High school physics, yes. But when it comes to more advanced physics, I'd say that some researchers would beg to differ. I mean, it's rather silly to proclaim that something is not physically possible after it's been shown to be working.
This camera lens breakthrough could lead to smartphones that outperform DSLRs
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
High school physics, yes. But when it comes to more advanced physics, I'd say that some researchers would beg to differ. I mean, it's rather silly to proclaim that something is not physically possible after it's been shown to be working.
From the articles linked, it does seem like this is wavelength specific. I found the full article here, but I admit I haven't read it. The abstract says they tested this at 'wavelengths of 405, 532, and 660 nm', and the BBC article description says that the structure for each wavelength needs to be computed.
Correction, I did find the following in the article: 'the meta-lens designed at 660 nm has a focusing efficiency of 66% which remains above 50 % in most of the visible range'. So apparently at least that lens works for more than just the specific wavelength.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
@Shawn Knight You know Shawn, you could have titled this article, "this lens breakthrough could lead to smartphones that outperform current DSLRs".
I know, I know, but what fun would that nave been?
I know, I know, but what fun would that nave been?
Last edited:
Kibaruk
Posts: 3,836 +1,189
How can people be so short sighted... it's kind of sad.
Well I'm all in for the future with a premium camera/phone and I have nothing to complain about because it sounds freaking awesome if they make it happen
It's like... guys, this is the best car "ever" invented, no CO2 emissions, no need to recharge, over 9000 horse power and then an herneck itching ducktard comes in and says "well you don't know an apple cider **** about future I bet you the next car that comes with this technology included will be more awesomer than this one hur dur hur". I mean... to have to really need to say that? It's ducking sad.
Well I'm all in for the future with a premium camera/phone and I have nothing to complain about because it sounds freaking awesome if they make it happen
Yeah but... how can smartphones outperform future DSLRs if we know nothing about this technology application into DSLRs... just sayin'.@Shawn Knight You know Shawn, you could have titled this article, "this lens breakthrough could lead to smartphones that outperform current DSLRs".
I know, I know, but what fun would that nave been?
It's like... guys, this is the best car "ever" invented, no CO2 emissions, no need to recharge, over 9000 horse power and then an herneck itching ducktard comes in and says "well you don't know an apple cider **** about future I bet you the next car that comes with this technology included will be more awesomer than this one hur dur hur". I mean... to have to really need to say that? It's ducking sad.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
@Shawn Knight You know Shawn, you could have titled this article, "this lens breakthrough could lead to smartphones that outperform current DSLRs".
I know, I know, but what fun would that nave been?
I'm not entirely sure I understand your, "but", in this context. But, I only modified the title to short circuit the point which was causing the most contention.
There are still a few points which need to be made in this, "glass vs. metal throw down".
First, a cell phone's camera lens, is a fixed focal length entity, somewhat a tad shorter than what is considered a "normal lens" for 35mm camera work. The lenses I use the most for my DSLRs are, an 8mm full frame fish eye, a 10-20mm wide angle zoom. Then I reach for the 80-200 F2.8 zoom, pretty much ignoring all the crap in the middle. (Which includes, (educated guess), practically every equivalent cell phone camera lens in the known world).
Second, the smaller the lens diameter, the bigger a dust particle is in relation to it. I suppose any consideration of that doesn't really come into play, when you're in a clean room, being paid astronomical sums of money to invert "world changing technologies". (Whoops, I almost forgot to mention that the lens elements being worked with, are almost certainly locked down in a rock solid "optical bench").
Third, the longer the focal length is in relation to the size of the sensor, (long lens w/ small sensor), the more pronounced any movement of the camera will manifest itself as blur. The weight and mass of those long telephoto lenses you see being used at football games, aid considerably to stabilize the SLR as a platform. (And yet you still see those guys using tripods and monopods on the sidelines).
Point being, when you're dealing with telephoto lenses of the type used for high speed action sports photography, (IE 300 F2.8 400 F2.8), no cell phone platform is adequate to deliver the sharp pictures required by magazines the likes of "Sports Illustrated", or even newspapers. People have now been looking at the 72ppi garbage thrown up on the web for so long, they can't even remember how sharp a well taken photo can be, or what one looks like.
