PDA

View Full Version : Having troubles focusing?



Klainmeister
06-22-2011, 12:47 PM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387422,00.asp

Found that to be fascinating. I wonder how exactly that works?

anikin
06-22-2011, 12:59 PM
It's likely to be a marketing BS for focus stacking. Search for it on wiki.

Pinholemaster
06-22-2011, 01:49 PM
The next camera to come out will make pictures of what you missed when you pressed the shutter. :cool:

holmburgers
06-22-2011, 02:11 PM
It's not marketing BS, it truly is a new way to take images. It records the "light field" by using a micro-lens array (fly's eye array). It has parallels to integral imaging techniques, a concept conceived by Gabriel Lippmann in the late 1800's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field
http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/lightfield/

Also, see the integral imaging thread here if you wanna get all analog on this mother.

guitstik
06-22-2011, 02:39 PM
Darn, I thought this was an ADD support group thread.

anikin
06-22-2011, 05:05 PM
Thanks for the info holmburgers! It's interesting reading. It looks like focus stacking is just one of the practical applications of the light field theory.

holmburgers
06-23-2011, 12:37 AM
very welcome!

MattKing
06-23-2011, 12:50 AM
I wonder if there could be any application for this in film scanning?

mark
06-23-2011, 10:15 AM
The first sentence is all I needed to read, but I did read it all. In my opinion it is one more gadget aimed at those who shoot without thought, and refuse to take credit for crappy shots. We as a society spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make things "easy" yet at the same time remove the thought, and the learning that comes from those thoughts. People say they just want to take pictures, not worry about all that other stuff, like composition, and in this case worrying if your picture is in focus.

I have been rather disgusted with the refusal of people to DO something and LEARN how to do something, without expecting some gadget to do most of the work. Yes I use a calculator, yes I do use digital cameras, but if they went away I would be able to do what I needed to do without them. Guess I am just getting old. I'm going to go chop up a car now and take it to the scrap yard.

holmburgers
06-23-2011, 10:47 AM
I'm going to go chop up a car now and take it to the scrap yard.

That will probably make you feel better.. :)

It's true, we live in a virtual world where many people are more comfortable manipulating things on a screen with a mouse, a remote, or a controller, as opposed to a physical object in the real world.

However, times change, and sometime in the future we'll reach a plateau in technology, when a new generation that has been brought up completely engulfed in this way of living will rebel & search for a way out, again discovering the physical world. At least I hope so.

ic-racer
06-23-2011, 04:57 PM
The best description of it is right from Ng. Here is his paper from 2005, he explains it all in detail and is a lot easer to understand than the Wikepidia link on light fields. At the time the microlens array produced an 85 Kilopixel (0.085 megapixel) image.

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf

mark
06-23-2011, 05:09 PM
That will probably make you feel better.. :)



It did, but I did not get it chopped up. It kept starting on fire and it is real hard to use a cutting torch or plasma cutter when you have a water hose in the other hand.

It also helps to remember that you had called the cops to inspect a different abandoned vehicle. :cool: been an interesting day.

holmburgers
06-23-2011, 11:32 PM
Thanks for the link ic. I understand that this Ng guy was some kind of wunderkind. How do you pronounce Ng by the way?

Mark, I can only imagine what you're doing when you log off... :laugh:

Newt_on_Swings
06-24-2011, 02:38 AM
Quite amazing... they are going to make a lot of money licensing this tech out to any company which uses or sells optics.

36cm2
06-24-2011, 07:21 AM
Can\'t wait to slap one of these lenses on my Perkeo! ;)

ic-racer
06-24-2011, 04:51 PM
How do you pronounce Ng by the way?

I knew a guy with that last name who we called "ANG" (like BANG) and he would respond to us. He did not like "EN-GEE"

Jeff Kubach
06-25-2011, 01:38 PM
I have a problem focusing, I always get off the wrong excit on the highway!

Jeff

wildbillbugman
06-25-2011, 04:18 PM
Also, see the integral imaging thread here if you wanna get all analog on this mother.[/QUOTE]

I can"t find the "integral imaging" thread. Is it on this forum? Is there another name for the thread?. I wana read about the analog aspects. I don't like pixals replacing grain. I don't like spam! And I don't like "cheese product" replacing chees! And I don' like the latest news from China, about synthetic steak made from human excriment!,
Bill

holmburgers
06-25-2011, 06:28 PM
Here you go Wild Bill...

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum42/83096-autostereoscopic-multidimentional-processes-lippmanns-integral-photography.html

I would love to make analog integral images. In theory it's quite simple, but there are also a number of caveats. However, someone with a sheet of film and a fly's eye array could make 3D images in that way. However, they would be pseudoscopic.

Another option is coating a plate or sheet of film with retro-reflective beads. These will act in a similar way to the fly's eye array.

Lenticular prints are another related method that might be easier in many respects.

Thee book to check out is Takanori Okoshi's "Three-Dimensional Imaging Techniques".

wildbillbugman
06-25-2011, 08:00 PM
Thanks Holmburgers,
This will be an intresting read, I am sure. But,as you can see from my latest thread on the Silver-gelatin thread, I have plenty to do already. So many things I wanna do, but only one pair of hands.... At lest I am not one of those " late middle aged" guys who can't think of anything to do.
Bill