Interest in designing a better digital camera?
-
D
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I have listed them previously. What you have to understand is that digital technology is based on an artificial construct, the result of which in it's current state results in a flawed facsimile.
I seek to at least theoretically improve upon its design and processes, which may prove useful in future real-world designs.
I have zero interest in that. Modern sensors already capture more than any currently available reproduction medium supports. The HDR nonsense is mankind's own admission that we're out of good ideas for what to do with this incredible dynamic range.
From the product design viewpoint, modern digital cameras are suffering from "hardware is miles ahead of software" problem. Look at what a typical phone can do with relatively modest hardware. If you want to improve my DSLR, make it store images directly on my computer or directly into my cloud account. Setting up WiFi transfer (or WiFi tethering) feels like they had a single intern working on it.
I would like to see they perfect the electronic shutter on new imaging sensor so there is no need for the shutter.
Someone has been drinking the koolaid!
A notable goal.
Perceived issues with digital photography are not with image capture, but viewing. Printing has the advantage of blurring dots to create a seamless image in ink. Given a suitably attractive and archival print medium, and a printer with sufficient colours, digital photography is capable of creating tonally and chromatically rich prints. The problem is print has all but died outside commercial magazines and photo club competitions, leaving the majority of photographs to be viewed on the ephemeral and mostly low fidelity medium of the computer screen.
In some ways this is an old problem. The popularity of cheap printing was always infinitely greater than the making or buying of fine photographic prints. In many ways print quality is less expensive now and easier to achieve, with online print on demand services for photographs and books. This is not translated into the number of hard copies made, and good gallery prints still require expensive equipment and ink. People are happy to invest in expensive cameras and lenses capable of huge enlargement, without ever testing the potential of their equipment, except in fragmented electronic form.
In some ways this is an old problem. The popularity of cheap printing was always infinitely greater than the making or buying of fine photographic prints. In many ways print quality is less expensive now and easier to achieve, with online print on demand services for photographs and books. This is not translated into the number of hard copies made, and good gallery prints still require expensive equipment and ink. People are happy to invest in expensive cameras and lenses capable of huge enlargement, without ever testing the potential of their equipment, except in fragmented electronic form.
To a large degree yes. But digital in all current forms fails to give you a true, you-are-there experience that slide film excels at, however good it appears to be otherwise.
This is the main issue I seek to improve upon.
There are advocates of sensors other than the popular Bayer type. Fuji persevere with an "X-trans" array, and multiple CCD sensors are still popular for their rendering, at the expense of high ISO performance. Sigma Foveon also had a more film-like appearance, but died through commercial pressure elsewhere.
Digital cameras have defaulted to all things to all people tech, with low light rendering beyond anything film offered. Perhaps the technology already exists to offer subtle pictorial images if we were content with speeds of 50 to 400 ISO and large charge coupled devices?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,981
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
I missed this earlier posting of yours. I don't know that I've seen such a quality in any photograph, whether shot on film or digitally. But technologies like virtual reality can deliver some remarkable experiences.
Today's digital cameras do better at high ISO, where film excels at low ASA.
You are getting warm.
I see this remarkable realism when viewing my slides in sunlight with a high quality loupe, as well as directly viewing a large format transparency.
You don't have to restrict yourself to viewing low resolution. An 8K display can fully display a 32MP image which is near the top MP of current cameras.
One thing I have been thinking about is adding self calibration technology to monitors, by employing sensors that can detect both luminance and color temperature.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 1,981
- Format
- Plastic Cameras
But will you actually see it? When I was switching from 1080p to 4K I found that the combination of size of a panel and the viewing distance need to be just right to actually have a perceivable benefit. Even assuming a perfect vision, the range was incredibly narrow (need to look up my notes) as pixel density generally doesn't match viewing distance (most 4K TVs are just too small). I suspect that for 8K that range is minuscule and possibly non-existent, i.e. outside of wall-sized screens the benefit may be strictly imaginary.
