Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-29-2018, 02:41 PM - 1 Like   #61
retired sw engineer
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,965
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
It would not be too hard to convert a film image into a modest megapixel digital image by scanning the film at high resolution
My Nikon LS-2000 scanner scans at 2700 ppi, which is much more resolution than an Instamatic 100 image {with its inexpensive plastic lens} has; downscaling to the size I posted here doesn't remove any noticeable detail. {I spend much more time processing Instamatic images than any other media I have}

10-29-2018, 02:45 PM   #62
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sapper's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: central Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 222
Interesting read, thanks for posting.
10-30-2018, 05:47 AM   #63
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,888
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
...
The instamatic image is interesting on grounds other than as an example of the supposed superiority of film, for which it is singularly unsuited, and a silly, irrelevant premise to begin with.

Full disclosure: I only shoot film.
10-30-2018, 06:28 AM - 1 Like   #64
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,144
QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
The instamatic image is interesting on grounds other than as an example of the supposed superiority of film, for which it is singularly unsuited, and a silly, irrelevant premise to begin with.

Full disclosure: I only shoot film.
You've lost me, I'm afraid

What's the silly, irrelevant premise you're referring to, and who originated it in the thread? I'm not picking fault, just trying to understand the conversation

10-30-2018, 07:30 AM   #65
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,888
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
You've lost me, I'm afraid

What's the silly, irrelevant premise you're referring to, and who originated it in the thread? I'm not picking fault, just trying to understand the conversation
Since you ask...

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I really like this last photo... For me, it's head and shoulders better than the previous one. I love the natural look of it. Both photos are nice, but this last one has so much more going for it, IMHO
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
This is the far superior image. Film has a certain look that just makes this image shine.
10-30-2018, 07:36 AM   #66
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,144
QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
Since you ask...
Well, thanks for answering. I still don't understand why you'd describe the opinions of two members, offered constructively and courteously, to be a "silly, irrelevant premise". I can't speak for @Rondec but my own opinion was based on the aesthetic quality of the film image which I personally far prefer. I accept that your opinion is different, and I respect that... but your opinion doesn't make mine silly or irrelevant
10-30-2018, 12:08 PM - 1 Like   #67
Pentaxian
dsmithhfx's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,888
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Well, thanks for answering. I still don't understand why you'd describe the opinions of two members, offered constructively and courteously, to be a "silly, irrelevant premise". I can't speak for @Rondec but my own opinion was based on the aesthetic quality of the film image which I personally far prefer. I accept that your opinion is different, and I respect that... but your opinion doesn't make mine silly or irrelevant
Ah, it is the whole film vs. digital thing that I find silly and irrelevant (and pointless, and tedious, etc) to me, not your respective opinions.

Apologies for the miscommunication.
10-30-2018, 12:13 PM   #68
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 13,144
QuoteOriginally posted by dsmithhfx Quote
Ah, it is the whole film vs. digital thing that I find silly and irrelevant (and pointless, and tedious, etc) to me, not your respective opinions.

Apologies for the miscommunication.
OK, I've got it now!!

No apology necessary... It's a much a mis-understanding on my part

4 Days Ago   #69
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,930
The future of photography is code not optical.

OK I just read this interesting article in Techcrunch, some fact gathering could be true. Was publish in 2018

I am not an expert and will not comment

The future of photography is code – TechCrunch

---------- Post added 10th Sep 2019 at 23:18 ----------

Ok , I just done a search an Winder post that already , sorry.
The Future of Photography is Code - PentaxForums.com
4 Days Ago   #70
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,343
QuoteOriginally posted by bobmaxja Quote
OK I just read this interesting article in Techcrunch, some fact gathering could be true. Was publish in 2018

I am not an expert and will not comment

The future of photography is code TechCrunch

---------- Post added 10th Sep 2019 at 23:18 ----------

Ok , I just done a search an Winder post that already , sorry.
The Future of Photography is Code - PentaxForums.com
No problem. I've merged your thread into this one.
3 Days Ago   #71
Lens Hoarder
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I think we'll all be amazed with what good engineers working with good camera hardware and software will be able to come up with in the next few years. Competition from smartphones is good. They'll have to differentiate themselves even more to stay in business.
Popular Mechanics is all over multiple lens Computational Photography today.
3 Days Ago   #72
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 944
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Popular Mechanics is all over multiple lens Computational Photography today.
I was going to say that multiple lenses is one thing that cell phones have over ILCs. You don't have "real" cameras with 2, 3, 4 image sensors and the ability to combine a number of simultaneous shots computationally.

