What is Digg?46 Comments
- jbitely, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There are so many applications for this in serious photography that my mind is spinning. The fact that all the information is captured with a single shutter release is the key. Since that is the case, each version you process of a photo is going to line up exactly with every other version. You could easily build out 3 (or 5 or 10 or whatever, depending on how much detail you need) versions of the same photo, each focused on a different area, then blend them together to create a photo with depth of field that is superior to anything available using conventional photographic equipment.
Another example of why this is revolutionary: with conventional photography the only way to increase depth of field is to use a smaller aperture. This inevitably leads to the need for a slower shutter speed. This slow shutter speed can often hamper the taking of a sharp picture (motion blur/camera shake). Using this new type of camera, you could use a larger aperture and a faster shutter speed. You would still have to output multiple versions with different focus and blend them in post-production, but you would be able to capture photographs that are otherwise impossible or at least impractical.
Someone is going to get very rich from this. - bivouac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wouldn't four dimensional photography be video?
- johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The videos are REALLY worth a look:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/refocus/ - FlyingAvatar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe you could call a 3D video "4D", but normal video is only 2D in the first place. That makes regular video "3D" if you are counting time as a dimension.
The conventional definition of 3D being an image with depth information, and the concept of "time" being the 4th dimension are not "the laws of using 2D, 3D, 4D terminology" as they are really just buzzwords.
The cool part is that is that these photos are made with only one shutter click.
In this case, he's taking a picture in 2D using a normal lens then through an array of microlenses in order to get another 2D representation of the focus information for each pixel. That's 4 dimensions of measurement by my count. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The 4th dimension is the fourier domain - this idea isn't all that novel - it's not overly distinct from holography, but rather than doing the phase space transforms in the real world, they're being done digitally. Very, very, very nifty. Of course, the biggest implementation of this is in being able to shoot 3d scenes with a single lens.
- madmoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is actually 4D -- just not the 3+1 dimensions of space-time that everybody here seems to assume.
While a regular camera only captures a 2D image, AFAICT this camera also captures which direction the light is coming from, giving 4 dimensions of information.
It's sad to see so many people attacking somebody over something they clearly don't understand. If you don't understand, at least try to learn. Anything else is arrogance. - mbwilliamson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1bivouac, I agree. This is simply moving the focus of the lens along the third axis. Still, pretty cool stuff.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That picture is sexy.
- Lacero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unbelievably cool. No more blurry shots from Uncle Joe at your cousin's next redneck wedding!
- quirky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i'm not smart enough to understand how this is 4D, but this sure is a cool site!
q - rysolag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that's awesome.
- bossm4n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is amazing technology that could redefine photography as we know it. The videos are a "must see". If I recall, I read an article several months ago about a manufacturer working along a similar path but their "focus" (pun intended) was on the sensor, meaning the focusing was not done via the lens but on the theoretical film plane.
- mgorbsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd be impressed if it produced a SINGLE image that was a composite of all the others. Sure, I can watch a video, but that's not a picture, now, is it?
- mcfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A breakthrough in photography for sure. About the only time depth of field was this good was when viewing a photograph by Ansel Adams.
- geezusfreeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It appears to me that this works similarly to the way that a computer would generate an image with depth of field. It takes several shots (of course a computer would render these) at once at many different angles (each angle being one of the microlenses spoken of on the site). These shots are combined, and the parts of the image that are the most offset are the ones that go the most out of focus in the final image. The main difference here is that there is a transformation to make different parts of the images offset by different amounts.
My question here is how much resolution do you get with this kind of camera. It seems to sacrifice a rather large number of pixels to achieve this effect. - senzafine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that's really sweet. focusing a camera would be a non issue with this.
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is disruptive technology. all previous cameras are now obsolete.
- oohBattman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, if this guy says its 4D, then im sure he knows more than the rest of us
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't like these attempts to show 4D in our "mostly Euclidean" 3D world. The effect is cool, but it's not 4D. The best abstract representation of n-dimensional space I can think about is the hypercube.
http://schlerplotti.typepad.com/quantworks/2005/11/stanford_studen.html - Gollywomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This would make "catching that perfect picture" so much easier! Awesome Technology!
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is very cool, but I don't know If I'd call it 4D (but hey, I'm not the Ph.D. student, right? :P ) I'll bet Kodak hires him, I can see this being a big selling feature of their "easyshare" suite.
