Live data from Hacker News

Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

notebookcheck.net

1–10 of 58 posts

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#2
When I use a camera with an optical viewfinder, I feel more connected to my subject. Sure all the modern pro cameras are using EVFs now, and their performance is excellent, but I do think it’s a more disconnected shooting experience.

Think about the optical chain.

EVF: Subject —-> real time digital processor —-> screen —-> shooters eye

OVF: subject —-> mirror/glass —-> shooters eye

My hipster take is that makes shooting with an OVF a more “pure” experience. Not that it matters from the subjects POV though..

Seems like a cool camera. I think I will pick one up for my daughter.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#4

When I use a camera with an optical viewfinder, I feel more connected to my subject. Sure all the modern pro cameras are using EVFs now, and their performance is excellent, but I do think it’s a more disconnected shooting experience. Think about the optical chain. EVF: Subject —-> real time digital processor —-> screen —-> shooters eye OVF: subject —-> mirror/glass —-> shooters eye My hipster take is that makes shoot…

[deleted]

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#6
I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face?

It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of view. So how do you "calibrate" your stance to make the capture match the FOV of the glass rectangle you're looking through?

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#7

This is probably an LCD panel with the polarizer removed, so the UI will require a bright/strong source of light behind it.

Going on ten years ago I saw an early transparent OLED screen (TV-sized). It didn’t need a strong light source behind it. Could be those got cheap enough in a small size to put in a $29 camera.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#8
post #6

I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face? It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of v…

Not only that, but slight changes to the angle you're holding it will result in dramatically different photo angles, even though you're always seeing the same thing.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#9
post #6

I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face? It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of v…

I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-)

But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.

Re: Camera with transparent display launches for the equivalent of $29

#10
post #9
post #6

I don't understand how this works. If it's a transparent display that just passes through light and adds some overlay information (like a viewfinder on d/SLR cameras of the old), then doesn't the frame change completely depending on the distance you're holding the device at in relation to your face? It can't be meant to be used with your arm fully outstretched, because that would be an impractically narrow field of v…

I think the idea is that the display kinda represents the shot, but not well, but if you cared you wouldn’t be shooting with a $29 camera. I mean, it takes 1920x1080 pics, don’t get too picky there, Ansley Adams. :-) But I agree with you, I don’t see how the “viewfinder” is all that useful, other than “nifty!”.

But if it’s giving you no information about what will actually be in frame you might as well just look in front of you and guess
Post reply on HN