Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 00:29

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print

Topic: Focus? Hocus Pocus!  

(Read 2211 times)
sharpshot


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2011, 15:21 »

... Now that would be 3D TV!  Shocked


You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

Might not be as long as that.  This is very basic but they say they will have a holographic TV on sale by the end of 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9393762.stm


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
RacePhoto



« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2011, 23:56 »

... Now that would be 3D TV!  Shocked


You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

Might not be as long as that.  This is very basic but they say they will have a holographic TV on sale by the end of 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9393762.stm


There goes another one of my great ideas, stolen! Wink

Couldn't follow the link and see the report, but I like the idea. Maybe not as soon as what I was really thinking would be hot, sports in a holographic projection. I mean, standing on the field? Playing Middle Linebacker (I know USA but it's the only sport for me after racing) WHOA Baby!


Ignore | Logged


lthn


« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2011, 02:40 »

The Lytro camera released today outputs 11 megarays or around 1 Megapixel with 1080px on its height. No word on the width but I'm betting 1200px.   Hardly stock material. 

In a few generations it will be an incredible tool in the arsenal but right now it is pretty useless besides net pic sharing.  In Macro imaging and microscopy where you usually have to layer and merge several depth exposures this camera could revolutionize those markets.

Lets hope the technology survives until it matures in the market.  I have a Lytro order option right now that lapses in a week. Somehow I don't think it is enough resolution to buy it.   At 3MP it would be a different story, 1MP is just too low.

I bet you thats an already heavily upsampled resolution.


Ignore | Logged


bizair



« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2011, 22:05 »


This thread has themes last heard in the late 90s and early 00s, "digital will never replace film".

  I wouldn't bet my testicales on any predictions that suggest "it" won't happen.  Nobody knows what sort of "its" are out there.  The only certainty is that we will be surprised.

This technology is very early days, just as digital camera were a little over a decade ago.  Look where we are now.

Ken


Ignore | Logged


RacePhoto



« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2011, 23:47 »


This thread has themes last heard in the late 90s and early 00s, "digital will never replace film".

  I wouldn't bet my testicales on any predictions that suggest "it" won't happen.  Nobody knows what sort of "its" are out there.  The only certainty is that we will be surprised.

This technology is very early days, just as digital camera were a little over a decade ago.  Look where we are now.

Ken

Just because some people are still living in caves somewhere, it doesn't mean we haven't moved out and taken up factory make clothes, shopping for food instead of hunting it or riding in vehicles instead of on animals.  Smiley There are still people who don't believe film has been replaced by digital. For myself, as soon as I got a 6MP camera I stopped shooting film. For professionals and publication it took a little longer. The Internet is electronic and demands speed as well, and film doesn't have that.

Now 3D? It's like turbine cars, hovercraft and everyone with an airplane in their garage. It's the stuff that nice articles about the future are made of, but impracticable and lacks the basic functionality that people require. You want to read a book? Now you can use a Kindle. Want to watch TV, you carry one on your phone.

3D isn't part of the necessary function of watching. That's all. Advantage to 3D TV is you can watch standard TV on it, which the rest of these products of the past, couldn't do.

How's your stereoscope? Technology that's over 100 years old. Wouldn't people still be using it if there was some kind of demand? White Realist stereo cameras, the Nimslo camera that produced 3D prints. (I think Nishiki bought that?) This is nice, a Nimslo digital printer could bring the technology back. Yes I own one of the first cameras, it's in the storage box for old cameras.
 Back to the point. Demand, cost and functionality. A toy camera for $300 that takes extra large depth of field images, that can't really be viewed as prints, slides, or even 3D. It's all hypothetical.

Remember smell-o-vision, yes someone really made it. Disc camera? (UGH!) How's that new Polaroid doing that prints from a digital camera, in your hand? Hey, the $100 Flip video camera? Gone April 2011. Kodak Advantix? And for every 100 of these schemes that come and go, one might make it. Next thing someone comes along and points out, "Hey people said it was folly, but look now." Funny how the people making that point forget about the other 100 inventions that were useless novelty and toys.

3D television and movies, the kind that need special glasses, will suffer the same as they have in the past. Passing fad.

Anyone still have a Quad tape player or record player? SQ or QS with the decoder. Why not? Stereo was good because it was an improvement in realism over mono. Why didn't quad make it? It's a natural? Want another passing fad? CDs and DVDs. LOL


Ignore | Logged


sharpshot


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2011, 03:20 »

I wonder what percentage of people never make prints or only get small prints?  I think there could be quite a big market for people that only require HD screen resolution.  I think this product might not take off because it's the first generation of new technology and it looks like they haven't produced software that can fully utilise everything it can be used for.  They have rushed this to market and might make some money because its a first.  I do think that this technology is going to change the future for digital cameras.  I think the big manufacturers are going to see this as a threat and will have to work on something similar now.  It's obviously useful for amateurs but professionals are going to want this as well.  If it can be used to drastically increase the focus area for macro photography using wide apertures, it's going to be really useful.  I'm sure the video people will want this, even if the resolution is too low for stills.


Ignore | Logged


Mr. Stock


« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2011, 08:56 »

Personally I think this is revolutionary technology, a paradigm shift. The tech is in is infancy, this is a first step, an embryonic version of something that in a few years, maybe five, will completely change photography. Think about it, deciding after the fact, where to place focus, how much to be in or out of focus. I see so much potential here it's mind boggling. It's either going to put me out of work as a photographer or allow me more creative freedom then ever before. Awesome.


Ignore | Logged


Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Canon 20D focus problems
Cameras / Lenses
dbvirago 6 2570 Last post January 22, 2007, 16:27
by leaf
100 pictures out of focus?
Crestock.com
melastmohican 8 1993 Last post April 13, 2008, 14:09
by mantonino
focus my work on isolations
General Stock Discussion
gunnar3000 5 1377 Last post August 29, 2008, 18:23
by icefront
Out of focus rejections on the rise?
Shutterstock.com
stokfoto 20 2100 Last post July 26, 2009, 16:38
by Vonkara
Referral Earnings 123rf hocus pocus gone
General Stock Discussion
kaycee 2 758 Last post December 06, 2009, 13:13
by leaf

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc