The state of the art in computational photography is incredible

Messages
11,513
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
... and it's only going to get better, given the vast R&D budgets of companies like Google and Apple.

Thanks to @HoppyUK for finding this article, and I thought it deserved a wider audience that it was likely to get where he posted it (in a discussion about variable ISO sensors):

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7921074499/five-ways-google-pixel-3-pushes-the-boundaries-of-computational-photography


Am about half way through and it seems to me all the extra bits, new innovations? are aimed at people who can't take a decent photo and the camera fixes it for you...
 
Well the likes of canon and Sony would be crazy not to replicate such features in their cameras. With like for like software larger sensors and better optics would always have the upper hand
 
... and it's only going to get better, given the vast R&D budgets of companies like Google and Apple.

Thanks to @HoppyUK for finding this article, and I thought it deserved a wider audience that it was likely to get where he posted it (in a discussion about variable ISO sensors):

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7921074499/five-ways-google-pixel-3-pushes-the-boundaries-of-computational-photography

Cheers Stewart :) DPReview also video'd that interview and have now put it up here
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5389410276/google-pixel-3-camera-feature-deep-dive

There is no doubt that this is the new revolution in photography (mirrorless is just a minor divertion). It's as significant and 'disruptive' as the basic phone camera has already been to mass market photography, and now this new tech seriously threatens the enthusiast end - whether we like it or not. And it's advancing fast - we've seen nothing yet :eek:

Am about half way through and it seems to me all the extra bits, new innovations? are aimed at people who can't take a decent photo and the camera fixes it for you...

What's not to like about that? Well, nothing for the 'greater good' but personally I hate the way that the knowledge and skills (and equipment) I've acquired over the last few decades are being increasingly eroded.

That would be useful for 98% of the people who own cameras and smart phones then!

Exactly.
 
There is no doubt that this is the new revolution in photography (mirrorless is just a minor divertion). It's as significant and 'disruptive' as the basic phone camera has already been to mass market photography, and now this new tech seriously threatens the enthusiast end - whether we like it or not. And it's advancing fast - we've seen nothing yet :eek:

Totally agree, they have pretty much seen off most the compact market and starting to nibble at the entry level market. Will I be getting rid of my A7iii? No, but I do use my phone much more as it's just more convenient and image quality is more than good enough.
 
...but personally I hate the way that the knowledge and skills (and equipment) I've acquired over the last few decades are being increasingly eroded.

Unfortunately throughout history the superior technology has usually supplanted the inferior.

Which is why we now have the internet, cameras in smartphones, USB 3 etc etc.

But there will always be room for the truly great in any sphere.
 
Will I be getting rid of my A7iii? No, but I do use my phone much more as it's just more convenient and image quality is more than good enough.
Phone camera "convenient"? I guess it is, so long as you're not trying to take pictures on a sunny day. That's the bug bear for me.
 
The technology is incredible, for me though investing £700 in a phone is simply too much. My phones get abused and rarely last a year!

I do look forward to a couple of years time when I can buy this type of phone for a couple of hundred quid.

But as has been mentioned what destroys camera phones for me is the lack of a viewfinder. Are there any indications phone companies are developing tech to get around this?
 
Am about half way through and it seems to me all the extra bits, new innovations? are aimed at people who can't take a decent photo and the camera fixes it for you...
you mean, the same reason why people buy 35mm sensors and fast primes?
 
Wonder how long before computational photography can pull this off?

(Yeah, why would it want to etc etc)

View attachment 136500

You mean replicate the bokeh blur? Can't see why they couldn't do that already on high resolution pictures. Computers already compare neighboring pixels to alter pictures.

Selective sharpening/unsharpening could allow you to replicate a f/1.4 lens with a f/4- saving you from buying a £1000+ lens (so you can instead buy £200 software, haha). More importantly, any lens at f/4 may make sharper pictures than f/1.4, so you get a better overall effect.

On a smartphone it wouldn't work- they would have to use face detection and scene recognition to create out of focus backgrounds.
 
The thing is, when things become easy and purchaseable, they lose value. As a result they are taken for granted and become less desirable, accelerating the loss of value. Until the point where it becomes niche and then acquires rarity or curiosity value. Keynesian economics. Hence why we now pay a lot for handcrafted items that could be purchased for pence if machine-created, but we perceive the value that is added (never mind the quality) by the effort of the craftsperson.

Of course that is a very middle-class wealthy southerner view.
 
You mean replicate the bokeh blur? Can't see why they couldn't do that already on high resolution pictures. Computers already compare neighboring pixels to alter pictures.

Selective sharpening/unsharpening could allow you to replicate a f/1.4 lens with a f/4- saving you from buying a £1000+ lens (so you can instead buy £200 software, haha). More importantly, any lens at f/4 may make sharper pictures than f/1.4, so you get a better overall effect.

On a smartphone it wouldn't work- they would have to use face detection and scene recognition to create out of focus backgrounds.

You're a bit behind the curve of what's already happening with smartphones.
 
The thing is, when things become easy and purchaseable, they lose value. As a result they are taken for granted and become less desirable, accelerating the loss of value. Until the point where it becomes niche and then acquires rarity or curiosity value. Keynesian economics. Hence why we now pay a lot for handcrafted items that could be purchased for pence if machine-created, but we perceive the value that is added (never mind the quality) by the effort of the craftsperson.

Of course that is a very middle-class wealthy southerner view.

That's exactly what's happened to professional photography - technology has all but wiped it out as a viable career beyond a few niche areas.
 
Back
Top