Your camera is now obsolete
 

Y'ever take pictures, and wonder, why can't the camera just capture everything?

We take a hundred shots just so we can pick one with the right focus and exposure. We moan about how the camera autofocused on exactly the wrong thing, in a moment we needed to save forever. I always wonder, why can't the camera just pick up *everything* and we can fix it later?

Well they've figured out how to do that now, with a process that captures all the available light in your shot.

I am so nerdy that although the technology is in the way cool category, that the first thing that made an impression on me in the article was the first image ... I glanced at it and my brain registered the following information ... "That's one of the Harry Potter Novels."

Very impressive.

Sadly, the audio in the clip was waaaay low when the interviewer asked about details of the camera. Dammit.

I'm intrigued, I'll say. But I am skeptical because so far it looks and feels like a browser gadget. Hell, glatt's posted some of his own FILM pictures that he's processed using a tilt-shift doodad with the same changing the focal point shallow depth of field effect.

I will be following this with interest.

I have heard of this company and what they are doing. It's very interesting, but the proof will be in the pudding when they actually have a product they show the world.

Camera guys please explain why this is so cool. Isn't it the same thing as setting a good camera for infinite depth of field?

I think the idea is that with a regular camera, you have all sorts of trade offs. With this new kind, you don't have many of the trade offs.

For example, with an old camera, if you had a dim scene and want to have a sharp picture with a huge depth of field, you want to set the sensor to a low sensitivity to reduce pixel noise. Then you want to use a tiny aperture to maximize depth of field. Both of those things result in a much slower shutter speed, so you need to break out a tripod.

With this new style camera, the details are sketchy, but I think you don't have to worry about aperture at all. You just point it and trip the shutter and sort it out at home.

I have a Cannon AE-1 with some lenses and some other stuff. I wonder if it is really worth anything in this age of digital cameras. I gave my dau a Nikon 400? awesome digital thing, she lost it when she fell asleep and crashed her car into the river. So I got her the next one up since they don't make that one anymore. It takes really great pics. Better than I use to get with my AE-1, but back then you had to know all about F-stops and aperture, light and all those details. Digital cameras have given people the opportunity to take great pics and not know a damm thing about photography.

I don't think it is so cool, myself, but I won't go into that right now.

There are times when you can't set yuor camera to "infinite depth of field" That would be all the time. But I think you meant maximum depth of field, and you can still only do that if you have enough light to allow you to take a photo with the lens set at its minimum aperture. Varies by lens and camera, could be f:16 or f:90. Depth of filed is also influenced by a number of other factors such as:

1. focal length of lens (wider angle = inherently greater DOF, tele = inherently shallow DOF
2. Distance from rear lens element to CCD or CMOS chip
3. Point of focus, Closer focus point = less DOF / distant focus point = greater DOF (hyperfocal distance)

Generally, the DOF of a given focal point is spread 1/3 in front of the focal point and 2/3 behind it. eg if your DOF extends from 12 feet to 24 feet then your focal point is at 16 feet. (4 in front and 8 in back)

The most important distinction to make is that focus and perceived sharpness are not the same thing. There is only one point of focus regardless of your DOF.

Looking at the examples of that software/hardware thing it is hard to tell what they are really doing. It looks like they just took two shots at different focal points and stitched them, you can see the picture "breathe" when you toggle back and forth. The shot of the scuba guy looks like it was done with DOF, you'll see he is semi sharp but not crisp and in focus.

It's all crap. Photography is dead to me.

I've had this idea for a wormhole lens that would make all other telephoto lenses obsolete. I think I can get someone to develop it for only about 10 million dollars.

If you think you've got leftovers, I've still got a Nikon F2A Photomic with Nikkor lenses from 24mm to 200mm, high speed motor drive, rechargeable battery pack, 250 exposure bulk film back, dozens of Nikon filters, shades, and other accessories, flash units ... etc.

I'll have to find a nice museum to will it all to.

You two are seriously bumming my stone, just so's you know.

sexobon, that sounds like C. 1960-70s pro gear. Were /are you a photographer or an avid enthusiast?

[channeling Flint] Your face is now obsolete [/channeling Flint]

Yo mama is so obsolete, she has her own zip code.

guffaw!

Sorry this is so wordy; but, shit happens.
 

Yes, I started working in my teens, after school and summers, with my father in commercial photography for advertising learning photo-reproduction and product photography for everything from newspaper ads to wall murals. The equipment entailed 4x5 to 8x10 view cameras, 16x20 vacuum back copy cameras, Photostat machines, contact printers and enlargers of all sizes to accommodate the aforementioned formats, and projection cameras for photo murals. 35 mm & 2 1/4 sq. were just hobbies at the time.

I originally went into military service to become an Army photographer and volunteered for consecutive Airborne training so that I could work in most any kind of military unit. After completing the joint Army-Air Force photo sciences school (honor graduate, no surprise) and jump school, I was assigned to a photography support section organic to a Special Forces unit. The work ran the gamut from grip and grins to oblique aerial reconnaissance. The section even had a self contained (generator, air conditioner, water pump) mobile field photo lab on the back of a deuce and a half truck.

The SF operational A-teams, each of which was issued its own 35 mm camera set and film developing equipment, liked my support work and convinced the command to let them take me out on their training missions. So, there I was doing things like infrared photo documentation on a midnight helicopter insertion onto an exposed sandbar 2 mi. off a coast and rubber rafting to shore where my accompanying A-team would disable a coastal nuclear power plant. I found that my tactical skills were too limited to be able to do anything like that on live missions; so, I volunteered for SF training.

There are only 5 specialties in which one can become SF qualified and photography isn't one of them. I became a SF medical specialist and was assigned to an A-team; but, had additional photographic duties including upgrading the skills of my team's O&I (Operations and Intelligence) specialist who was trained in the SF O&I course with beginner level camera and lab skills. I later cross-trained as an O&I specialist myself. When I did my instructor tour of duty, it was as a SF medical instructor where in addition to teaching I managed the course photo library and AV support; also, I got into photomicrography to produce my own pathogen images as training aids.

My personal photo equipment (mentioned in my earlier post) often travelled with me as I was authorized to use it on duty (at my own risk) which I did when my personal photography interests went beyond duty requirements and capabilities of issued equipment. Post military, I work in civilian healthcare with no job related photography demands.

This thread suddenly became much more interesting.