- Wolf451man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Very cool. Sure, we can get rid of Uncle Joe's drunken out of focus pictures. And while that is cool and all...
I really liked the focusing through the splash series. Even our eyes, as amazing as they are, catch only a snapshot of an event, and that from one perspective. This allows us to focus (no pun intended) on more of the details in an event. - tetfsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Um, this is pretty stupid IMHO. 4D Photography = 3D Movie. 3D photography (stereoscopic) has been around since the 1800s (see http://photostereo.org/).
Adding the time factor is kind of ridiculous for a single frame, only makes since for movies to me. - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't see what all the hype is about. When I take pictures my camera automatically focuses or I can manualy focus on what I want.
The videos just shows a picture with the focus changing, whats the big deal? Personaly I don't like when different parts of an image blurs based on depth of field. Imagine playing Doom III and it did this autatically? That would be really annoying as there is no way to tell what the player is really looking at to know what should or should not be focused.
Maybe im missing the point? - CadMasterAdam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0in ***** creadible
- GameDNA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its amazing how a flame war starts over the trivial detail of how many D's. I feel that most people are missing the amazing applications that this technology has. Medical, Space, Manufacturing, Science, etc..etc..etc.
Imagine a doc using an endoscope and having the ability to change focus after the procedure has been finished. Or another doctor reviewing that same footage at a remote location having the ability to focus in on a spot that the first doctor missed.
Amazing stuff...
Great Digg!
Simply amazing stuff... - LittleOni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The fact that they were able to get all that information in one shutter-stop, and it be as clear and clean as it is, is what impresses me the most. Jbitely also makes a good point. Very cool.
- Zeuser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+04D ?
This has nothing to do with 4D. Hell, it isn't even 3D (stereoscopic) photography.
It's a great innovation but use of 4D to describe this is ridiculous. In fact, the whole 4D term could actually hurt any chances of this technology going mainstream.
Once again, a great idea that will be buried by the inventor's own arrogance.
Note: Count how many times the author uses "I" on the site. Defintely a sign of being full of himself. - Eaglet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is...wow. This is amazing. Those videos...my god. I'm speechless.
- 42kami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0revolutionary breakthrough in optics if this technology gets into the hands of consumers and researchers alike.
from what i gather, you are taking a 3D instead of 2D picture in that you can accurately gauge where objects are located. normal pictures can only focus on what's in the depth-of-field "sweet spot" -- everything before and after is fuzzy.
if you interpolate each individual 2D slice into one "master" 2D slice, you can make a picture with an infinite depth-of-field, where everything is in focus -- instead of just color information, you're getting positional information as well.
i'm no astronomer, but i imagine astronomy would highly benefit from this. you can photograph 3D chunks of the sky.
as an amateur photographer, it would mean you would never have to deal with depth-of-field anymore. faster, cheaper lenses = very cool.
this guy will make bank when it goes commercial. - craigtheguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great, he can take pictures of the Stanfurd football team after they lose Big Game on Saturday.
- Speak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You use the program to select a focus setting, mgorbsky. you end with a single photo. I recommend the fourier page he made, http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/fourierphoto/ .
- bivouac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sorry, didn't intend to throw the conversation off track. i should add that I think this is really amazing, but as a side point I question the term 4D.
- TacitusBen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is very exciting to the art world. And when I say 'art world,' I mean Me.
- sergiemag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very interesting! i love the videos. its like videotaping a camera's viewfinder while its focusing in and out of the subject, yet nothing is moving. its trippin me out.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Smart man!
KUDOS - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+04th dimension = Twilight Zone.
- Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The human mind can only comprehend (true) 3-dimensional space or 4-dimensional spacetime (if you include time).
Entering into theoretical physics, adding probability, makes it 5-dimensional and then adding 6 more curled dimensions will make it 11-dimensional.
I won't even start on the extra dimensions required for string theory. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'll digg it... but where does the 4th dimension come into play?
- soccerob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0so can you change the angle of a picture that you've already taken? this seems impossible, is this a special camera or just effects that are done in post-processing?
http://soccerob.com - RobertH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0, but it would be great for microscope photograpgh
- Teague, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Huh.
- pintong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It makes me wonder if this technique could be adapted by existing cameras . . .
- zakainsworth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0cool...
- RobertH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0sounds like only 3 dimesions to me 4 would add time to this and make it video
- RobertH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0, but it would be great for microscope photograpghy
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is