CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2011, 07:34 PM   #31
spurcell
Lord of the posts
 
spurcell's Avatar
portfolio
shane purcell
Senior Artist
Providence, USA
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
Focus in on his face and look at the tip of the spear.
http://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/164

Not impressed. You can find these artifacts all through the images.


geez, I guess some people are just too cool for school. It's still new technology, give it a little time for crying out loud.
 
Old 10-21-2011, 09:06 PM   #32
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurcell
geez, I guess some people are just too cool for school. It's still new technology, give it a little time for crying out loud.



So I am supposed to be impressed with what it may be like someday and not the results I see now? Sorry I live in reality.
 
Old 10-22-2011, 09:23 AM   #33
archerx
Mister Anarchy
 
archerx's Avatar
portfolio
Olivier Archer
Indie
Lausanne, Switzerland
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,474
Send a message via Yahoo to archerx
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
So I am supposed to be impressed with what it may be like someday and not the results I see now? Sorry I live in reality.


Imagine if people said that about other things like say the airplane. Those bothers only made it fly a few meters, not impressed! But think about what it could mean for future travel. I said I am not impressed because I am incapable of long term think because of my close-mindedness. Reality

I personally think this could be great once it's matured, look how far digital photography has come, we went from VGA quality of the yesteryears to quality that rivals and can even surpass film.
__________________
Archerx.com - Portfolio site
CG Cast -Ep35- Not dead yet
CG Chat - Lets Chat About CG!
 
Old 10-22-2011, 02:39 PM   #34
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by archerx
Imagine if people said that about other things like say the airplane. Those bothers only made it fly a few meters, not impressed! But think about what it could mean for future travel. I said I am not impressed because I am incapable of long term think because of my close-mindedness. Reality

I personally think this could be great once it's matured, look how far digital photography has come, we went from VGA quality of the yesteryears to quality that rivals and can even surpass film.



I was going to respond to your post, but just can't get over the fact you are comparing the power of human flight to not focusing a lens.
 
Old 10-22-2011, 04:17 PM   #35
zokana
Lord of the posts
 
zokana's Avatar
portfolio
Zoltan Kanabe
Zurich, Switzerland
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,613
I agree that focusing a lens is part of the job of the photographer which he doesnt want to miss. It can not be fully replaced by adjustments in postproduction. Imagine halations for example when having a slight overexposure at unsharp areas. Its hardly possible to fake them because the surprise factor is part of their nature. Photography is photography, capturing the light respectively, and not digital scanning of the environment. Imagine a world where all light effects on pictures can be named by insiders: look, its PSFilter#163!

Technology aside, its an interesting question how much DOF we need on a plane picture. As we all know, its a compositional possibility to guide the viewers eye, and needed in 3d to achieve photorealism. But how much of the impression of realism is learned by viewing plane photographs/films? We have the possibility today to show for example the 3d model of a tiny little fly totally sharp on full screen, but people will miss the DOF, especially the poor DOF of lenses at macro range.

Did painters use DOF before photography appeared? Imagine a flamish still life from 1600 with DOF - would look rather strange. Most painters didnt want to force the focus of the viewer, saying, hey, its my compostion, you have to look first where i want!. i can see now some people coming up with perspective guidance, colour theories and stuff, so i better add, exceptions admitted

Maybe time to think about the nature of DOF before this technology is getting more sophisticated. I can see the need of it especially with the improvement of 3d film technologies, where DOF is getting a big problem already today. The good old tricks as used by Hitchcock for example (like building a 2m telephone for the foreground) dont fully convince in 3d.
 
Old 10-22-2011, 06:24 PM   #36
AndyCGS
Veteran
portfolio
Andy
Korea (South)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
I was going to respond to your post, but just can't get over the fact you are comparing the power of human flight to not focusing a lens.


Nice straw man. His point makes perfect sense. Are you going to answer to it?
 
Old 10-22-2011, 07:28 PM   #37
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyCGS
Nice straw man. His point makes perfect sense. Are you going to answer to it?


His analogy doesn't fit, and doesn't make sense in this context. The ability for humans to fly is impressive no matter how you look at it, especially when there was no such thing in existence. The ability to not have to move a piece of glass 2 inches and when there are alternatives for over a hundred years, is not even remotely in the same ballpark. A better analogy is digital cameras themselves. When they were released the image quality was not impressive, the fact that it was digital and had no film was the impressive part.

I will be impressed when the images pass the quality of "normal" digital cameras. Or it does something else amazing other digital cameras can't do. Until then I will take image quality over not focusing every single time.
 
Old 10-22-2011, 08:53 PM   #38
PottuVoi
-
portfolio
-
-, Finland
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 16
When light field photography is combined with eye tracking, it opens some interesting possibilities.
In addition to viewer focusing on whatever part of the image he/she wants, you can create proper images for each eye depending their location to the screen creating very good 3D image without traditional problems of stereo images. (given that light field is wide enough.)
Also as this is post process it's framerate can be completely independent from the refresh rate of a movie.

