Photography Game Changer...

[GTAltman]

Shoot First, Focus Later - New Technology on the horizon.

Here's a link from the NY Times where there is a new technology for digitals where you can shoot first and then select focal point AFTER the shot!

On the Times page, there are a set of two photos showing different focus points, and then there is an interactive picture where YOU can change focal points. Really wild stuff!

NY Times

I'm also, because I think the Times limites (# of days) the article is accessible online, here is a PDF of the same article.

I had to make it a zip file because I couldn't get the PDF to upload (file size constraints). If any PDF aficionado's know how to optimize and reduce file sizes, GO FOR IT!

Enjoy, and I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Gary

[zona5101]

Dang! If it works like it does in that demo photo- wow. That is crazy awesome.

[kcoppock]

I was just about to come and post this myself. This is unbelievably cool, if it does work as well as shown.

Here's a non-Times link, by the way: Start-Up Lytro Aims to Sharpen Focus of Entire Camera Industry - Ina Fried - News - AllThingsD

Revolutionizing the entire camera industry really would not be an overstatement if this can really work as shown. I wonder what the downsides to it are? There are ALWAYS downsides to anything that sounds too good to be true.

[Gulf Coast Girl]

WOW... that's pretty cool!

On the other hand.... is this just another way to make us even lazier? As someone who is new to photography I get plenty of shots where the focus is not good or not where I really wanted it. It's definitely frustrating, but it makes me stop and think about how I took the shot and how I could improve it in the future. Then I go out and try again.... being more conscious of my choices and technique. IMO it's about really learning the basic concepts of photography, applying those concepts, learning how to control my camera inside and out and that includes focus.

I definitely see this being a big thing in the photography market.... but part of me thinks it will just make us lazier. Kinda like telephones now with the ability to store numbers; yes it's WONDERFUL.... but the downside is I couldn't tell you what my sister's phone number is, I haven't got a clue because I only wrote it down once and then stored it in my phones and I never have to recall the number.... I just click on her name and press the call button. I'm gonna be in a world of hurt if I ever get thrown in the hoosegow and they let me have my one phone call because I won't know what number to call

[kcoppock]

Originally Posted by Gulf Coast Girl

WOW... that's pretty cool!

On the other hand.... is this just another way to make us even lazier? As someone who is new to photography I get plenty of shots where the focus is not good or not where I really wanted it. It's definitely frustrating, but it makes me stop and think about how I took the shot and how I could improve it in the future. Then I go out and try again.... being more conscious of my choices and technique. IMO it's about really learning the basic concepts of photography, applying those concepts, learning how to control my camera inside and out and that includes focus.

I definitely see this being a big thing in the photography market.... but part of me thinks it will just make us lazier. Kinda like telephones now with the ability to store numbers; yes it's WONDERFUL.... but the downside is I couldn't tell you what my sister's phone number is, I haven't got a clue because I only wrote it down once and then stored it in my phones and I never have to recall the number.... I just click on her name and press the call button. I'm gonna be in a world of hurt if I ever get thrown in the hoosegow and they let me have my one phone call because I won't know what number to call

I've heard this argument a lot, and I think it's not so much laziness as it is just fixing an inefficient process. For instance, the idea of having a randomly assigned ten-digit number as a means of contacting someone is just sort of clunky. There's no value in memorizing a person's phone number; its only use is to contact that person. If the number changes, there's no need to remember that number, but you most likely still will. I love having my contacts integrated with Facebook now, since if a number changes, it's invisible to me. I just pick a person and select "Call".

Similar to this is focusing. Sure, there's an art to it, and obviously there are people who are incredibly skilled at it. However, even experts can get an out of focus shot -- if that shot is of a one time event, that photo is gone forever. Removing that obstacle can only be a good thing. It removes one more variable to worry about when shooting. You still have to control lighting, exposure, composition, etc., but you don't have to worry about spoiling a shot because your focus is off by a centimeter or so, or because your lens didn't focus quickly enough, just as how when shooting in RAW, getting improper white balance isn't a photo-killer. You can spend more concentration focusing on the composition, lighting, and timing, and less about what your focus area and depth of field are.

There will always be people who reject it as a lazy technique, no doubt -- the same can be said for autofocus versus manual focus -- but I think it would be an incredible technological advance.

[kcoppock]

Originally Posted by High_Speed

Interesting concept. But is it just me or does that "demo" only allow TWO focus points in reality. I mean, I can click on any of the flowers, and the focus remains the same. I can click on a rock right behind the flowers or the back of the trees, and the focus is the same. The "demo" appears to just be two images that flip back and forth depending on if I click on the flowers or anything other than the flowers.

But of course, the concept sounds nice....

I'm sure that's mostly what the demo is. I imagine you'd need a pretty sophisticated software algorithm to do the actual depth processing, so for just an in-browser demo, it gets the idea across, and you can still see that it's the same moment in time, with different focal distances. Would be cool if they'd provide some sample images and a processor to play around with, but I doubt they'd want to let them out into the wild until they've got a product on the market.

[OsmosisStudios]

If you read Thom Hogan, you'll know that this is an idea that is in it's infancy: the prototype uses a 16mp sensor to create 90kp. That's KILOpixel. 90,000 pixels. They're square, too, which means images are only 300px on each side. The examples they've posted are only 360kp, or 600px on each side.

So, yes, fun to play with, but tiiiiiny.

[Michael_2010]

How can it take in that much info quickly? Is it looking at a range of light so many feet in front and back of the target?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

How can it take in that much info quickly? Is it looking at a range of light so many feet in front and back of the target?

Something akin to pixel binning to get focus to change. That's why it takes so much information and produces so little.

[Michael_2010]

The article describes it as a good low light camera, because it takes in so much lighting info. Most of us know that the shutter speed gets slower and slower in order to absorb the ambient light in a dark room. I'm just wondering how this new camera could capture and process 4 dimensional characteristics of every source of light it sees in a given image quickly enough to be a handheld point & shoot. I would love to see this thing in action.

I can see this becoming an option on better cameras in the near future. It will become a part of the RAW data and will allow you to fine tune focusing at your desk. Many of us try to do that now through sharpening, but one can only go so far with that before the image takes on a freakish appearance.