Revolutionary "Light Field" camera tech - shoot-first, focus-later

Post by thomasgerbe » Wed, Jun 22, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #87

sbierwagen wrote: post #17

The downsides, which, of course, this press release doesn't mention: - Greatly, greatly reduced image resolution. Great big dedicated-camera sized lens and image sensor, cellphone-camera sized pictures. 1680×1050, at most. (1.76MP) - Color aberration. The microlenses have to be small, of course, so they're going to be made of single physical elements, rather than doublets.[1] - Various amusing aliasing problems. (not…

"greatly reduced image resolution" Not necessarily. If you're using a plenoptic camera purely for producing 2d images, you can reduce pixel size further than you would normally. This is because each pixel in the output image is the average of many primary pixels in the sensor. The primary pixels can be smaller and noisier while still getting a smooth output image. In rough terms the resolution loss is a cosine term o…

Post by rooshdi » Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 12:25 AM UTC

dennisgorelik wrote: post #48

These guys clearly target investors money, not consumers. 1) Lots of hype long before the product is released. 2) Ignoring market trend (consumers prefer smartphone integration over picture quality). 3) Instead of focusing on refining and selling technology, they want to reinvent the wheel and produce their own camera. I'd say that investors would lose lots of money on that venture.

Post by oikjhgbpokj » Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 2:45 AM UTC

finisterre wrote: post #86

gjm11 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> under 6MP a camera is only usable for publishing on Facebook. 2560x1600 pixels is 4.1MP. At 1:1 that will completely fill the most monstrous computer monitors one can get for under about $10k. At 300 pixels per linear inch (a very reasonable resolution for photos; about the same as the iPhone 4 "retina" display) it will give you a picture with 10" diagonal. Unless you're making posters or big prints for photographi…

Don't forget about pixel quality (it's understandable because the industry has been encouraging it for years). A 6MP sensor would produce a fantastic 10"-diagonal print if its pixels weren't affected by noise and it was combined with a high quality lens. Unfortunately sensors of that resolution are typically small (=noisy pixels) and placed in point-and-shoot cameras (=cramped, low-quality optics).

Post by rooshdi » Thu, Jun 23, 2011, 4:06 AM UTC

dennisgorelik wrote: post #94

rooshdi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that investors would lose lots of money on that venture. I'd bet against that. They definitely solve a problem people have with taking focused photos and I see this technology becoming even more popular as it becomes integrated into videos. Just the other day I tried to take a quick photo of my niece and cat playing, and trust me when I tell you it was a real hassle trying to keep them in focus. This issue is…

I'm not saying that technology would be useless. It might be at least somewhat useful. What I'm saying is that this particular business approach would fail (too much hype, not focusing on teams' advantages, ignoring customers' preferences). Investors would over-invest, but business would not get enough revenue to pay them back.