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

Cameras and Lenses

ciechanow.ski

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 241 posts

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#231

Post by martomi »

ansgri wrote: post #166
ehejsbbejsk wrote: post #38

As a hobby photographer, this is simply amazing and the most intuitive article I’ve come across. This is a must read. I am curious, however, why we still can’t digitally reproduce bokeh. Apple is getting close. I thought LiDAR would theoretically solve that and could yield indistinguishable renders compared to analog lenses. That would be a game changer in my view and why I would like to see Apple develop a full-fram…

One of the limiting factors for modeling bokeh and flare-like effects is dynamic range limitation. You need extreme HDR capturing to accurately reproduce these effects, as they often play the largest part with bright, especially colored, light sources. I did work on flare simulation and while many effects can be modeled by a rather simple convolution (in the spectral space of course -- you cannot make a rainbow out o…

Here's another interesting paper [1] on that topic. It shows that synthetically blurred images are significantly more realistic if they're based on recovered radiance maps (HDR).

[1] https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~malik/papers/debevec-malik...

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#232

Post by martomi »

matthiasv wrote: post #168
dingaling wrote: post #152

> Alternatively, we could increase the sensitivity of the sensor which is described using the ISO rating. Umm well, not really. The sensitivity of a digital CCD or CMOS sensor never changes; it has one 'native ISO' equivalent sensitivity and that's all. It creates the same output signal in response to a photon every time. Varying the pseudo-ISO simply varies the gain of the downstream post-readout amplifier. That's w…

> Sometimes it's better to take a deliberately underexposed photo and tweak regions of it in post to achieve the desired exposure instead of introducing global noise from in-camera amplification. That is definitely not my experience for Canon's in low light situations. Here [1] is an example shot at ISO 100 but pushed by 5EV to match the brightness of the same scene shot at ISO 3200. The noise is much more tolerable…

Perhaps what we're seeing here is that quantization errors for the non-amplified signal become larger than the noise introduced by the amplification?

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#233

Post by [deleted] »

martomi wrote: post #230
strogonoff wrote: post #13

Lately an area of interest of mine in digital photography in particular is scene-referred vs. output-referred image formats and subjective perception. The author (justifiably) walks around this topic in his camera sensor overview, but the data captured by a sensor from photons hitting it doesn’t really contain a readily viewable image. Data values captured by a modern camera far exceed the ranges that can be reproduc…

If I understand correctly, you're looking for a simplified RAW image editor? Many digital cameras allow storing RAW images alongside JPEG. The viewer can then load the RAW images into any (web-based) image viewer/editor that supports RAW format and have full control over tone mapping. The tool interface needs to be simplified to make it a better fit for the use-case you present but I don't see computing power as a bo…

[deleted]

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#234

Post by strogonoff »

martomi wrote: post #230
strogonoff wrote: post #13

Lately an area of interest of mine in digital photography in particular is scene-referred vs. output-referred image formats and subjective perception. The author (justifiably) walks around this topic in his camera sensor overview, but the data captured by a sensor from photons hitting it doesn’t really contain a readily viewable image. Data values captured by a modern camera far exceed the ranges that can be reproduc…

If I understand correctly, you're looking for a simplified RAW image editor? Many digital cameras allow storing RAW images alongside JPEG. The viewer can then load the RAW images into any (web-based) image viewer/editor that supports RAW format and have full control over tone mapping. The tool interface needs to be simplified to make it a better fit for the use-case you present but I don't see computing power as a bo…

I think there is a fundamental difference between editor (designed to produce a deliverable) and viewer (designed for immediate experience) software. One of the things essential to the latter but really to the former is immediacy, hence I suspect that the computing powers commonly available today make it impossible for now (but likely not for much longer).

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#235

Post by strogonoff »

strogonoff wrote: post #234
martomi wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, you're looking for a simplified RAW image editor? Many digital cameras allow storing RAW images alongside JPEG. The viewer can then load the RAW images into any (web-based) image viewer/editor that supports RAW format and have full control over tone mapping. The tool interface needs to be simplified to make it a better fit for the use-case you present but I don't see computing power as a bo…

I think there is a fundamental difference between editor (designed to produce a deliverable) and viewer (designed for immediate experience) software. One of the things essential to the latter but really to the former is immediacy, hence I suspect that the computing powers commonly available today make it impossible for now (but likely not for much longer).

(Edit: “not really to the former”)

Apart from performance, another crucial thing is that the viewer must not have to think about technical aspects (like exposure, color profile, etc.), as you noted, so the GUI would have to be radically different.

