DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Cameras of the future - How will they be?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 74, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/08/2007 01:12:01 PM · #26
Originally posted by Almilan:

You are right rainmotorsports - you are right, but I always thought the FinePix was a little more than a point and shoot - so I thought you were poking fun at me - but I was not at all offended. I just poked back - a weeny bit.

Thanks for the link.

PS I do have those books and they are making me feel much better, so I thought they may be helpful to you too:)


LOl well between the ADHD and OCD misdiagnosis i finally at the age of 21 know whats up with me. I mean it doesnt define me i am myself but, it lets me know that the symptoms i have are not a million things its one big syndrom. But i mean for people trying to understand me it makes it alot easier. Too late for somestuff though but thats okay.
02/08/2007 01:21:23 PM · #27
There will be technology that senses bright objects better and can make educated guesses about when single photodiodes have to quit recording incoming light without making one big grey mess of it all. So you avoid highlight blowout and gain depth in the shadows.

The end of Bayer is near, no doubt about it. Next to Foveon also Fuji and Canon are working on it.

Because of the use of non-Bayer Foveon like sensors the resolution gain will not come from more pixels but better pixels. The 3mp Foveon sensors perform on a level near 6mp Bayer sensors. You might be happy that your Raw file doesn't double from 12 to 24mp but be aware that you now have 3x12mp of data, so storage gets worse. But memory is dirt cheap at the moment so who cares.

What I also hope for is full frame fixed prime lens bodies with a big bright viewfinder. I find myself shooting with the D70 and just the 30mm, so give me a 18mp FF with a fixed (as opposed to interchangeable) 45mm f/2 lens and a .9 - .95x viewfinder and I'd be very happy.


02/08/2007 01:41:23 PM · #28
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by Almilan:

You are right rainmotorsports - you are right, but I always thought the FinePix was a little more than a point and shoot - so I thought you were poking fun at me - but I was not at all offended. I just poked back - a weeny bit.

Thanks for the link.

PS I do have those books and they are making me feel much better, so I thought they may be helpful to you too:)


LOl well between the ADHD and OCD misdiagnosis i finally at the age of 21 know whats up with me. I mean it doesnt define me i am myself but, it lets me know that the symptoms i have are not a million things its one big syndrom. But i mean for people trying to understand me it makes it alot easier. Too late for somestuff though but thats okay.


Whoops - I think I was horrible without intending to be horrible. I'm sorry if this is the case.

Anyway that Gigapixel project makes very interesting reading and gives us an idea of what is possible.

I heard about the Foveon a few years back (2004?) and it sounded interesting, but then things went very quiet. It sounds as though the project is getting back on track though.

As many have been saying, the future looks very interesting indeed.
02/08/2007 02:35:48 PM · #29
In the near future, cameras will be EVIL: Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens.

//www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Pentax/IMG_0409.jpg

This is Pentax's mock-up of one they had at last years PMA. What will this year bring?

(Sorry bout the image size...hope everyone has big monitors!)

Message edited by L2 - Changed large image to link.
02/09/2007 08:15:33 AM · #30
That Pentax looks interesting. Is it a medium format model? It raises another interesting question too. Do we really need a traditional slr viewfinder? Composing a photo might be easier with a large lcd on the back of the camera. I know that several pointy shooty cams have dumped the viewfinder altogether and I also believe that pointy shooty users quite like the ability to use the lcd to compose a photo without having to squint through a small darkish tunnel.
02/09/2007 08:29:51 AM · #31
What about underwater photography? Interchangeble lenses while under water?
02/09/2007 08:46:50 AM · #32
Originally posted by jan_vdw:

What about underwater photography? Interchangeble lenses while under water?


Sounds as though a liquid lens would be useful ;)

But seriously, a decent liquid lens may be useful and may remove the need to change lenses.

Using an the LCD as a viewfinder would also be helpful I imagine.

I have to add that I know nothing about taking pics underwater, so someone with real knowledge may be able to make more interesting observations.
02/09/2007 09:03:14 AM · #33
My future camera will be implanted in my brain with the optics aligned with my eyes -- I will be able to process the images by thinking of the processing steps -- I won't mention where the printer will be..... ;)
02/09/2007 10:29:42 AM · #34
30 frames (or more) per second at very high quality (essentially shooting video with each frame being a quality pic). Sports/action photography will never be the same.
02/09/2007 10:54:41 AM · #35
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by theSaj:

I think we will eventually see the birth of fluid lenses. But probably not for another 100 ys.


Working variable-focal-length fluid lenses have been demonstrated. The catch is, they're for small optical systems, where the shape of the lens is not distorted too much by gravity.


Just wanted to point out that I did mention gravity control. Which would eliminate distortion due to gravity. Hence this being a tad bit far away.

;)

But wouldn't a 10mm-1000mm f/1.8 lens be a joy.
02/09/2007 10:58:55 AM · #36
As for underwater cameras...

I am really surprised that there are NO consumer models available. (Yes there are some sport/water resistant cameras that are only good down to a few feet and for 30 minutes. These really don't count.)

I would think there would be a great market for a < $300 digital P&S that was good to at least 30ft and for unlimited duration.

