly not all their own products, including one I recall from years earlier ... 'You''ll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent" I wish I had kept that thing!
I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.
Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.
Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding ....
Well Nikon does make the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market. It is so good that Canon users buy adapter rings to mount it. Losing AF, and metering. Just say... I won't mention my D800 or D4. Still just saying...
Comments
Back in the day, the thing I loved about using large medium format cameras was that it slowed me down and thus I took the time to look over the entire image in the view finder. I found it liberating in a way because trying to do something similar in a 35 mm view finder was next to impossible. Look at the ground glass was very much like looking at an LCD, given shielding from ambient light.
Bad photography can really spoil ones meal. I remember years ago going into Red Lobster and looking at some of their menus with complete disgust. I'm assuming the photographer was a professional but apparently was only equipped with limited ability because depth of field was terrible in the pics. I really have to question the leadership of any company that would have permitted such pictures in their consumer facing materials. Maybe the problem no longer exists, I don't know because it has been years since I've been in a Red Lobster, but I do know I got turned off to the place because of this. Accepting crappy photography just announces to the world that the company has low standards. Your comments about DOF brought all of this vividly back to life for me and is something I had forgotten about.
Yep I see highly mixed results for a number of reasons.
Which brings up another question/complaint/want, when will Apple come up with a standardized mounting system? 1/4-20 is probably too big so maybe something different like a dovetail that uses an adapter to existing tripod 1/4-20 studs. As camera quality increases there is a real benefit to being able to use tripods and other camera mounts.
Couldn't agree more.
I never got my hands on the sort of camera you describe, I'd have loved that. Yes with 35 mm it was a lost cause. The only work a round was taking many shots and hoping you nailed one, not exactly a very artistic approach plus as a poverty stricken student I could't afford the film, paper or chemicals for that approach. The other problem was I was trying to use real subjects such as a mossy bank by a river and natural light, of course there was always air movement. Now I realize I should have taken chunks of real life back to a controlled studio environment but back then I was too idealistic and that would have seemed cheating. lol
The trouble with this approach, as I see it, is that you most need stabilisation in low light, when the camera is going to have to resort to a slow shutter speed. A slow shutter speed makes it rather difficult to take multiple exposures in a reasonable time frame.
It will be very interesting to see if this makes it into production and how effective it will be.
Olympus make cameras with OIS that is bordering on magic.
It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...
All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics. Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane. In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels. I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago. This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque. Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet. The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.
By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics. This is a great thing. It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.
Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.
Thompson
Get your design to Kickstarter ASAP.
Me too. Personally, if he used science to help, all power to him. It doesn't distract from the work to me at all.
His ability to maintain context and contact displayed brilliance. We are so much better off for his toils through adversity.
I think optics is exactly where Apple seems to be working the hardest just now.
It's not just about low-light conditions, although you are right that that is a concern...
All debate about mega-pixels aside, one of the things that is actually limiting picture quality is the resolution of the optics. Teeny tiny lenses with a short focal length typically have point spread functions that are already several times larger than the pixels on the sensor at the focal plane. In other words, after some point, adding ever more pixels is only providing more of those blurry pixels. I think we reached that point for camera phones with tiny lenses quite a few mega-pixels ago. This is kind of like continually increasing the horsepower of a car's engine long past the point at which the transmission can deliver any more torque. Just wasted horsepower, but great on a spec sheet. The megapixel race is just a marketing spec.
By employing this super-resolution technique - and if it works - Apple may be able to virtually shrink that optical point spread function, making those pixels more representative of the scene and not the optics. This is a great thing. It could make Apple's images have higher quality even if they have fewer pixels than the competition.
Hope it works, but I'm skeptical about it.
Thompson
Apple might be taking on a moveable lens (for focussing), which would permit faster optics and I think, a better PSF. Have to think about this but it's after midnight here, so...
Have you any idea how much more we photographers are willing to pay for IS on a Canon pro lens? Do you think they dumb down the DSLRs?
We aren't talking about DSLR's are we? We are talking about image stabilization that will be put into a phone and the sure to follow marking barrage that will suddenly convince the unknowing that they too can shoot like a pro. As for knowing about the cost of IS in a pro lens, I know quite well, considering I have: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, 85mm f1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 300mm f2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 15mm Fisheye f/2.8. That's roughly $19k in lenses. All image stabilized except the 24-70mm. So yeah, I know a bit or two about the cost of image stabilized lenses.
BTW, have you seen the new film regarding the likely use of the camera obscurer in his work? I know it has long been a theory but this new documentary, which in no way tries to diminish the art, seems to confirm it pretty much. It explains the super human ability with perspective not common in the day, I suspect a chap called Leo in Italy a few centuries earlier also figured this out.
I take it you're still using a pinhole camera and wet plates? Those guys were real photographers, but they were accused of dumbing down painting.
Sorry, was in the darkroom and couldn't come out until just now. As from my post above, I have nothing wrong with IS in a camera or phone. My "problem" is that this will give the impression that the average house wife can just pick up an iPhone and shoot images just like a pro. Throw in a filter or 7 and that's all it takes.
I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.
Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.
Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding ....
That sounds a bit defensive to me. You over estimate the general public, they don't read the manuals, they don't know what their iPhones do, they just take pictures. They are not trying to be pros so relax
Wait a minute .... DARK ROOM????? WTF?
How is this different than the Oppo Find 7's Super Zoom camera?
this doesn't sound battery friendly; multiple pictures, more processing.
why is battery technology so crappy.
there's nobel prize out there somewhere.
Very interesting. I'm old enough to remember the first portable Betamax deck, by the way. Actually, the first transistor radio, the first SLR, well, you get the idea.
Talking of old video systems, back in the early 1970s I had access to a 1 inch reel to reel black and white video deck to play with that Proctor and Gamble threw out when they upgraded. Seeing TV from a tape at the time blew my mind. Amongst the tapes were some of their old TV commercials, interestingly not all their own products, including one I recall from years earlier ... 'You''ll wonder where the yellow went when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent" I wish I had kept that thing!
But I do remember the commercial, the American version anyway. What was the commercial TV in the UK at the time?
I was responding to a comment that IS was a gimmick, I think you misunderstood my intent. I was defending IS as being a seriously great thing.
Regarding the unknowing (lol, good term)... They have had AI controlled HDR in iPhones now for a while. The public take better pictures and don't even know what HDR is. It will be the same with IS. It is all good that tech trickles down IMHO.
Oh I get it it.. a Nikon guy ... no wonder you are defensive ... (from a Canon guy) .... kidding ....
Well Nikon does make the best 24-70mm f/2.8 on the market. It is so good that Canon users buy adapter rings to mount it. Losing AF, and metering. Just say... I won't mention my D800 or D4. Still just saying...