My opinion is that in terms of dynamic range and resolution we're pretty much done. Any additional incremental improvements aren't not going to be tangible. One interesting area to explore is post-capture focusing, i.e. you focus when you view an image, not when you capture it. In the past we were limited by resolution to implement it, but looks like we're have an abundance of that now.
I knew that I would probably see one in my lifetime, but I would like to see a product with anti-radiation technology, and a warranty against hot pixels for its usable lifespan.
You just need to be closer! I know people accustom to looking at screen at further distance but with higher resolution you need to be closer.
Correction: close but not too close!
8K ...at what COST?! Only the top 1% can afford this without serious thought. $18000 for an 8K digital projector!
And 8K vertical resolution falls short of supporting a Canon 5D Mark IV
Last edited:
A new high (low?) in meaningless techno-blather.
A new high (low?) in meaningless techno-blather.
Keep on trolling, as it seems to be the only thing that you know how to do here!
I just tried the "Ignore" feature and it's marvelous.
If you insist.
So first, if you want a pure monochrome sensor, you can, in some situations have the bayer filter removed. Or you can spend several thousand dollars on a Leica M. Dedicated astrophotography cameras can also be monochrome.
If you believe you have a sophisticated algorithm that can reconstruct color data from a monochrome image-- then by all means, produce it. I'll even figure out who to talk to to get your nomination for a Nobel prize in physics or similar fast-tracked. Current sensors can't measure the frequency of a photon, merely quantity. What you've described would be a quantum leap in technology.
The current "best" technology is probably the Sigma Foveon, as it has three stacked pixels, and therefore is less vulnerable to artifacts than a Bayer sensor.
But even Bayer artifacts can be successfully dealt with with sophisticated algorithms (see "computational photography").
My personal opinion, which you no doubt will find annoying, is that neither film nor digital accurately reproduces the "You are there", but that digital actually is closer. Digital, through some of those sophisticated algorithms, can reproduce the perception of what the naked eye saw-- Which is not to say it's an accurate reproduction, merely that it is perceived as being accurate.
But color film (because, for the record, I see in color, not black and white) is also an approximation, with specific dyes and couplers, which are linked to silver grains.
I've never understood this obsession with proving film is "more accurate" or "higher resolution" than digital. Both have limits, both are approximations. Both consist of a matrix of photo-sensitive material which changes as light hits it, so the resolution and accuracy is dependent on the matrix-- and neither matches the organization of rods and cones in my eyes which send impulses to a very efficient, but flawed, analog signal processor (brain).
If you believe you have a sophisticated algorithm that can reconstruct color data from a monochrome image-- then by all means, produce it. I'll even figure out who to talk to to get your nomination for a Nobel prize in physics or similar fast-tracked. Current sensors can't measure the frequency of a photon, merely quantity. What you've described would be a quantum leap in technology.
The current "best" technology is probably the Sigma Foveon, as it has three stacked pixels, and therefore is less vulnerable to artifacts than a Bayer sensor.
But even Bayer artifacts can be successfully dealt with with sophisticated algorithms (see "computational photography").
My personal opinion, which you no doubt will find annoying, is that neither film nor digital accurately reproduces the "You are there", but that digital actually is closer. Digital, through some of those sophisticated algorithms, can reproduce the perception of what the naked eye saw-- Which is not to say it's an accurate reproduction, merely that it is perceived as being accurate.
But color film (because, for the record, I see in color, not black and white) is also an approximation, with specific dyes and couplers, which are linked to silver grains.
I've never understood this obsession with proving film is "more accurate" or "higher resolution" than digital. Both have limits, both are approximations. Both consist of a matrix of photo-sensitive material which changes as light hits it, so the resolution and accuracy is dependent on the matrix-- and neither matches the organization of rods and cones in my eyes which send impulses to a very efficient, but flawed, analog signal processor (brain).
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |