Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

googleresearch.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 249 posts

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#101

Post by JimmaDaRustla »

slaven wrote: post #66
salimmadjd wrote: post #56

Is the app taking more than one photo? It wasn't clear in the blog post. AFAIU to have any depth perception you need to take more than one photo. Calculate the pupil distance (the distance the phone moved) then match image features between the two or more images. Calculate the amount of movement between the matching features to then calculate the depth. As described you then map the depth into an alpha transparency a…

Yes - you have to move the camera upwards as it takes a series of photos. It is not working from a single photo.

I just used it, it seems to use the movement to calculate the depth, but the initial image is not blurred or mutated in any way other than how it has calculated the depth.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#102

Post by cwilson »

insickness wrote: post #61
nostromo wrote: post #48

I sure wish you could buy a DSLR that just plugs into your iPhone. I don't want any of that terrible DSLR software -- just the hardware. I think many devices should become BYOD (bring your own device) soon, including big things like cars. edit: I don't just want my pictures to be saved on my phone. I'd like the phone to have full control of the camera's features -- so I can use apps (like timelapse, hdr, etc.) direct…

I recently got a Canon 6D. It has built-in wireless which allows you to connect directly to your smartphone so you can download photos from the camera to your phone. It works really well. You can also use your phone as a remote control to take photos and the view finder can be seen on your phone. I love that camera.

I believe the Canon 70D does this too (which is not a full frame like the 6D, but a APS-C cropped frame), as well as some of the Panasonic m4/3 (micro-four-thirds) cameras like the GH3/GH4 and GX7.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#103

Post by [deleted] »

ISL wrote: post #15
jnevelson wrote: post #7

So Google basically took what Lytro has been using hardware to achieve, and did it entirely in software. Pretty impressive.

The difference is that Lytro actually does it, instead of simulating it. 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)

[deleted]

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#105

Post by georgemcbay »

darkmighty wrote: post #85
jawns wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "digital edits are seriously banned," I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo. What's not allowed, as you allude to, is retouching a photo. So does introducing blur after the photo was taken count as retouching, or does it fall into the same category as color correction? It…

Yea I think it's ok to edit as long as it doesn't produce significant logical inconsistencies from the original (A=>B) - e.g. two missiles are turned into three; or it seemed to be late afternoon which can be made to seem nighttime from color balance (when that's significant). Procedures like blurring shouldn't be able to cause those because like you mentioned the could have been done in situ with a camera, and they…

There are certainly some cases where the line is a bit blurry. Consider this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544662/Pulitzer-Pri...

The edit doesn't really introduce any "logical inconsistencies", it just acts to "remove" the photographer from the scene (by way of removing his other camera), and yet it was ultimately a fire-able-offense.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#106

Post by marshray »

jawns wrote: post #41
grecy wrote: post #12

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…

When you say "digital edits are seriously banned," I think that's overreaching. I'm a former newspaper editor, and "digital edits" in the form of adjusting levels, color correction, etc., are performed on every single photo. What's not allowed, as you allude to, is retouching a photo. So does introducing blur after the photo was taken count as retouching, or does it fall into the same category as color correction? It…

Blurring seems almost a form of cropping; in both processes image information is removed rather than added. But blurring could be more powerful and subtle since it's less constrained by the need to maintain a rectangular shape.

Removing image information can certainly be an editorial choice. Take the all-too common picture of someone being beaten in a street brawl and imagine that the photographer or editor has used cropping or blurring to remove the fact that this scene is taking place directly in front of a police station.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#107

Post by niels_olson »

mikeg8 wrote: post #89
raldi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR In 2008, I had no trouble taking shallow-depth-of-field photos with a dirt-cheap Canon A570 pocket camera. For example: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2069/2076688334_aeae12583b_b....

Your example looks fucking delicious... (currently living abroad and missing double doubles more than ever)

upvote for recognizing double double, and expressing appropriate frustration.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#109

Post by Theodores »

gomox wrote: post #40
dperfect wrote: post #26

I believe the algorithm could be improved by applying the blur to certain areas/depths of the image without including pixels from very distant depths, and instead blurring/feathering edges with an alpha channel over those distant (large depth separation) pixels. For example, if you look at the left example photo by Rachel Been[1], the hair is blurred together with the distant tree details . If instead the algorithm d…

Yes! It shouldn't be too hard to implement either, compared to depth detection.

Actually I would say it is a hard problem. Look at anything filmed in a studio against a blue/green screen. This is with perfect lighting, a perfectly racked camera, a proper camera tripod/dolly, a perfectly even background screen, the presenter wearing safe colours and anything else I forgot to mention controlled. Now look at the fine hair detail. Does it resolve too well in front of the keyed in ?

Probably not. You need a very highly skilled operator to get the fine hair detail right. Hollywood can afford the pros, a regional news station in Papua New Guinea maybe not so.

I would not say fine hair detail is out of the question, however, we might have to live without it when using this faux depth affect for now.

Re: Lens Blur in the new Google Camera app

#110

Post by mortenjorck »

raldi wrote: post #60
jawns wrote: post #5

Regarding the technology (achieving shallow depth of field through an algorithm), not Google's specific implementation ... Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR). You can simulate it in Photoshop, but generally it takes a lot of work and the results aren't great. The "sh…

> Up until now, a decently shallow depth of field was pretty much only achievable in DSLR cameras (and compacts with sufficiently large sensor sizes, which typically cost as much as a DSLR In 2008, I had no trouble taking shallow-depth-of-field photos with a dirt-cheap Canon A570 pocket camera. For example: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2069/2076688334_aeae12583b_b....

It's not so much that a DSLR is the only way to shoot with a shallow depth of field (which can even be achieved on a phone camera if you're taking a picture of a ladybug a few inches from the lens), but that the greater the aperture and/or sensor size, the further away you can get a shallow depth of field. So on an APS-C sensor with an f/1.8 lens, you can shoot a portrait with the same level of bokeh you might only get with an extreme macro on a pocket camera, and on a full-frame sensor with an f/1.2 lens, your subject might be standing many feet away and you could still achieve the same effect.
Post reply on HN