Looks to me like it's just a demo using Flash to simulate what the camera does. Seems to just have two, maybe three focal planes.
Yes, my take also.
But I think it's indicative of the integrity of these people that it is not stated as such.
Also, what gives with this model prancing around? No serious innovative imaging product developer looks anything like this!
Looking around all the links the actual "camera" is nowhere to be found. Just claims for it. These "examples" then are simulations of *what*??!! We all know what different focus points + DOF looks like, surely! That's how we decide on how we will use those techniques. How is showing us that presenting their purported breakthrough technology? It's irrelevant.
I think these kids are hanging out baits for sponsorship funds to actually move their fantasies into reality, if anyone is so out of touch with reality to take their baits.
Look at the responses they have got. Skepticism. Not so much at the idea of such technology, but at the complete lack of any indication how the website and its creators connect with reality!
In the live model simulations, nothing moves between the different focal plane simulations, indicating an instantaneous and singular exposure.
In the simulations, I don't see any evidence of "lens breathing" due to focus adjustment. While a prime lens with internal focus will come close to this effect, these images don't display "any" visible lens breathing. (Granted, these are low resolution examples.)
This is either a very elaborate hoax or a very interesting demonstration of a new process. Who knows if it will ever be commercially viable or popular?
Now I have to question "your" credentials as a skeptic. rofl
Fair criticism Ziggy!D
And a blooper for Stanford, I reckon. While the guy's work with equations seems to me to be mildly innovative, and perhaps worthy of a Stanford PhD (though I still doubt it), his application of it to photography technology is absurd practically, and isn't even very interesting.
This Stanford PhD guy is on the web 5yr and 50M$ later begging for funding with a lame and dishonest set of pages which fail even to show one piece of actual new gear.
Go figure.
Imagination is critical for innovation but no substitute for it!
I see he is Australian. Can't be ALL bad then, eh?!
In the live model simulations, nothing moves between the different focal plane simulations, indicating an instantaneous and singular exposure.
In the simulations, I don't see any evidence of "lens breathing" due to focus adjustment. While a prime lens with internal focus will come close to this effect, these images don't display "any" visible lens breathing. (Granted, these are low resolution examples.)
This is either a very elaborate hoax or a very interesting demonstration of a new process. Who knows if it will ever be commercially viable or popular?
This Stanford PhD guy is on the web 5yr and 50M$ later begging for funding
Yeah, it's called innovation and commercialization. How fast did your last venture take?
with a lame and dishonest set of pages
Says who? You? Where did you earn your PhD in optics?
which fail even to show one piece of actual new gear.
Commercializing new technology doesn't always mean a new piece of "gear". The exit strategy could simply be to awaken the field to an innovative direction and license some technology to a bigger competitor. All fair game in business.
Well, someone needs to provide counter-arguments here...
Yeah, it's called innovation and commercialization. How fast did your last venture take?
Says who? You? Where did you earn your PhD in optics?
Commercializing new technology doesn't always mean a new piece of "gear". The exit strategy could simply be to awaken the field to an innovative direction and license some technology to a bigger competitor. All fair game in business.
Fair enough!
I'm trying to make sense of this, like some other people are. I can't make much sense of it atm, obviously. I don't see the transfer between the equations and the tech, I don't see anything on the web pages except some flash animation, I don't see any sign of the camera-lens that are specifically mentioned there as being able now to do the after-capture refocusing.
Do you?
I'd be very interested if you do.
I'm happy whatever way this guy's idea goes, and I'm in no position to make it go any way. Just discussin'
This Stanford PhD guy is on the web 5yr and 50M$ later begging for funding with a lame and dishonest set of pages which fail even to show one piece of actual new gear.
Neil
@ DrIt
Isn't it clear that I'm referring to his webpages, and not his thesis?
Comments
Yes, my take also.
But I think it's indicative of the integrity of these people that it is not stated as such.
Also, what gives with this model prancing around? No serious innovative imaging product developer looks anything like this!
Looking around all the links the actual "camera" is nowhere to be found. Just claims for it. These "examples" then are simulations of *what*??!! We all know what different focus points + DOF looks like, surely! That's how we decide on how we will use those techniques. How is showing us that presenting their purported breakthrough technology? It's irrelevant.
I think these kids are hanging out baits for sponsorship funds to actually move their fantasies into reality, if anyone is so out of touch with reality to take their baits.
Look at the responses they have got. Skepticism. Not so much at the idea of such technology, but at the complete lack of any indication how the website and its creators connect with reality!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Does anyone know if the university accepted this guy's PhD?
I would have thought that the university itself would have been interested in developing this technology!
I suspect that the PhD was rejected, so no development funding there. But this guy believes in his fantasy and is looking for funds elsewhere.
Has he submitted patents? Why not? Big tech is always interested in those!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
This is either a very elaborate hoax or a very interesting demonstration of a new process. Who knows if it will ever be commercially viable or popular?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://photorumors.com/2011/07/23/lytro-light-field-camera-briefly-appears-in-a-promotional-video/
Looks like it's the size of an SLR.
Yes, these are Flash simulations of "something". When I right-mouse-click on the frames I get the Flash options menu.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
A Google search took .18 seconds!!
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=ren+ng+ph.d&pbx=1&oq=Ren+Ng&aq=4&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=0l0l1l958l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b1778f3db6f45f54&biw=1111&bih=537
You couldn't even take .18 seconds for a search?
Now I have to question "your" credentials as a skeptic.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Fair criticism Ziggy!
And a blooper for Stanford, I reckon. While the guy's work with equations seems to me to be mildly innovative, and perhaps worthy of a Stanford PhD (though I still doubt it), his application of it to photography technology is absurd practically, and isn't even very interesting.
This Stanford PhD guy is on the web 5yr and 50M$ later begging for funding with a lame and dishonest set of pages which fail even to show one piece of actual new gear.
Go figure.
Imagination is critical for innovation but no substitute for it!
I see he is Australian. Can't be ALL bad then, eh?!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Classy sleuthing my dear Ziggy!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Yeah, it's called innovation and commercialization. How fast did your last venture take?
Says who? You? Where did you earn your PhD in optics?
Commercializing new technology doesn't always mean a new piece of "gear". The exit strategy could simply be to awaken the field to an innovative direction and license some technology to a bigger competitor. All fair game in business.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Fair enough!
I'm trying to make sense of this, like some other people are. I can't make much sense of it atm, obviously. I don't see the transfer between the equations and the tech, I don't see anything on the web pages except some flash animation, I don't see any sign of the camera-lens that are specifically mentioned there as being able now to do the after-capture refocusing.
Do you?
I'd be very interested if you do.
I'm happy whatever way this guy's idea goes, and I'm in no position to make it go any way. Just discussin'
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
@ DrIt
Isn't it clear that I'm referring to his webpages, and not his thesis?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix