151–153 of 153 posts
Just bought mine :) I hope the Lidar can help portrait mode and other AI depth of field techniques work at further distances to a subject If this becomes true I chuck all of my DSLR-form factor cameras immediately, its over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big issue that's missing are stacked exposure RAW files with gyroscope and accelerometer data. When that becomes available, then yes the possible processing on a computer will match and exceed what can be done on a phone. If any camera would be able to do it, I'd bet on the Sony A9iii or A7iv.
Ah, that's a great point. It does seem like it's high time for there to be some kind of RAW-over-time standard, e.g. a single file with 2 hours of exposure that Photoshop would have built-in tools to manage -- and even the ability to handle matrix transformation movement over time, e.g. to photograph stars over 5 minutes. I wonder how useful it would be to embed gyroscope/accelerometer data with it though? Everything…
Of course, this would need a camera with much faster sensor readouts, which should be possible with Sony's next generation of stacked sensors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, that's a great point. It does seem like it's high time for there to be some kind of RAW-over-time standard, e.g. a single file with 2 hours of exposure that Photoshop would have built-in tools to manage -- and even the ability to handle matrix transformation movement over time, e.g. to photograph stars over 5 minutes. I wonder how useful it would be to embed gyroscope/accelerometer data with it though? Everything…
The idea would be that all stills, instead of being just a single still, are actually multiple stills that can be stacked on top of one another in order to reduce noise and reduce motion blur, as well as increase dynamic range. Of course, this would need a camera with much faster sensor readouts, which should be possible with Sony's next generation of stacked sensors.
Of course, storing 100 or 10,000 stills would up storage requirements dramatically -- but then lossless compression should bring that back down to entirely reasonable levels.
Because all you really have to do is compute the "average" image across the entire exposure (or at various "keyframes" if there's significant motion) and then encode the differences from those, which is trivial to compress.
I really hope this is something we see in the next 5 years, as opposed to 20 years.