Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wavy Lenses Extend Depth of Field in Digital Imaging

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the optimize-this dept.

Graphics 359

genegeek writes "On Feb 25 CDM Optics was awarded a patent for a new digital imaging system utilizing "Wavefront Coding" that produces images with 10-fold the depth of field of conventional lenses. The image itself is blurred until processed. Image examples are here."

cancel ×

359 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fr1st ps0t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537666)

who cares?

/.tted (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537671)

wow, no comments, down already
must be some kind of record...

Re:/.tted (-1)

AnimeRulez (621583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537693)

That's because some people actually read the article before posting. Fools!
AR

Re:/.tted (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537704)

yeah thats what u get for using DSL for a website.. Cheap bastards...

fp (-1, Offtopic)

skilljoy (531288) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537677)

FIrst post?

wavy (-1)

buster hyman (256882) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537679)

get some priorities people!

the front part of a spoon is a convex mirror (-1, Troll)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537682)

the back part is concave. show all your friends when you eat at IHOP, they'll be amazed!

Just try to remember... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537720)

... there is no spoon.

Re:the front part of a spoon is a convex mirror (-1, Offtopic)

Jethro On Deathrow (641338) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537886)

The front is concave, the back is convex. The part that holds food is the front.

first and still /. ed? (1)

vistas (214241) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537683)

can the images possibly be slashdotted already?

Re:first and still /. ed? (5, Funny)

travail_jgd (80602) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537712)

Yes. Even with the new lenses, they didn't see the Slashdot Effect coming. :)

Re:first and still /. ed? (4, Funny)

arvindn (542080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537778)

They did, but didn't have time to process it so it was too blurred to make out :)

Re:first and still /. ed? (1)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537948)

But we all saw this line of jokes coming!

Re:first and still /. ed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537793)

Of course. They had not time to process the images!

"What's the big shadow on the horizon there?"
"We'll know after filtering."
Web server bursts into flames and melts
"WHAT WAS THAT?"

Re:first and still /. ed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537729)

yep

It's a php page serving images (2, Informative)

mks113 (208282) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537805)

That wouldn't take long to saturate the processor. If it were flat html with images, it would just max out the network.

I hope the heatsinks work!

So (4, Insightful)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537684)

Basically what this is saying is that if I go out and get a new whiz-bang camera with this funky new lens, I will be able to take a picture almost as good as the pictures I take with my 30 year old Cannon AE-1, and not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

Personally, I will stick to analog photography.

Re:So (3, Interesting)

Deth_Master (598324) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537731)

So, just take a trip to the next space telescope we put out into space, once every couple of months to get the film from it.
I mean this has it's advantages, perhaps not to the average joe. I like analog photography too, but digital will work much better in getting images from space probes, satellites, and other far off devices, hell, even spy-planes, to another location really quickly.

Re:So (1)

nstrom (152310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537737)

I love my AE-1. It's nice to see that somebody remembers that camera. :)

Re:So (1)

crschmidt (659859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537815)

I had an AE-1 Program I used in a photo class last semester. I think that camera took pictures for me: Never before have I taken so many good shots.

Re:So (1)

cetan (61150) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537835)

I recently picked up an AE-1 on ebay for a really good price. Being new to photography, I started with an entry level SLR a year ago. I'm glad I got the AE-1, I've been learning a lot more about photography than I probably ever would with a more automatic camera.

Re:So (4, Interesting)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537740)

Basically what this is saying is that if I go out and get a new whiz-bang camera with this funky new lens, I will be able to take a picture almost as good as the pictures I take with my 30 year old Cannon AE-1, and not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

You stick to your film. I'll stack my Nikon D1X against your 30-year-old camera any day of the week, personally. And that's not even top of the line anymore -- Canon has a new 11MP camera that puts any 35mm camera to shame.

Just because $300 consumer digicams are crap doesn't mean that digital hasn't already surpassed film. It's just a matter of making it affordable now.