But why not? Why couldn't you have an ILC with a 50mm or 28mm lens mounted, and several smaller sensors with fixed lenses like a cell phone on the body? The ergonomics might be challenging, but you could put small sensors on the hump at the top, or in a popup flash type mount. Obviously they wouldn't be the size of sensor or quality of lens of an APS-C or FF camera and a good lens, but you might be able to extract enough valuable information to improve image quality in a lot of challenging situations. With enough processing power you could potentially combine several exposures with the primary lens, with exposures at different focal lengths, depth of field, exposure values from the smaller lenses and get otherwise difficult or impossible results.

Maybe you could even use the extra imaging sensors to feed data to the autofocus algorithm for better tracking and accuracy with a DSLR? Again, accounting for various focal lengths with your interchangeable lens would be a challenge. But, hey, it's just software, right?
2 Days Ago - 1 Like   #73
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,449
The multiple lens technology is cool but it's a lot more limited than first appears. For example, Apple's iPhone 11 Pro has three 12 MPix cameras with lenses equivalent to 13, 26, and 52 mm focal lengths. But how these combine is less exciting than first appears.

The data from the 13mm and 26mm views can provide almost no additional information for improving the 52 mm view. Only the central 3 MPix of the 26mm shot overlaps with the 12 MPix in the 52 mm shot. That's a mere 25% boost in data. And only a tiny, coarse 0.75 MPix of the 13 mm shot overlaps with the 12 MPix in the 52 mm shot -- another 6% boost in data. At best it can reduce noise by about 0.3 EV.

Where multiple cameras do help is in the "portrait" mode in which the 12 MPix of the 52 mm view are used to enhance the central 3 MPix of the 26 mm view. Or the 26 mm view can enhance the center of a UWA 13 mm group shot. The data from the longer focal length view really can substantially reduce noise and boost resolution in the wider angle shot. But only in the center!

Therefore, even as cool as this enhancement seems, it is still severely limited as a photographic tool because it restricts the photographer to boring subject-in-the-center compositions. These smart phone multi-camera systems can't enhance a sweeping landscape, reduce noise across the entire night sky, or let one use rule-of-thirds.
2 Days Ago   #74
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I was going to say that multiple lenses is one thing that cell phones have over ILCs. You don't have "real" cameras with 2, 3, 4 image sensors and the ability to combine a number of simultaneous shots computationally.

But why not? Why couldn't you have an ILC with a 50mm or 28mm lens mounted, and several smaller sensors with fixed lenses like a cell phone on the body? The ergonomics might be challenging, but you could put small sensors on the hump at the top, or in a popup flash type mount. Obviously they wouldn't be the size of sensor or quality of lens of an APS-C or FF camera and a good lens, but you might be able to extract enough valuable information to improve image quality in a lot of challenging situations. With enough processing power you could potentially combine several exposures with the primary lens, with exposures at different focal lengths, depth of field, exposure values from the smaller lenses and get otherwise difficult or impossible results.

Maybe you could even use the extra imaging sensors to feed data to the autofocus algorithm for better tracking and accuracy with a DSLR? Again, accounting for various focal lengths with your interchangeable lens would be a challenge. But, hey, it's just software, right?
Like the Light?

I think it is a cool idea, but it certainly needs a lot of refining.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, code, dslr, fullframe, future, future of photography, image, images, iso, phone, photography, photography is code, post
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
12% of Pentax Australia Lenses using ''KMOUNT'' code'. 3 Days only! BruceBanner Pentax Price Watch 7 04-27-2018 12:38 AM
Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan On Sale 25% OFF With Code CCPHOTOPLAN @ B&H interested_observer Pentax Price Watch 4 08-29-2016 09:52 AM
People "The future's bright the future's Orange" Kerrowdown Post Your Photos! 22 04-03-2014 01:01 PM
"Future? What future?" frodemin Monthly Photo Contests 0 01-04-2014 11:16 AM
CODE GIVEN AWAY. {I have a KEH code for 7% off, who wants it?} PBandJ Pentax Price Watch 10 09-11-2013 08:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top