I'm quite sure that it would be relatively easy to do some nice test images with raytracer, given that someone would be able to code the lens information for light fields.
Here's nice light field gallery from Stanford.
 
Old 10-23-2011, 12:22 PM   #39
AndyCGS
Veteran
portfolio
Andy
Korea (South)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
His analogy doesn't fit


It fits perfectly. He was critisizing you for guffawing at innovation in its early stages. This is an innovation just the aeroplane was once an innovation (that needed time to develop into the form we know today).
 
Old 10-23-2011, 08:25 PM   #40
archerx
Mister Anarchy
 
archerx's Avatar
portfolio
Olivier Archer
Indie
Lausanne, Switzerland
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,474
Send a message via Yahoo to archerx
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
His analogy doesn't fit, and doesn't make sense in this context. The ability for humans to fly is impressive no matter how you look at it, especially when there was no such thing in existence.


Why are you so pendantic? Do you know people have been flying since 1783? Long before the first airplane flight, Also you do know hot air ballons are older than airplanes right? Also they flew much greater distances than the first planes.

Compared to a Zeppelin the Wright brother's flight would not be that impressive.

How about another analogy for you than if the plane one flew over your head.

The first digital cameras where technically quite crappy, they only gave you a 640x480 image, they were big and some even used floppy disks! Why bother with digital sensor technology when with film you can get much better quality? 640x480 image compared to 35mm film is not very impressive. However almost 20 years later things are quite different.

I don't see why you are so quick to dismiss this technology. The demand for it is there and with time I think it will develop quite nicely.
__________________
Archerx.com - Portfolio site
CG Cast -Ep35- Not dead yet
CG Chat - Lets Chat About CG!

Last edited by archerx : 10-23-2011 at 08:36 PM.
 
Old 10-23-2011, 09:57 PM   #41
spurcell
Lord of the posts
 
spurcell's Avatar
portfolio
shane purcell
Senior Artist
Providence, USA
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
His analogy doesn't fit, and doesn't make sense in this context. The ability for humans to fly is impressive no matter how you look at it, especially when there was no such thing in existence. The ability to not have to move a piece of glass 2 inches and when there are alternatives for over a hundred years, is not even remotely in the same ballpark. A better analogy is digital cameras themselves. When they were released the image quality was not impressive, the fact that it was digital and had no film was the impressive part.

I will be impressed when the images pass the quality of "normal" digital cameras. Or it does something else amazing other digital cameras can't do. Until then I will take image quality over not focusing every single time.


Sorry man, but the analogy fits perfectly. The fact is, this technology is still in its infancy. How do you know this won't evolve into something that completely changes the way we shoot photography, movies, cg etc etc?

It's too bad your too stubborn to admit that you're wrong...
 
Old 10-24-2011, 07:24 PM   #42
BigPixolin
Banned
 
BigPixolin's Avatar
c none
US
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurcell
Sorry man, but the analogy fits perfectly. The fact is, this technology is still in its infancy. How do you know this won't evolve into something that completely changes the way we shoot photography, movies, cg etc etc?

It's too bad your too stubborn to admit that you're wrong...



Can you please point me to exactly where I said it will never develop into anything?

It's too bad your not aware what opinions are, and that if this can be compared to human flight in any context is certainly a opinion.
 
Old 10-25-2011, 01:03 PM   #43
spurcell
Lord of the posts
 
spurcell's Avatar
portfolio
shane purcell
Senior Artist
Providence, USA
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPixolin
Can you please point me to exactly where I said it will never develop into anything?

It's too bad your not aware what opinions are, and that if this can be compared to human flight in any context is certainly a opinion.


Yup, you made your opinion known. It was snarky and arrogant. And it appears most everybody disagreed with it. Have a nice day.
 
Old 10-25-2011, 01:18 PM   #44
dunkelzahn
makes it happen
 
dunkelzahn's Avatar
portfolio
Christoph D.
3D Artist/ Motion Designer
Frankfurt, Germany
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,084
Okay, here are my 2 cent on this gadget.

It looks cool, its got new tech and there will not be a Iphone 5 for some time. Everybody will want to have one!!!

This thing will sell like hell. Too bad it wont be out for christmas.

Ah yes, and some geek will earn a lot of cash by writing a facebook app so everybody can instantly refocus their shapshots on facebook.

Apart from that, its a well-designed toy gadget.

Cheers

Chris
 
Old 10-25-2011, 08:41 PM   #45
plastic
Down With The Industry
 
plastic's Avatar
portfolio
Marc Lorenz
Vienna, Austria
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 789
For me it gets interesting when I can not only click on a focus plane, but control the falloff.
When I want narrow DOF I just use a fast lens with my camera. I don't see why I would want to change focus in post. When I take a picture I'm aware of the subject usually.

But it would be great to control DOF like in 2d animation, with falloff curves, free blur amount relative to a given Z depth, increase background blur, or completely remove all blur.
Since I still have no idea how this thing works, I don't know if that's realistic.
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.