Re:So (3, Informative)

burninginside (631942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537786)

it takes about 25+ megapixels to simulate 35mm film or about 100 megapixels to simulate medium format film, or 500 megapixels to simulate 4x5" film. For the internet even 3 MP is fine, but it becomes obvious in a gallery size print

Re:So (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537872)

incorrect.
I've seen the side-by-side comparisons of 35mm film and the cannon 1Ds. As it turns out, 11mp is notably better than film. The 1Ds couldn't quite match a medium format on level of captured detail, but the pics still look a little better due to the lack of grain.
The only real question is whether the 11mp is capturing all the detail available from a 35mm lens.
-Rob

Re:So (2, Interesting)

burninginside (631942) | more than 11 years ago | (#5538001)

if you want to talk megapixels tho there are about 20 million pixels in 35 mm film, there are digital backs for medium format cameras which match and surpass this but for the cost (usually 5k+) it's not in the price range of your average consumer, which probably wouldnt be willing to buy a medium format body either due to cost

Re:So (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537804)

Thats just it though, you can go out and drop a grand on a digicam just to take pictures of the same quality as a hand-me-down camera from my dad.

Granted, as others pointed out earlier in this thread, digital is more convenient, Analog still has better quality, and is unsurpassed for artistic purpuses.

Re:So (5, Insightful)

blaine (16929) | more than 11 years ago | (#5538014)

Yeah, and you don't have to buy film for a digital camera.

Don't think this is a big deal? I'm into amateur photography, and I have a camera that I only bought 9 months ago that I've taken 1500 shots with. Have I kept them all? No. Have I printed them all? No.

And that's the point, for me. I paid $1k for a camera, and now I can take as many pictures as I'd like, without having to pay for it every damn time. The pictures that I do want printed, I can get done for very reasonable prices at places like Shutterfly. And the ones that turn out bad, or I just don't feel like printing, cost me exactly $0.

Do some math. How much would I have spent on film and processing for a traditional 35mm camera in the last 9 months, had I gone that route instead of the digital? By my reckoning, it'd be at least $500, if not more, depending on the quality of the film I purchased. Within another year or so, the camera will have paid for itself, if only in reduced cost per image.

And as for artistic purposes ... uhh ... what? A lot of professionals and artists have begun switching to digital. There's nothing about digital that makes it any less artistic. In fact, if nothing else, it gives the artist more freedom, in that they can more easily review their work, and learn from their mistakes. The turnaround time is far shorter (ie. instantaneous), and that means that they can take more shots, and more quickly tell if they're getting the effect they desire.

Re:So (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537821)

You are an idiot.

There is no digital 35mm camera that can match the level of detail that Fujichrome Velvia 50 can capture. Period. There is no 35mm CCD or CMOS that can store as much information as Velvia can capture.

11MP only puts 35mm cameras to shame when they're using crappy film.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537930)

You must be kidding. Velvia is high-resolution film but in a 35mm slide you still see the grain!

Put some velvia in your camera and shoot a clear blue sky. Do the same with your Canon 1D (or whatever). Look at the slide with an 8x loupe .. GRAIN IS VISIBLE. Yeah, it blows away most other film, but it is still there. Look at the digital output .. NO GRAIN. Just clear blue sky. Sure, some details are jaggy but that's a function of the lower resolution. That will improve, but Velvia is stuck.

Many of the large beautiful velvia pictures you see in books and magazines are usually on MEDIUM FORMAT film, not 35mm. At that point the grain becomes irrelevant.

35mm is crap. I've hated it since I was a kid (tiny viewfinders, silly canister with film hanging out, tiny slides). Medium format or larger film is the only film I'd ever use. If I didn't go digital that is!

I will not be sorry to see 35mm disappear.

Re:So (3, Insightful)

mrm677 (456727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537878)

Ok, I'll load my 30-year old Canon with some Kodak Technical Pan film. Lets make 16x20" enlargements and see how we compare, huh?

Or, lets take wide-angle pictures. With the cropping factor on your Nikon D1X, how can you be any wider than say 32mm (35mm equivalent).

Digital is great, but in some cases, 35mm cameras are still superior. Especially low-light and wide-angle photography.

Gimme a break (1)

Ececheira (86172) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537902)

You try blowing up your 11MP image to 30"x40". I can do that just fine with my Kodachrome 64 on my Nikon FG camera.

Re:Gimme a break (3, Informative)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537972)

I don't get the sense that you've ever used a good digital camera.

I've blown 6MP images up to 20"x30". They look great. Good enough that people gush about how great they look when they buy them from us, at least. While I don't have access to an 11MP camera, I can't imagine that 30"x40" would be too much of a stretch.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about images from a $5000 camera, not a piece-o'-crap point-and-shoot.

Re:Gimme a break (1)

Ececheira (86172) | more than 11 years ago | (#5538012)

No, I haven't personally, but I've seen what they can do and I haven't been impressed. There's a certain quality and tonality that you simply cannot get from digital at present. Ideally, the best way to view the slides is not printed, but projected. Once projected, there's a vividness unlike anything digital can produce (at the moment for any kind of "reasonable" price).

Analog 'tricks' are still better though. (4, Insightful)

caveat (26803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537909)

Just because the base image quality may not be better (for 8x10 and larger from a 35mm sized camera, digital is so much better, but I like analog for 3X5 snapshots) doesn't mean the tricks and effects are neccessarily better.

Photoshop is great software, but no matter how much I try, basic manipulation (on b&w images particularly), especially brightness/contrast adjustment and dodging/burning, always gives me much better results under an enlarger. Same for exposure effects; Photoshop's solarize filter is good, but there's just some intangible warmth and...analog-ness to a well-solarized paper print. Maybe it's just the random scatter and size of the grain of film against the gridded regularity of the digital images, or the slight variation in quality across the print (not imperfect, but not...digitally homogenous), but for purely aesthetic ends, I have to go with film and paper.

Re:So (3, Insightful)

esper_child (515754) | more than 11 years ago | (#5538023)

Digital hasn't surpassed film, and never will. They are two different mediums. And yes, I have done that challange before, my 30 year old 135 camera put the digital in its place. The only digital I have seen that could match my camera for detail was a digital backing someone made for the various medium format cameras out there. 11 MP is not something that I would worry about putting my 135 film to shame. It takes atleast 16MP to match the detail of Velvia (yes it does matter what film you compare to digital) and that is just in the 135 format. There are black and white films out there that go WAY past this, and I am not sure about color.
Digital and film are just mediums. It is like compairing paint and ink. It really has to do with who is in control of the brush as to the quality of the final product. There are things that my digital will pickup that my film will not and there are things that the film will pickup that the digital will not. It really is all in the selection of the right medium for the job.
I personally don't like to use digital as almost all of my work is black and white. The only thing i have used the digital for lately is to replace the poloroid backings in studio work. I can't really comment on the state of the 135 print films as I only use my 135 for slides and the occationally for black and white on the run. I use primarily an assortmant of medium format gear, and produce results that keep my customers happy. It is my opinion that digital will never replace film as far as black and white is concerned.
If you can find for me a digital camera that can take on any of my film cameras. And to the person thinking that this new whiz-bang camera will improve pictures to make them look better think again it is mearly a tool. It is like having a much longer range of f-stops to control your depth of feild with, it will not really improve the pictures that much. It will be much like using a pinhole camera (though probly without the really long shutter times). Will be really nice though in the world of landscapes. Also, if you can reverse it you should be a great tool for surealistic photography.

Re:So (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537744)

This isn't really analog-vs-digital, although digital processing is the easiest way to "decode" the image after its gone through the fancy lens.

The advantage of this system over your Canon is that you can get high depth of field and large apertures at the same time. In order to increase the depth of field of your camera, you have to stop down the lens, which means less light. Less light means longer exposures (can't stop the action) or more sensitive film/sensors (more noise).

Instead of stopping down the lens and blocking light, this only affects the phase of the wavefront which means all the light energy still goes through.

Extremely clever.

Re:So (1)

crschmidt (659859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537745)

Analog photography is still the way to go for now, but I don't imagine that it will always be that way. At some point, digital photography will offer the same level of expertise and ease of use that analog cameras offer.

Additionally, the image quality isn't the only determining factor in what camera you use. If I want to take pictures and have them up on my website within the same hour, I can't do that with an analog camera. With digital, the shots are already there.

I'm not saying that digital is the best choice right now... but I also don't think that analog will be the best choice always.

Re:So (1)

methuseleh (29812) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537820)

digital photography will offer the same level of expertise and ease of use that analog cameras offer.


A camera cannot offer any level of expertise... that has to be provided by the photographer.

As for ease of use, I'd say digital has already surpassed film.

I'm not saying that digital is better (although it is for me)... but in the two areas you mentioned, digital is equal to or better than analog.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537870)

As for ease of use, I'd say digital has already surpassed film.

If by ease of use you mean, "will enable you to curse at family functions because your fancy camera is out of batteries again" then yes. You are correct. :)

Re:So (2, Informative)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537764)

not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

Last time I checked, it was a hell of a lot easier to do photo processing tricks with photoshop than in a darkroom, and with experience and skill the two types of work can be hard to distinguish from each other. The only exception I can think of being "push" type processing which takes advantage of being able to stretch or alter the dynamic range of your medium (film or photopaper) beyond its ratings. Since the site appears slashdotted, what exactly is it about the new lens that prevents any additional processing?

Not everyone has a darkroom. (4, Insightful)

Alkaiser (114022) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537775)

For the hobbyist, this works out great. Not everyone has the resources necessary to get a drkroom going, and can't pull off all the tricks of the trade or for that matter develop their own film.

I loved shooting pictures for the college newspaper, because that meant that whatever leftover film I had from the shoot, I could take those extra shots and develop those slides.

Now, with digital, I never have to worry about developing film, or buying new film, so the cost of me getting a camera went down a significant amount. On top of that, I never had to worry that the shots I take didn't quite come out right. I have an instant look at the shot I had.

Once the SLR bodies on the digitals go down in price a bit more, I'll be able to shoot pretty much whatever I was able to shoot with an analog camera. (With the exception of slide film.)

Also, the digital camera is much more environmentally friendly. All those chemicals you use during processing gotta go SOMEWHERE.

Re:Not everyone has a darkroom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537812)

Chemicals! Oh no!

Chemicals such as the deadly H20?

Re:Not everyone has a darkroom. (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537985)

Yes.

And the developer.

And the fixer.

Re:Not everyone has a darkroom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537891)

I always love it when people talk about the chemicals in film photography.

And then the turn around and buy a 40-pack of double-AA's or some other wonderfully toxic battery for their digital cameras.

Engage clue-barrier now!

Re:Not everyone has a darkroom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537999)

Enlarger: Picked one up for $55 bucks, it's old and a little worn, but good.

Apart from that you need hot and cold running water, some trays and some fairly non-toxic chemicals.

Plus a light, setting up a darkroom cost me around $350 and half of one room in my house.

Re:So (4, Interesting)

Anixamander (448308) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537822)

Well for certain applications, this can suposedly do things your Canon doesn't have a chance in hell of doing. What comes to mind for me is indoor sports phtography. High shutter speed requires a wide open aperture (f2.8) to get enough light, but the upshot is minimal depth of field, making focusing on the fast moving subjects extremely tricky. I know this, I was a sports photographer in college. If this tech can truly eliminate depth of field issues, it would make that a hell of a lot easier. And no amount of dark room trickery will turn a blurred shot into a sharp shot.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537894)

"And no amount of dark room trickery will turn a blurred shot into a sharp shot."

Actually, that's precisely what they are doing here. You take a blurry picture with their lens and then process it into a sharp shot.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537988)

Not really. The "blurry picture" this method generates is not the real image. It's just an intermediate step, designed to capture the image data, not the final image. Kind of like the way a 3D movie looks bad when viewed without the proper glasses, because it's not designed to be the final image until you process it further with the glasses.

In an blurry picture from an ordinary camera. That is the final image. End of story.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537857)

I will be able to take a picture almost as good as the pictures I take with my 30 year old Cannon AE-1, and not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

Ever heard of photoshop?

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537951)

And nowhere near as good as a high res camera (not to knock your Canon, but compared to say a Pentax, ehh...)

I mean, we're talking an image that's stored almost down to the molecule. Digital will NEVER be able to exceed analog in this respect. Plus digital is ridiculously more expensive, I mean, this lens will probably cost $5,000. I can get at least 2 high-end lenses for that amount for my analog.