As underwater photography limited by film is a pain (every 24 shots you have to change your film, which entails coming up to the surface and getting dry). Or you string along a chain of disposables.

Yes, I know they make waterproof cases for cameras. But these are specialized items with a very limited production and cost 2x-3x the cost of the cameras. Furthermore, they're specific to the camera. (Hence the high costs.) Often you can find the cases for sell for like $400+ sitting on a shelf in a camera shop but the cameras are no longer for sale.)

02/09/2007 11:11:46 AM · #37
Originally posted by theSaj:

As for underwater cameras...

I am really surprised that there are NO consumer models available. (Yes there are some sport/water resistant cameras that are only good down to a few feet and for 30 minutes. These really don't count.)

I would think there would be a great market for a < $300 digital P&S that was good to at least 30ft and for unlimited duration.

As underwater photography limited by film is a pain (every 24 shots you have to change your film, which entails coming up to the surface and getting dry). Or you string along a chain of disposables.

Yes, I know they make waterproof cases for cameras. But these are specialized items with a very limited production and cost 2x-3x the cost of the cameras. Furthermore, they're specific to the camera. (Hence the high costs.) Often you can find the cases for sell for like $400+ sitting on a shelf in a camera shop but the cameras are no longer for sale.)


1 Meter with GPS with NO Convievable limit - //www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07020501ricoh500se.asp

My 5MP Olympus has a case avaliable for 50 bucks and no it doesnt leak like you think it would but its also not as nice as a hard case.

You need to realize how the seals wear out on cheaper cases. The seals it takes to be able to have a built in water seal and stil be able to conect usb and put in battery's require precision and good materials.

Also you need a high iso to keep the lighting minmal to stop the particles int he water from ligthing up and making your shot look bad.

A Fuji F30 with iso 3200 @ Full res is a great poitn and shoot for underwater if you buy the case.

But yeah i think we all wish!
02/09/2007 11:26:12 AM · #38
Originally posted by Patents4u:

30 frames (or more) per second at very high quality (essentially shooting video with each frame being a quality pic). Sports/action photography will never be the same.


You beat me to it--my thoughts exactly. There are video cameras out right now that do a passable job at still photography, but imagine doing a family portrait with 15 or 20 people in it. Tell everyone to smile and shoot about 5 seconds of video. Take the best still out of that video when everyone is smiling, everybody's eyes are open fully, etc. and that one instant is a 10, 12, or higher megapixel photo. At 30 shots per second, you'll (alomost) always get a great photo. Combine that technology with a liquid lens with infinite DOF, and photography just got a LOT easier.
Hey, it could happen! :o)

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 11:28:58.
02/09/2007 11:35:46 AM · #39
btw, isn't the gigapixel project just high resolution scans of large-format film?
02/09/2007 11:48:31 AM · #40
Originally posted by Almilan:


But seriously, a decent liquid lens may be useful and may remove the need to change lenses.



Compared to all the techspeak, this may be a crude observation but I can't believe how clumsy lens changing is for dSLRs, particularly when it's so dangerous to clean your sensor and so difficult to remove dirt from within a lens. I can't be the only one to juggle lenses and body caps in the wind or rain, or over sand or mud? It's ridiculous.

What I'd wish for is a revolving nosepiece with different lenses attached, as on a microscope. Or, if lenses really must be removed, there should be a curtain or dust guard in between the camera body and lens attachment.
02/09/2007 12:04:07 PM · #41
Originally posted by skewsme:

What I'd wish for is a revolving nosepiece with different lenses attached, as on a microscope. Or, if lenses really must be removed, there should be a curtain or dust guard in between the camera body and lens attachment.


The curtain/dustguard is near impossible because there are lenses that go pretty deep into the body.

BTW: What is so dangerous about cleaning your sensor?


02/09/2007 12:04:15 PM · #42
Originally posted by Almilan:

This fascinates me. I reckon that in 20 years time, sensors and digital zooms will be so good that traditional zoom, wide angle and long primes will disappear. Looking at Google earth and seeing satellite imagery has got me thinking about this.

Alex


I think optical lenses will always rule.
02/09/2007 12:17:20 PM · #43
Originally posted by Azrifel:



The curtain/dustguard is near impossible because there are lenses that go pretty deep into the body.


I don't know, we can enter and exit submarines and space stations, there must be a way to make some sort of lens chamber that is less dusty. Maybe use positive airflow. Or saran wrap? haha. I just find the current method so primitive in contrast to the digital advances.

Originally posted by Azrifel:


BTW: What is so dangerous about cleaning your sensor?


Every few weeks, a topic like this pops up. There has to be something to it.
02/09/2007 12:25:35 PM · #44
Maybe everything will be video, and stills will just be taken from that. It would sort of stink because I really don't like shooting video, but with technology getting good it probably won't be very hard at all.

Oh ya, photoshop 23X will come out with the Achoo filter.
02/09/2007 12:44:59 PM · #45
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:

btw, isn't the gigapixel project just high resolution scans of large-format film?


Heh isnt a ditial camera an analog capture device? (To that the answer is YES) lol.

This thread is titled cameras of the future, not digital cameras and i didnt claim it to be fully digital in nature.

Sadly yes part of the gigapixel camera uses film. The sensor in a Digital camera is not digital. Its an analog charge device. A scanner uses a CCD (in many but not all cases). The sensore itself is not what makes a digital camera digital. It is how the image is processed that makes it digital.

On the other end the gigapixel camera could be considered not a digital camera.

The main point is (1 both digital and film at some point have pixels. Outside of the "Hanger Camera" that they used an aircraft hanger and vaery laerge film. There are no ready made film cmaeras that can produce the resolution that the gigiapixel camera can. It even exceds the limitations of astrocamera's.

I dunno what they call it these days yes part of its process uses film. But its main point is to create 4 Gigapixel or higher images and theyve atained that. You can argue the point or even call it non digital if you like. Im not arguing that fact at all.

Many satelite images of the moon were from film. They had onboard film devel;opers and an analog scanner. The procesed film was high speed scanend and transmitted back to earth (in a digital over analog fashion) They sullected from the thumnails and radioed back to the sat. It then did very slow high resolution scans and slow as hell radioed them back to earth.

Digital no but the images that resulted in the end were.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 12:46:12.
02/09/2007 01:04:33 PM · #46
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:



The sensor in a Digital camera is not digital. Its an analog charge device. A scanner uses a CCD (in many but not all cases). The sensore itself is not what makes a digital camera digital. It is how the image is processed that makes it digital.



I imagine one could argue that the presence of discrete photosites renders it a digital device on one level or another.
02/09/2007 01:18:37 PM · #47
I have physicist friends who might argue that it was in fact analog captures of a digital world. ;)
02/09/2007 03:05:31 PM · #48
Like kirbic and others I am interested in what future technology may offer still image photographers.

I am a limited thinker but here is what I believe is in store for the short term:

1-Higher megapixel cameras.
No surprise here. The more data recorded, the more information digital photographers have to work with. Photo detector technology will soon, if not already, outstripe film's capability.

2-More data per pixel.
More and greater tonal information recorded for each pixel of data captured. Full 16-bit, 24-bit and beyond will be in the offing I am sure. Printer/Monitor technology must improve to display/print this increased amount of information. A whole new world of imaging will be revealed.

Currently it is possible to make an image look good on a monitor for DPC purposes, but is a piece of crap when printed. That will be improved.

It is possible that new data elements will be added to still image captures that will change forever the nature of photography as we know it today and that we cannot even imagine now.

3-Pixels/inch(cm) in-camera will increase.
The more pixels recorded per inch(cm) in camera, the more data captured. I cannot even imagine the effect this will have on still image photography, but it will be dramatic.

4-Post processing software.
There will be more added features to existing post processing software that will allow creative artists more and better control over "after capture" adjustments

Technology lost that I wished we had today:

1-Rangefinder/pentaprism focusing.
It pisses me off that I cannot easily manually focus today's cameras in manual mode. That is a HUGE step backward. Who decided that auto-focus is better than manual? I look forward to the re-introduction of rangefinder and pentaprism focusing that allows photo artists to regain a fundamental control of imaging they once had and is essential to good photography.

2-LCD display improvements
Current camera LCD technology sucks! Though it is an incredible ability to instantaneously see your image at the time of composition is incredible, but unfortunately is nothing more than a tease. The quality of today's LCD camera displays is so bad that you really have no idea what you have captured in the field. You can still think a capture is OK when it is not. That needs to improve.

What cannot be changed:

1-Physical optics.
Physics cannot be overcome. Optics allows only so much in terms of focus, the inverse square capture of light with distance and depth of field. Technology improvements will never be able to improve on that.

It is not possible to overcome the laws of physics. New and "impoved" lens technology will never do "better" at capturing than what physics allows.

Message edited by author 2007-02-09 15:11:05.
02/09/2007 03:20:55 PM · #49
Bionic cameras. They will harvest DrAchoo cloned eyeballs and place them inside of old camera bodies. These eyeballs will relay information to a central processor that will plant them directly into your brain for editing. Adobe will make BrainShop which will allow you to edit the images to fit your taste. You will also be able to use BrainGimp, but it is free brainware, and the fear of aliens taking over our minds will cause many not to take the risk even though anti-spy brainware will be available through Microsoft to prevent alien invasion. DPChallenge will not allow images from dreams or any other psychotic episodes except in extreme editing rules. It will be acceptable to clone out small eye floaters and sun spots. Your camera will possibly develop a cataract after heavy use, and there will be special glasses made as your camera begins to loose its ability to focus properly. The good news is that the cameras are waterproof to 50meters and will run on small a sized "sugar batteries".

That is my guess.
02/09/2007 03:28:23 PM · #50
Originally posted by idnic:

My future camera will be implanted in my brain with the optics aligned with my eyes -- I will be able to process the images by thinking of the processing steps -- I won't mention where the printer will be..... ;)


Until a hacker comes along and you find creative "self-portraits" of yourself all over www.cindicam.com :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/26/2021 06:55:50 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/26/2021 06:55:50 PM EST.