Holy Moly - RAW where you can change DOF after the shot!

[IPT]

Check this craziness out!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltren...trothecamerathatcouldchangephotographyforever

 

[marino420td]

Wow!

 

[Reef Bass]

Sounds cool. I'm wondering about image quality and file size. There is a large potential for over hyping this.

 

[Jacob D]

Hmmm.... I also suspect over hype is the correct notion. I took a look at their "science inside" page from their website which affirms the obvious - the optical effect is due to processing the image data to extrapolate what it should look like. They don't go into great length about it but I can't imagine that this effect could be used with much success when shooting at wide apertures or any instance where part of the image is significantly defcoused. If it can turn OOF highlights into sharp in-focus detail I'll eat crow, but I'd put my money on the idea that the "lightfield" data is more readily resolved the more in focus it is as it strikes the sensor (i.e. better at small apertures).

I still think it's somewhat interesting stuff. A friend of mine works in signal processing and I'm constantly amazed by the stuff those guys do to recreate data that was either degraded or not there to begin with.

 

[Wolverine]

Hmmm.... I also suspect over hype is the correct notion.

That was my thought as well.

 

[FancyDirty]

thats kinda cool

 

[fullmonti]

makes me wonder if the entire scene can be in focus, if it takes any extra time to record the extra info, total file size & finished image file size, as well as the other things already mentioned.

 

[RVANANO]

I think Mikey (thebanker) posted this last week too. Been reading about this for years.

 

[twiggyb]

I'm not sure if this is the same thing that was in popular science magazine, but if so it's only 3mp with a $30,000 price tag. It has 40,000 sensors? to pass through which is why it can choose the dof. I put the question mark because I'm not sure if thats what I mean :lol:

 

[gabew]

Wouldn't this theoretically mean you could focus as close as you wanted with any lens? Even if the lens couldn't focus that close, if you could just change the focus afterward you could use any lens as a macro lens.

 

[64Ivy]

Now if they could only get them to 'sense' a potentially good shot, go out and get it, then come home, download, and fix it, I can finally say that I've mastered the craft.

 

[Misled]

I can finally say that I've mastered the craft.

I know that was sarcastic, but it can never work that way. There's always something new or different that can be added to screw things, (for some reason I typed thongs), up. If I can ever say I know everything about photography, I'll probably stop. I should probably stop before I call B&H this week. Could save a whole bunch of money!!!!

 

[jimmy_beaner]

I've been told it merely "approximates" a focus, estimating what a focused shot at that D.o.F. would look like. Don't get me wrong, it's cool and all, but doesn't seem like it would be able to compete with a skilled photographer and current equipment if this is in anyway true.

 

[BBraker]

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this like photo-stacking and then just selecting which layer you want to be in focus?

Bill

 

[Recty]

Sounds sort of like that, except with this the camera takes one shot and gathers all the "layers" of the photograph at once, so you wont need to take a shot, refocus, take a shot, refocus, take a shot, refocus, take a shot, refocus, take a shot, refocus, then load them all into Photoshop and get the one you want.

 

[panic]

It's like the image exploring in the photograph in Bladerunner