Digital is good for snapshots and previews, nothing else.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5538024)

Oh and by the way, I prefer grain to the jagged, muted, unnatural appearance a zoomed in digital shot has.

First Post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537686)

Oh come on. \.ed before first post?

Offline (0, Offtopic)

Bluelive (608914) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537705)

Wonderfull how these pages become unreachable before even a single comment is posted.

Re:Offline (4, Funny)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537722)

Wonderfull how these pages become unreachable before even a single comment is posted

Could this mean that, I shudder to say, /.'ers are actually reading the articles before posting!?!

Re:Offline (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537748)

No it means that /. is supposedly letting paid members see articles in the queue before they are posted.

Re:Offline (1)

Mika_Lindman (571372) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537833)

Could this mean that, I shudder to say, /.'ers are actually reading the articles before posting!?!

I just wanted to see the nice pictures.

Re:Offline (1)

JohnLi (85427) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537862)

lol...is that what the headlines in red are?? i was wondering.

Re:Offline (0, Offtopic)

Gortbusters.org (637314) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537885)

No, they just look for witty comments to be funny.. it's much easier to respond to someone in a funny manner than analyze an article ;)

Re:Offline (1)

thx2001r (635969) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537903)

Naw,

It just means that the /.'ers look at the pretty screenshots (or pictures) before posting.

That way we can comment on the "cool" factor of something without having to bother and read all that technical mumbo-jumbo that we will be discussing in our posts.

Besides, what fun is it to comment on an article or a technology if you've read all about it and understand it?

That pretty much screws over most fanboyish responses because they lose interest in just saying "sucks, but this is cool" when they have to think about it first... of course, I probably underestimate the average fanboy... I'm sure he can read an article, ignore anything positive about it and focus on the negative as it relates to what he likes being "better".

Adaptive optics to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537713)

Imagine no more regretful mornings with CDM Optics anti-beer-goggle goggles!

I can't believe it!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537718)

The World War III will begin in less than 48 hours and we're talking about something no ones care (Depth of Field in Digital Imaging) !!
hell!! WE ARE COMPLETELY NUTS!!

Re:I can't believe it!! (0, Offtopic)

MrEd (60684) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537847)

Never underestimate the lure of escapism...

Re:I can't believe it!! (0, Offtopic)

Aumaden (598628) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537899)

No we're not nuts. This is denial.

-- Aumaden

Re:I can't believe it!! (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537992)

Well how else are we going to get good action photos of the smart bombs as they home in on ground zero?

Redundant slashdotted comment (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537725)

They can blur images, but they can't withstand the effect of SLASHDOT.

My question is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537732)

Can someone help me? I'm really tired and need to sneak a nap in, but I've never done so in the office before. What's the trick? Any tips?

Re:My question is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5538010)

Go to the stalls in the bathroom, shut the door, and nap away. Or if you feel risky, crawl under your desk for a few winks

Thundercats (4, Funny)

Valiss (463641) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537733)

So will this give us "sight beyond sight"?

I'd settle for X-ray glasses.

Re:Thundercats (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537776)

Nah, Sword of Omens is still Alphaware

Blundercats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537950)

Lion-O: I should have known the Terra-tor didn't mean us any harm when the Sword of Omens didn't obey me. And anyway, it was just plain stupid to assume it might be bad just ... what the fuck am I talking about?

The implications are astounding (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537738)

Clearer, more vibrant and detailed pr0n.

Down already, hrmm... (4, Funny)

Toasty16 (586358) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537739)

...now all they have to do is patent a technology that increases bandwidth 10-fold of the ISDN line that they are obviously hosting their server on.

Can't go Digital Yet... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537747)

I love having a shoe box of pictures in my closet from the years. Where are my digital pictures going to be in 15 years?

"Everybody gather around the glowing box, We're going to look at the family album"
W_A_V_E_S

Re:Can't go Digital Yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537796)

Er...if you want prints of your digital shots, why not print them out?

Re:Can't go Digital Yet... (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537823)

On your iPod in a closet in a shoebox?
As a set of prints from your inkjet in a shoebox in your closet?
On a stack of CDs in your shoebox in your closet?

