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

About Bokeh

bokehtests.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: About Bokeh

#31

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

droitbutch wrote: post #14
behringer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a photographer I really don't ever want to use the camera software. Even when it's perfect for my application, I want RAW photographs because you have to fix so many other things before you ever get to special effects. You need to crop, color correct, distortion correct, noise correct, exposure correct. Only after that would you ever really want to apply some kind of bokeh filter. The entire reason to use a high e…

> You need to crop, color correct, distortion correct, noise correct, exposure correct. Only after that would you ever really want to apply some kind of bokeh filter. Modern phones already do all that - and seemingly in that order. As a photographer, what I find lacking are the lenses. You can only squeeze so much light from the relatively tiny lenses. Perfect recent example was kids Christmas play. Sitting back 25+…

Modern phones do not automatically crop, to my knowledge. They do attempt to color correct, but they don't always get the correct colors. (There needs to be a reference to infer the appropriate white balance, and such is not always available.)

Re: About Bokeh

#33

Post by scrumbledober »

jiberius wrote: post #29
penagwin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're talking about non-point and shoot cameras, such as DSLRs or Mirrorless Cameras that cost $500+ such as my Sony A6000, I absolutely DO NOT want post-processing done on my camera. Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection. Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to w…

The delay after taking long exposures is caused by the camera taking a dark frame with the same exposure length as your actual image. When you take a long exposure, the sensor can exhibit noise caused by "hot pixels". The dark frame is taken with the shutter closed so that the camera can get an image of just the hot pixel noise, which it then subtracts from your actual long exposure. You can turn this off in the sett…

That's great information and makes me much less frustrated with my slow a6000.

Re: About Bokeh

#34

Post by unicornporn »

criddell wrote: post #26
droitbutch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition conflicts with the author's. 1st paragraph: >as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here! The other key term is “image.” Bokeh is a property of IMAGES, not a property of LENSES.

Whenever bokeh is mentioned in /r/pics, they are usually talking about the blurred background in an image that has shallow depth of field, not any particular quality of light in the image. Drives me nuts, but not worth arguing about.

What exactly drives you nuts? That they shouldn't talk about the subjective quality of the blur, but rather the quality of light?

Re: About Bokeh

#35

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

droitbutch wrote: post #25
droitbutch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition conflicts with the author's. 1st paragraph: >as I own this site, I get to define good and bad Bokeh for the purposes here! The other key term is “image.” Bokeh is a property of IMAGES, not a property of LENSES.

not sure why I'm getting downvoted here for simply pointing out the author defines his definition of Bokeh in the 1st paragraph.

I would guess that people think that the author's preferred definition doesn't preclude other people from having different definitions. You seem to assume it does, at least in the context of this discussion, and that assumption is noxious to the people who are downvoting you.

Re: About Bokeh

#36

Post by unicornporn »

penagwin wrote: post #13
StillBored wrote: post #2

And its all done in software (or ML) with recent phones to get around the lack of a good lenses system. And for most people it seems to work satisfactorily. This has been one of the complaints against camera manufactures recently, that the firmware on the cameras is wildly archaic.

If we're talking about non-point and shoot cameras, such as DSLRs or Mirrorless Cameras that cost $500+ such as my Sony A6000, I absolutely DO NOT want post-processing done on my camera. Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection. Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to w…

> Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection.

Portrait mode on any phone looks crap. I have not yet seen a picture where fake shallow DOF does not fail and look crap.

Re: About Bokeh

#37

Post by krzyk »

lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #19
penagwin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're talking about non-point and shoot cameras, such as DSLRs or Mirrorless Cameras that cost $500+ such as my Sony A6000, I absolutely DO NOT want post-processing done on my camera. Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection. Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to w…

I mean, you are using an iPhone 7, iirc that’s the first iPhone to implement portrait mode. The processing time on my iPhone 11 that I just got is minimal. I upgraded from an iPhone 6S so I’m not sure what the processing time was like on iPhones with portrait mode prior to the 11 models though. As well, who’s to say what Apple could do when given an image from a high end camera sensor instead of the tiny one in an iP…

My wife has iPhone 8, I can't find portrait mode on it (I'm coming from Pixel 3 so I was wondering how it looks on iPhones).

When I scroll the photo modes there is no such thing as "portrait".

Or maybe it is only for the Plus models with two cameras?

Re: About Bokeh

#38

Post by tpolzer »

jiberius wrote: post #29
penagwin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're talking about non-point and shoot cameras, such as DSLRs or Mirrorless Cameras that cost $500+ such as my Sony A6000, I absolutely DO NOT want post-processing done on my camera. Portrait mode on my iPhone 7+ looks okay at a glance, but thinks like hair, wires, and twigs are TERRIBLE on closer inspection. Not to say the software couldn't be improved. For example, after taking a 20 second exposure, I have to w…

The delay after taking long exposures is caused by the camera taking a dark frame with the same exposure length as your actual image. When you take a long exposure, the sensor can exhibit noise caused by "hot pixels". The dark frame is taken with the shutter closed so that the camera can get an image of just the hot pixel noise, which it then subtracts from your actual long exposure. You can turn this off in the sett…

On the one hand that's correct. On the other hand you could completely avoid that if you did long exposures the way a Google Pixel (2+ I think) does it (in software):

Take lots of short exposures and fuse them. If the device is handheld you get variability in positioning for free, if it's on a tripod, it will automatically wiggle the OIS slightly to achieve the same effect.

Re: About Bokeh

#39

Post by thyselius »

Someone should mention the oval shaped, very cinematic, Anamorphic bokeh. Bokeh is not just the shape of blurry small light sources, but also changes the quality of any out of focus region, since the blur is doubled vertically compared to horizontally. A good read on the subject with images https://www.provideocoalition.com/three-lenses-a-look-at-bok...

Re: About Bokeh

#40

Post by linuxdude314 »

jfengel wrote: post #20
mchristen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the software that holds back phone cameras. It's the literal size and shape of the sensors and lens. You can already shoot RAW on a phone, but putting Photoshop on the phone won't solve the lack of depth of field inherent to the lens and sensor setup.

Does the RAW format save the kind of information that the software uses to guess at bokeh (depth sensors, multiple lenses, multiple shots, defocused pixels)? Or is there some other format that could save all that info, so you could really use the phone but do the processing later?

There’s no, but there isn’t really a need. The R package mentioned in a comment in this thread achieves a similar effect using no additional data.

Ray tracing will suffice!

Post reply on HN