181–190 of 249 posts
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
As an indie filmmaker, it would save a lot of hassle to be able to shoot at infinity focus all the time and apply bokeh afterwards; of course an algorithmic version would likely never get close to what you can achieve with quality optics, but many situations where image quality is 'good enough' for artistic purposes (eg shooting with a video-capable DSLR) then faster is better.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did hire Marc Levoy. I have been hoping for this for awhile. Can't wait for the next iteration. There are certain things you can't replicate with just a single tiny camera, but they are doing a great job! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6483182
> There are certain things you can't replicate with just a single tiny camera MOST DoF and bokeh effects in photography can't be replicated with a single small camera. As a photographer, bokeh is surprisingly difficult to fake, and looks glaringly bad when you notice. The blur effect is due to focal distance ratio differences, and it's very difficult to determine the distance in software. Hell, it's hard to determine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a slightly related tangent, every time I see someone post a "#nofilter" photo on facebook I have to bite my tongue to stop from asking them how their camera managed to separate the RGB channels without a Bayer (or similar, eg Foveon) filter. I mean, I sort of get what they are saying and I hate the overuse of Instagram filters probably much more than the next guy, but the odd relevance people place towards getting…
Regarding no filters, I've been shooting on 35mm film for the last year and been really enjoying it, almost never have to color correct, and the photos look so damn good! (especially skin tones) I just do develop + scan at the drug store, no prints lol. Doesn't work for everyone though, as waiting a day for photos might not be ideal (but I enjoy the anticipation heh).
Digital can give you pretty much the same skin tones as you'd get with a given film (Fuji's out-of-camera JPEGs are very close to the films they're named after); it's just a matter of matching the response curve of the film you want to emulate, and that takes some fiddling that most people don't take the time to do. (Capture One has much better default conversion curves than most raw conversion software, especially where skin tones are concerned. But you can profile your camera and create your own defaults in most software.) Film does have some advantages, especially when pulled to increase its dynamic range, but it's not fundamentally better than digital, just different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The method at least is very different. The Google app is doing structure from motion, which essentially uses parallax to get the 3D shape of the scene. From there, you can blur/deblur according to depth. The Nokia app uses focal sweep, i.e. it just takes lots of pictures of the same scene focussed at different depths. I'm not sure what the pros and cons of each approach are.
The Nokia app requires a longer exposure time, encompassing multiple shots, which basically means that anything moving is a no-go. The quality of its pictures is theoretically superior, though, because the depth effect comes from the photos themselves, and not a simulation. Google's version, on the other hand, works with only a single photo, so it's more versatile. It may suffer issues with quality, though (arising f…
This doesn't seem to be what everyone else is saying. Most people here are saying it takes multiple shots as you move the camera.
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.
I agree that it irks me. But I find that irritation hard to justify: Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way. Even saying "Your eye is like a camera" is only partly true. You can't get at the unprocessed image. What you think you see isn't the image on your retina. So saying that the effect as a result of a wide-open aperture is more truthful than algorithmically bl…
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.
I like the idea of storing the depth information (and preferred focal point) inside the image, and allowing the viewer to decide whether they want depth of focus effects, and if so, how strongly they want them enabled.