I already did! (2, Interesting)

urbieta (212354) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537859)

I had the problem that in the early days everyboddy wanted a copy of -THAT -picture, giving me work (giuuu) to find the darn negative and actually pay for the copy to then try to sell it to the familly member

but now, all pictures are cataloggued online, so any family member can just browse it on the internet, choose what they want, and prin whatever they choose!

I suddenly appear printer all over my families living rooms! ;D

Savings? When I had an old camera, each picture HAD to be a special moment because of price, but these days I have an 80 gig hd just for picture! top that!?!??!?

Re:I already did! (1)

los furtive (232491) | more than 11 years ago | (#5538000)

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. My next 80gig HD, which is slated to be a 'media' HD, will host MP3s and pictures galore... I set up a simple website for my girlfriend when she got her digital camera, and although I host 6 different sites on my server, hers is the most popular, just because of friends and family!

Out of coconut juice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537752)

cuz I just had a huge gigantic orgasm staring at a black chick that works at popeyes. I think her name is olive me oil. Coicidentally I needn't rub da dub cuz homegirls got my back riding me till the sun don't shine. Long hair ass pulling adventure theme park...that's what Vegas is all about.

Can't see the site, but... (1)

Entropy248 (588290) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537772)

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this story. With this new digital camera you can take blurry pictures and process them with some kind of software to make them clear. Uhhh... That sounds a lot like my Intel digi-camera and Photoshop.

Unsharp Mask? (1)

JeremyR (6924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537851)

If you're referring to the Unsharp Mask tool (or similar sharpening algorithms), then yes, you can use such a tool to highlight the edges in the image and fool the eye into thinking the image is sharper than it really is. This can rescue some slightly out-of-focus photos, but that's about the limit of it. Now if you know of an algorithm that can reconstruct a properly-focused image from one that is more than ever-so-slightly out of focus, I'd be very interested in seeing it!

Cheers,
Jeremy

Re:Can't see the site, but... (1)

return 42 (459012) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537888)

Sounds a lot like the Hubble before the mirror retrofit, too...

Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE. (5, Insightful)

JeremyR (6924) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537774)

Because the sensors used in digital cameras are typically much smaller than, say, a 35mm frame, the depth of field (DoF) at a given f-stop and "35mm equivalent" focal length is already much deeper than the DoF on a 35mm camera (at the same aperture and a comparable focal length).

I guess an extremely deep DoF is preferable in some cases, but in a lot of photography, it is desirable to use a shallow DoF in order to throw everything other than the subject out of focus (making for a nice, pleasing, soft background and drawing attention to the subject). This is very difficult to do with small-sensor digital cameras.

So I wonder if these "wavy lenses" can be used "in reverse" to narrow the depth of field for the purposes of enhancing creative DoF control?

Cheers,
Jeremy

Re:Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE. (1)

bloatboy (170414) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537935)

That depends entirely on what you are doing. A lot of landscape images rely on a very deep DoF. The main example I can think of is an Ansel Adams images of sand dunes.

Nothing but DoF there.

Re:Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE. (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537937)

Or you could just hit everything behind the subject with a blur filter. One of my favorite features of my digital camera is the long depth of field, which allows me to capture deep or unusually shaped objects with excellent clarity.

In the end, I would rather have to throw away extra data rather than never have the data in the first place.

Re:Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537945)

There's more to this than meets the eye. :-) The two digicams I've used (an old Agfa and a less old Nikon 990) had problems with CCD noise. This slick new invention allows a camera to use bigger aperture with shorter exposure times while still providing adequate focus.

It's *always* possible to give up DoF by choice.

Re:Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537980)

well duh, wait until the sensors get bigger. Or get a .. *drool* .. digital back for medium-format camera. I've seen some *sweet* Sinars with digital backs...

Mirror? (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537825)

I has going to host a mirror but I wget only appears to support conventional reflection..

I tried wget --help with no luck. Wavefront Coding must not be an option!

