[VoiceOfReason]

There is a weird looking camera that allows you to determine the focus point, but it seems more fo a toy to me than a regular camera.

I'm waiting for one that gives a 3d holographic projection of my pictures! I already have a 3d camera, but you have to have a 3d display for it to work properly and it makes your eyes feel weird when you view the pics from it.

[c-meier]

Something much simpler, and more of an an engineering thing than "science": Binocular viewfinders. Has that been tried? The field of view would be much larger and clearer, plus you could do interesting stuff like projecting a 3D visual representation of the focus plane on it. Even mechanically by moving the relative positions of rectangles in each eye's finder.

[RioRico]

Science is to figure out "why" from what already exists.

Actually, science looks for the 'how' something works. 'Why' is for theologians.

Isn't most troubles in lens design resulting from us insisting on projecting the image on a flat surface?

I recall discussing this a couple years ago, with suggestions for curved sensors. Would a concave frame with spray-on thin-film circuitry be so hard to make? Probably yes.

Besides our eyes, some of us have used curved frames before: oatmeal-carton pinhead pinhole cameras. An 8x10" / 205x255mm (325mm diagonal) sheet of photo paper in a 5.25" (diameter) x 9.5" (height) carton has a 135mm focal length projecting onto a 'frame' in a cylinder of 16.5" / 420mm circumference for almost 280 degree coverage.

But image edges get dim. Edge light falloff is a bit less if we trim the photo paper from 10" to 9" / 230mm (308mm diagonal) and insert the paper lengthwise in the carton. Now the corner-to-corner coverage is closer to 180 degrees, an infinite-DOF fisheye. And illumination is pretty even across that frame.

Alas, a cylindrical frame would require non-simple optics for proper image projection. So we still need that concave frame for a simple lens. Ah, for the next fab breakthru...

[PiotrKrochmal]

thanks for sharing information,
About the sensor if you like to know what will be next there is very good blog: Image Sensors World
I will look for some news about liquid lenses. that is very interesting idea hope that they will use it to make some products

[Blue]

Isn't most troubles in lens design resulting from us insisting on projecting the image on a flat surface? It should be possible to construct very good lenses with just one lens element if we had a curved surface to register the image (film, sensor, whatever). That's how the eye works. So why do we project on a flat surface? Because early photographers made the pictures on flat glass plates on which they place some light sensitive emolusion based on liquid components moments before they used it? Or because painters were painting on flat canvas?

BTW. Your critics are valid for many fields. Cars for instance. 1) Wheel (4000 BC?) 2) Combustion engine (late 19th century?) The rest is design.

Design is what engineers do.

[Blue]

An insect eye is equivalent to a digital sensor. We might learn from an insect or spider eye how to make something more interesting. However each one of the insect's fascist has a small lens on the top and I think the insect is a direct biological equivalent of the camera sensor. Where these eyes are fascinating is their curvature and how they process the image. There could be something for us to learn there. But I am not aware of any discovery of an eye that has a high quality image and does not use a lens. The nautilus has a pinhole and I assume it works the same as a pinhole camera.

While analogous to an insect eye, I would not say they are equivalent. There are more than one type of insect eye. Plus, some see different wavelengths of light.

[Bob from Aus]

Plus, some see different wavelengths of light.

Now you are talking about something really interesting. I know we can play with our software. Would we see something very different if sensors were designed to pick up these wavelengths. there is infrared photography. Any ideas?

[Blue]

Now you are talking about something really interesting. I know we can play with our software. Would we see something very different if sensors were designed to pick up these wavelengths. there is infrared photography. Any ideas?

Some insects get into various areas of UV. Pentax had some lenses for passing UV light during the Asahi Optical years. I would like to get my hands on one of those for some insect work. I have actually seen both versions for sale a couple of times over the past 5 years.


Ultra-Achromatic-Takumar 85mm F4.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database


Quartz-Takumar 85mm F3.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database


A butterfly sees flowers differently than various species of bees see them. However, both groups see them completely differently than we do. Another area is that some insects eyes favor day use (apposition) and others night use (superpostion). Plus, some insects are attracted to certain colors such as yellow cards, blue cards, or white cards. Others are attracted to different wavelengths of light. Of course these systems are driven by neurophysiology and biochemistry.