11–20 of 249 posts
I'm sure the HTC implementation works better, but this is still impressive.
In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits.
It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not very representative of what my eyes saw. If I take the photo at f/18 then use an app like the one linked, producing extremely similar results, that's banned. Fascinating what's allowed and what's not.
I find even more interesting is the allowance of changing color photos to B/W, or that almost anything that "came straight off the camera" no matter how far it strays from what your eyes saw.
[1] http://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2007/04/15/A-basic-rule...
Is looking at the examples giving anyone else a headache? It's like the software blur falls into some kind of uncanny valley for reality.
So Google basically took what Lytro has been using hardware to achieve, and did it entirely in software. Pretty impressive.
It'd be fun to play around with the software to see in which cases it breaks (perhaps taking a photo of a framed landscape photo with another landscape behind, for example)
We had an interesting discussion about this a few nights ago at a Photojournalism talk. In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits. It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not ve…
And then you apply one more post-processing effect to try to highlight something, and they freak out that you're no longer showing them the raw data!
That does not mean what you think it does.
We had an interesting discussion about this a few nights ago at a Photojournalism talk. In that field, digital edits are seriously banned, to the point multiple very well known photo journalists have been fired for one little use of the clone tool [1] and other minor edits. It's interesting to think I can throw an f/1.8 lens on my DSLR and take a very shallow depth of field photo, which is OK, even though it's not ve…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Cool technology, though.
Isn't it interesting how, by diminishing the overall information content of the image by blurring it, it actually communicates more (in some ways, particularly depth) to the viewer?
This is a good example: http://gallery.realitydesign.com/dof.jpg
Both of these are good individually. But what is best depends totally on what exactly you're going for. Stanley Kubrick did very interesting experimentation with this.
I'd love to see their code open sourced.
