Refocus Imaging: Computational Cameras
2008 may see a new generation of cameras, dubbed computational cameras, that allow viewers to refocus an image after it has been captured.
Refocus Imaging, a Stanford University spinoff, is licensing lens and software technology
that allows a camera to capture the entire light field entering the lens, not just an ordinary image.
An array of micro lenses between the lens and sensor capture all the focus fields at once. Viewers can then move a slider accompanying the image file (which will be a new format) and refocus each image file at will — an entirely new end-user experience.
I don't know how many viewers would really care about refocusing an image, but I think this technology has more interesting applications such as making it easier to extend the depth of field in macro (close-up) photography--something which can be accomplished today with a technique called focus stacking but requires a lot more work and can be problematic or impossible if there is motion in the scene.
Focus Stacked Dolichopodid
(Source: AirBrontosaurus )According to Refocus Imaging, their Digital Lens platform requires only two changes to a conventional camera:
-A new microlens array in front of the sensor
-Refocus’ proprietary software
The incremental change in hardware creates an enormous increase in the power of the recorded light. A conventional camera records only the average value of the many light rays striking each pixel. A Refocusing Digital Lens camera records each of the individual light rays, providing much more information to compute better pictures.
See it in action: select an image from the Refocus gallery and click on the image to focus at a specific location. Use the right hand slide bar to push or pull the focal plane.
Note from Chris aka AirBrontosaurus on the above Dolichopodid image:
Manual focus stacking with moving objects can be tough. You have to be quick, but still make sure you capture all the different points. This is compounded by the fact that the fly in the picture (Dolichopodids) are very, very skittish. The flash pulse usually sends them flying, so you can only get one shot before they're gone. This one didn't move, so I figured I had to get a good stack on him.
The macro lens I use (Canon MP-E) actually doesn't focus. It only has one focusing distance for a given magnification ratio, and you have to move the entire camera to change the focal point. So, in addition to working with very small DOFs, you have to move forward and backwards tiny amounts to get all the focal planes to line up. It's hard, but a lot of fun.
Labels: photography, technology
posted by whiterabbit at
11:21 AM
4 Comments:
another step closer to making the act of photography redundant and turning it into a post production exercise.
don't worry about focus do it in post
don't worry about setting a correct exposure just shoot raw
don't worry about the 'decisive moment' just shoot 60fps.
:(
Hi Tim!
You make it sound like this is a bad thing. I think it's wonderful. You nailed the composition, but you botched the focus--now you can perhaps fix that. Just like someone playing a keyboard or drum pad into a multi-track sequencer can fix a misplaced note.
Would it be better if we couldn't review our photos and histograms in the field, and instead had to wait for the 1-hour photo lab? Or if we didn't have range finders and had to guess the focus distance?
Does music technology like MIDI-sequencing, sound synthesis and DSP allow artists like Aphex Twin and cEvin key to break new ground and create new compelling works which are not possible to play on a traditional drum kit, or does it somehow ruin the artform?
If you think about it, isn't the whole act of photography itself--instant painting--kind of like cheating? You just press a button to create what used to require pigment, brushes and canvas.
But I think this image refocusing capability is less interesting as a technology to fix a mistake and more interesting as a way to computationally focus stack to create deeper depth of field in macro photography--thus it opens new creative possibilities. And the ultra-high frame rate cameras also break new ground by allowing you to capture moments which are invisible to the human eye (did you see the videos for that EX-F1 camera?) So I see it less as cheating and more as a tool to create compelling images.
I don't think we'd look down on a film director who used a razor blade to edit his movie because he didn't compose the whole movie "in camera" by just using the start/stop button. What's special about photography that we should deny the field these sames kinds of workflow tools?
Did you compose your email with a quail pen, or did you use a text editor which allows you to clean up your mistakes in "post"?
;)
yeah technology will always develop and open new doors. i studied a digital media degree and shoot with digital half the time so i'm not all that backwards.
but i think with some things the process is as enjoyable as the outcome. for me the act of photography being one of them. i like taking that chance with film, the texture, the tangibility, the time to work on the craft and will start going even further backwards and start developing my own B&W.
but what I'm afraid of is that the new technological changes are slowly making a process i enjoy financially unfeasible at a higher level. Polaroid, a pillar in photography shutting it's doors on something it founded, AGFA totally withdrawing from producing some fine film, Kodak gradually discontinuing film stock, along with chemicals becoming harder to obtain and stores gradually choosing not to maintain their film based printing/developing machinery.
i don't think film and that traditional process is going to become extinct in the next few years, but it's certainly closing in. I also don't want to see technology and innovation stagnate, but just wish the two could just live a happier existence side by side like the painting and photography example you mentioned.
Yeah, film is dead. I'm not happy about that or anything. I have some real use for Kodak HIE film and an infrared flash for stealth photography, but that stuff is going fast.
But what exactly are you missing out on if you shoot with, say a Canon EOS 5D DSLR? You mention: "i like taking that chance with film, the texture, the tangibility, the time to work on the craft..."
You can still take chances with a DSLR is you like. Just fill up your memory card so you only have 24 shots remaining before you leave the house, and turn off auto-review so you can't review your shot until you get home. For texture you can of course shoot at high ISO, but yeah, DSLR noise is not the same (but can be similar in B&W). Of course you can add grain in post production. I guess it's a matter of aesthetics, like how some people like the warmth of tube amplifiers. I personally don't like grain/noise and am always working to reduce it as much as possible. I'm not sure what tangibility refers to exactly, but I guess you're talking about the physical nature of the film and chemicals and stuff.
I'm not anti-film or anything. Many, probably most, of my favoriate photographers shot film. SOme peoople feel like digital photography makes you lazy and not careful, but that's just a matter of personal character and discipline. I always try to get the best shot I can in-camera, but being able to instantly check the shot is extremely helpful especially with night photography where you have do to a lot of guesswork with the exposure time. With film you'd have to develop the shot before you can check it, and by that time the scene and lighting might already be gone. That's why you simply don't really see a lot of film long-exposure night shots.
Of course I don't believe there is any winner/loser or right-or-wrong approach to photography or to the digital vs film debate. I'd actually like to pick up a film camera sometime. Maybe something with a very quite shutter and a fixed 50mm or stealth shots. Or maybe a Yashica T4 so I can pretend like I'm Terry Richardson.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home