This article reminds me ... (1)

L0stb0Y (108220) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537827)

... of that line from batman:

"sure, but if you want to take my picture you're going to need a long lens"

*shrug*

Sorry. :)

LosT

needs to get more details (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537829)

as far as i know, the depth of field is related to lens size and focal length. the current lenses already achieve this depth of field. any attempt to get beyond this limit violates the most sacrosanct law of science, namely the 2nd lay of thermodynamics. so unless they provide more details about what they are doing, it is all vapor.

Space Tech Spinoff Again! (2, Informative)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537834)


I couldn't help but think back to the problem with the Hubble Space Telescope [nevada.edu] , wherein after the launch they discovered that the mirror had not been properly ground to specification.

Re:Space Tech Spinoff Again! (1)

Decimal (154606) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537900)

I couldn't help but think back to the problem with the Hubble Space Telescope [nevada.edu], wherein after the launch they discovered that the mirror had not been properly ground to specification.

I think that's just Murphy's law.

- "Everything ready to go?"

- "Check, and double-check, sir!"

- "Great, we'll launch in 10 minutes!"

[15 minutes later...]

- "You mean the checklist page is double-sided?!"

very cool (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537849)

Ah yes, I know this system well. I did my master's research in extended depth-of-field optics and came across this research which pretty much blew away what I was working on.

Here's a bit of background: in photography or laser scanning (point-by-point photography, basically), you always have a trade-off between depth-of-field and aperture size (as any photographer knows). Bigger aperture means shallow depth-of-field. However, a smaller aperture means lots of wasted light (imagine closing the aperture in your camera), and this means longer exposure times, and more importantly more NOISE in your images. This is true for digital, film, or photodetector.

So the "holy grail" is to keep the aperture open but still have high depth-of-field. This system depends on changing the phase of the light, instead of the amplitude (which is what you do when you stop down a lens to a smaller aperture). That way, no light energy is blocked and wasted.

Since the phase is changed, the resulting image on the CCD or film is fuzzy and has to be "decoded". You can think of it as "encoding" the wavefront in a special way that preserves the depth of field, capturing the image, and then "decoding" it into a sharp picture. It is really amazing. I hope it shows up in consumer cameras someday, it could completely change consumer photography since most "snapshot photographers" don't care about depth of field or all that stuff. It will also be great for medical and industrial imaging.

My system was sort of a hybrid between shading the aperture (instead of a sudden stopping of light, it gradually goes to black at the edge) and phase changes. Lots of people have been working on this problem over the years, but these guys really stripped the problem down to the essence and came up with a highly optimized solution.

Wavefront Coding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537858)

Wavefront Coding?

Sound like something you geeks probably enjoy doing most when at the beach during spring break!

Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537867)

Didn't they say that the Hubble was broken? Now do we have to send up another crew to replace the inferior 'flat' mirror??? Make up your minds.

So is my film scanner obsolete? (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537916)

So what does this do to my nice film scanner? Does this make my digital photography image chain unusable with the new technology? It seems unlikely that there's a Photoshop import filter for the original negative.

And I'm always leary of adopting a new technology that is monopolized by a single provider.

What?! (4, Funny)

return 42 (459012) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537920)

A story...on Slashdot...about a patent...that's legitimate?

What about the deep focus movies of the 50's? (2, Interesting)

jlowery (47102) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537923)

Does anybody remember the deep focus cinematography of Gregg Toland? How were those shots done?

like everyone else I shall speak before reading... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537926)

Well they've been ./ed into oblivion.

Thinking about this from first principles, however.
There is only so much information flowing through the lens. By making it "wavy" aren't they just spreading the information out over a larger volume. In that case, they must be giving up either some contrast or some spatial resolution. Mayhaps someone more acquainted with the product can speak to this?

Mother nature is a b**ch, she doesn't give you anthing for free.

Wow, a good patent (3, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 11 years ago | (#5537958)

I'm suprised, the USPTO actually managed to issue a patent for something new and innovative and unique, rather than for something thats been common practice for a few years.

new patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5537965)

"On Match 18 CDM Optics was awarded a patent for a new webserver system utilizing "Efficient Closure" that slashdots websites in one-tenth-fold the time. The website itself is blurred and inaccessible. We would give examples to you, but unfortunately they are all inaccessible"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>