I'm not an optics expert, but couldn't this be used to generate 3d depth maps? By stepping through each field depth you could find the edges of objects (by how clear they were at each depth) and map those edges onto a mesh. Effectively, doing what the kinect does but without any of the infrared projections...
Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
11–20 of 97 posts
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#12I'm not an optics expert, but couldn't this be used to generate 3d depth maps? By stepping through each field depth you could find the edges of objects (by how clear they were at each depth) and map those edges onto a mesh. Effectively, doing what the kinect does but without any of the infrared projections...
That’s definitely possible but low contrast regions without any edges to detect (e.g. a grey wall) are probably a problem.
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#13This is much more useful than a simple depth map, since it works with translucent and amorphous things like steam, and other things that are hard to model with meshes like motes of dust. Also, if you have a shiny object, focusing at one depth might show the surface of the object in focus, but focusing at a different depth would show the reflection in focus.
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#14I'm not an optics expert, but couldn't this be used to generate 3d depth maps? By stepping through each field depth you could find the edges of objects (by how clear they were at each depth) and map those edges onto a mesh. Effectively, doing what the kinect does but without any of the infrared projections...
You could probably do it, but it's not clear why it would be superior to stereo vision. Both approaches have the same pitfalls (CPU-intensive, need texture to work well) and stereo vision is largely a solved problem that works on commodity hardware.
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#15[deleted]
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#16I'm not an optics expert, but couldn't this be used to generate 3d depth maps? By stepping through each field depth you could find the edges of objects (by how clear they were at each depth) and map those edges onto a mesh. Effectively, doing what the kinect does but without any of the infrared projections...
You could probably do it, but it's not clear why it would be superior to stereo vision. Both approaches have the same pitfalls (CPU-intensive, need texture to work well) and stereo vision is largely a solved problem that works on commodity hardware.
Because you don’t need a second sensor and a second lens?
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#17The downsides, which, of course, this press release doesn't mention:
- Greatly, greatly reduced image resolution. Great big dedicated-camera sized lens and image sensor, cellphone-camera sized pictures. 1680×1050, at most. (1.76MP)
- Color aberration. The microlenses have to be small, of course, so they're going to be made of single physical elements, rather than doublets.[1]
- Various amusing aliasing problems. (note the fine horizontal lines on some of the demo shots)
- Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing, which means the CPU will have to chew on data for a while before you can take another image.
- Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images. Sure, cameras all have their particular RAW sensor formats, but this is also going to have its own output image format. No looking at thumbnails in file browsers. Photoshop won't have any idea what to do with it. Can't print it, of course.
- - You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over, but why not use a conventional camera with stopped-down[2] lens, then?
- It's going to be really thrillingly expensive. This is a given, of course, with new camera technology.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublet_(lens) [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/stop#Effects_on_image_quality
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#18This is a very interesting concept, I would be doubly interested to see this technology used for video in camcorders. However, I'm curious to see if they have the resources available to go toe to toe with Nikon, Canon, and Olympus. The camera industry is so competitive... and the life cycles on digital cameras are so quick nowadays. They may find it difficult to keep up.
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#19The downsides, which, of course, this press release doesn't mention: - Greatly, greatly reduced image resolution. Great big dedicated-camera sized lens and image sensor, cellphone-camera sized pictures. 1680×1050, at most. (1.76MP) - Color aberration. The microlenses have to be small, of course, so they're going to be made of single physical elements, rather than doublets.[1] - Various amusing aliasing problems. (not…
>cellphone-camera sized pictures.
With 5+ megapixel cell phone cameras being common these days, what resolution do you imply in that sentence?
Re: Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could probably do it, but it's not clear why it would be superior to stereo vision. Both approaches have the same pitfalls (CPU-intensive, need texture to work well) and stereo vision is largely a solved problem that works on commodity hardware.
Because you don’t need a second sensor and a second lens?
Well, to be fair, you actually need a whole array of (micro)lenses, so 2 lenses sounds pretty reasonable.