I am envisioning producers bundling N processing profiles with their “digital negative”, and software that somehow allows the user to fluidly explore the perception of the scene by interpolating inside an (N-1)-dimensional space bounded by parameters in those profiles with really low latency.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#236

Post by jeffreyrogers »

moron4hire wrote: post #193
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time.

That is not correct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Usage > They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century... and has remained in common use for centuries...

> in common use it is understood to be plural

What I said is correct. Prior to about 4-5 years ago you did not find people using they in the singular, hence "in common use".

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#237

Post by jeffreyrogers »

dragonwriter wrote: post #196
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time.

> I’m sure there are examples, but in common use it is understood to be plural and has been used that way in all writing for a long time. It is grammatically plural, but it has been accepted for semantically singular use since long before the Victorian effort to impose Latin-inspired rules on English usage which failed to eradicate it despite intense effort. (Victorian prescriptivism did have some good effects — regu…

> in common use it is understood to be plural

Nothing in what you wrote contradicts what I stated. The man on the street thinks they is plural, and nearly all writing treats it that way. Historical examples excepted.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#238

Post by HexagonalKitten »

antonfire wrote: post #181
HexagonalKitten wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rhetorical style is very harmful to the people you claim to support. You received criticism for your interactions and you immediately redirected that towards hatred for "trans folk" in an effort to smear the person who said it. > What harm is it to use singular "they"? That's not what the OP is saying. Because of course there's no harm in any pronoun. But there is societal harm in acting high and mighty about ho…

> What people who harp on pronouns... Mental breakdowns over pronouns... pronoun police To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in…

I wanted to step back to the beginning and ask why you felt that you needed to jump into a conversation with someone who was obviously much more deeply involved that you. In no way did I criticize trans people, or otherwise attack anyone other than SJWs who fight for people who don't want them.

Don't you see the issue of people claiming to fight for others, but really just stirring up trouble?

I'm honestly interested because I see many communities attacked and turned into a hollow shell, leaving the original members as the primary enemies. Transexuals are literally hated on Twitter despite being the group who fought for the freedom that the current justice warriors are using against them. And people like yourself, who seem to sincerely be trying to help, are helping the attackers. What about the transgender message to you justifies death threats and insane hatred of transexuals? Because that's what you're supporting if you back these pronoun bullies. All anyone different needs is just for everyone to let them be. Fighting in their name is directly counterproductive.

Real LGBTQ+(everything) people don't want to force the public to do anything, they simply want to be equals! Everyone who fights for this "must use pronouns" or "must say 'cis'", etc, fight must hate actual LGBTQ people or they wouldn't try to pick a fight for them. Do you and everyone else not understand how hard it is without people making it harder?

I mean, it is a way for you (the generic you, but also the personal you) to virtue signal. But do you really think this justifies the damage?

How, and why? This stuff is crazy!

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#239

Post by HexagonalKitten »

Kye wrote: post #132
kepler1 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a hypocrite -- feel free to let people be who they are, as long as I can force you to call them a word I want.

You opened this thread by lecturing others on the pronouns they used for the article author with no standing to do so. Who are you and why are you more authoritative on the author's pronouns than the person you attempted to correct?

Do you not understand how claiming to support people's pronouns and then bravely using gender neutral pronouns for everyone who doesn't specify is a bit hyprocritical? Most people identify happily and it's as rude to misgender them as anyone.

It's a form of unasked for activism (it's done by an "ally") and it ropes people like yourself who are presumably not 'on the acronym' into supporting craziness that, if you're honest with yourself, would make you hate people who espoused. Both casually as one hates warm beer and gray weekends, but also in the sense of being inspired to actually work against the general freer society we've been building for decades.

Actual allies can help by not joining in on the trolling.

Re: Cameras and Lenses

#240

Post by Kye »

HexagonalKitten wrote: post #239
Kye wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You opened this thread by lecturing others on the pronouns they used for the article author with no standing to do so. Who are you and why are you more authoritative on the author's pronouns than the person you attempted to correct?

Do you not understand how claiming to support people's pronouns and then bravely using gender neutral pronouns for everyone who doesn't specify is a bit hyprocritical? Most people identify happily and it's as rude to misgender them as anyone. It's a form of unasked for activism (it's done by an "ally") and it ropes people like yourself who are presumably not 'on the acronym' into supporting craziness that, if you're…

I actually appreciate when people default to neutral when they otherwise don't know. They tend to use he/him if they don't, and that's incorrect.

This unasked for anti-activism is very unhelpful. You are indistinguishable from people who refuse to use correct pronouns even when they know. You do not speak for me.

Post reply on HN