The blur is far too uniform and boring. Actual bokeh has more intrigue to it: lens aberrations, crazy highlights, wonderful patterns, even when the depth of field isn't very extreme. Check out some real examples on google image search: https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_s... I'm impressed! Looks like Google solved the hard problem. Implementing a more pleasing blur than plain gaussian doesn't…
Especially in large format petzval and similar lenses eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/721576...
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…
There is something similar like this available already! Although, I use it on android. DSLR Controller(BETA) with OTG supported Android phone and almost all of the digital DSLR cameras. I use it with my 600D to take timelapse (it does not have it built in). You can use it with tablet to have bigger screen for example. And it supports almost every setting. EDIT: Free "does it work with your device" version: https://pl…
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…
Unfortunately, as a non-professional photographer, I think this article very disingenuous. Most of the shots aren't taken from the same distance, angle, nor lighting. "Here we are, closer to the subject and from a different angle; notice that we don't have to deal with distinguishing our focused subject from subjects that no longer exist!" "Sure these look the same, but this one is done with optics and is definitely better!"
Eh...$15 used 50mm f1.4 or F2.0 lens and $25 film body from KEH.com...
And how are you going to fit that into your pocket? Good luck getting that film to Instagram too.
Not endorsing this thread or anything, but getting that film to Instagram is trivial: it's called Costco. They'll develop that film, print it, scan it for you and give you digital files. Easy, cheap and high quality.
Neat effect--I'm definitely interested in trying this app. Would be cool to see them go further and try to turn highlights in the out of focus areas into nice octagons or other shapes caused by the the aperature blades in a real camera.
Wow.. this is missing the entire point on why lens blur occurs. Lens blur in normal photographs is the price you pay because you want to focus sharply on a subject. The reason photos with blur looks "cool" is not because the blur itself but its because the subject is so sharply focused that its details are order of magnitude better. If you take a random photo, calculate depth map somehow, blur our everything but the subject then you are taking away information from the photo without adding information to the subject. The photos would look "odd" to the trained eyes at best. For casual photograph, it may look slightly cool on small screens like phone because of relatively increased perceived focus on subject but it's fooling eyes of casual person. If they want to really do it (i.e. add more details to subject) then they should use multiple frames to increase resolution of the photograph. There is a lot of research being done on that. Subtracting details from background without adding details to subject is like doing an Instagram. It may be cool to teens but professional photographers know it's a bad taste.
Wow.. this is missing the entire point on why lens blur occurs. Lens blur in normal photographs is the price you pay because you want to focus sharply on a subject. The reason photos with blur looks "cool" is not because the blur itself but its because the subject is so sharply focused that its details are order of magnitude better. If you take a random photo, calculate depth map somehow, blur our everything but the…
That is not true. Stopping down the lens aperture increases the depth of field without reducing detail in the focal plane, until the diffraction limit (around f/16 for a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR).
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…
I do not understand what you mean by "Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way." If I hold my hand very close and focus on it, the background obviously becomes blurred.