Fourth, I'm not sure that doing away with the SLR viewing system (TTL viewing) is the best idea in the world either. The optical viewfinder is a massively effective tool for composition. Not as much can be said for looking at the back of a cell phone from a foot or two away. (Or straight up "guessing" when you're pointing the damned thing at yourself).
What happens next? I suppose after they sell "us" these "fabulously sharp" cell phone cameras, we'll "need" at least an 8K TV & monitor, to view the same type of s*** photos, which are being taken now. "The more things change, the more they remain the same". Progress...
Last edited:
Axiarus
Posts: 631 +427
I know, I agree too. You can't have something damn it if it does not exist. Right?
p51d007
Posts: 3,930 +3,880
Guarantee, that if/when it is released, or tested against commercial or pro dSLR, you still will not get the depth and color of a full frame dSLR.
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq210/rharris22/sensor size_zps6irqnofa.jpg
p51d007
Posts: 3,930 +3,880
I always point this out to anyone thinking a pinhole sensor can deliver the depth and clarity of even an APS-C sensor. Something I threw together a couple years ago.
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq210/rharris22/sensor size_zps6irqnofa.jpg
You hear "the size doesn't matter", well, in the case of a camera, it does!
The optical design limitations imposed by the the laws of physics. Until some discovery is made that changes our understanding in physics we're stuck with big lumps of glass for quality image capture for the foreseeable future.
This metamaterial lens design could lead to some revolution in optics but as others have already pointed out this was for one wavelength, for one specific area of optics. How it could have any impact in general photographic optics/lens, well, we'll have to wait and see.
As to smartphone cameras outperforming DSLR or other dedicated cameras, the optics are a big part of the quality equation but as someone said things like chromatic aberration, distortions and other problems that the traditional optical designs deal with with various degrees of success (generally speaking the more expensive the lens the more has been done to reduce/eliminate these quality reducing problems) could be completely unaddressable in the metamaterial lens design. Once we have full frame sensors in smartphones and some solution to give us compact but quality lenses we can revisit the whole "smartphones outperform DSLR" as currently the only areas they outperform DSLRs in is size and weight.
Last edited:
J
Jamlad
I checked the paper this morning. As I had previously stated these lenses will never be used in consumer grade products.
"It is important to note that although the metalenses were designed at specific wavelengths, we still observe wavelength-scale focal spots at wavelengths away from the design.
<snip>
Chromatic aberrations in our metalens are more pronounced than the lenses based on refractive optics, resulting in a wavelength-dependent focal length (fig. S5A). This is generally not an issue for laser-related imaging, microscopy, and spectroscopy because monochromatic sources with narrow linewidths are used."
"It is important to note that although the metalenses were designed at specific wavelengths, we still observe wavelength-scale focal spots at wavelengths away from the design.
<snip>
Chromatic aberrations in our metalens are more pronounced than the lenses based on refractive optics, resulting in a wavelength-dependent focal length (fig. S5A). This is generally not an issue for laser-related imaging, microscopy, and spectroscopy because monochromatic sources with narrow linewidths are used."
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
in the video seconds 30-32. and I quote " Different patterns focus different colors ( wavelengths ) of light ". So, for this to focus all the wavelengths of visible light you will need a whole slew of different patterns. Because layering these patterns would :
1.) Filter the light from the previous layer, only allowing the light of the current layer through.
2.) Cause the actual brightness to diminish
they will change the pattern over a single plane, so herein lies a huge problem I have with the lense. Different areas of it will pick up different wavelengths of light, its going to be blotchy, like looking through tiedie lense. Now, we are talking microscopic here, they may "pixelate" the lense so fine that the human eye would not notice, but I don't have to see it to know I'm getting cheated!
Again, there is a place for this, military night vision, lasers, medical " A lense that only allows light from melanoma through would be awesome ".
Personally, I would like to have pixelated windows, that let most visible colors through, but filter out UV, and Infrared light. Would be nice.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Infrared photography is great fun. Some people actually send their cameras away to be modified for it.
https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials
http://kolarivision.com/?gclid=CPi9mMPOlM0CFU0vgQodzEMDlw
That should be enough links to allow you to adjust to the fact you're wrong about infrared sensitivity with respect to creative photography....
Last edited:
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Infrared photography is great fun. Some people actually send their cameras away to be modified for it.
https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials
http://kolarivision.com/?gclid=CPi9mMPOlM0CFU0vgQodzEMDlw
That should be enough links to allow you to adjust to the fact you're wrong about infrared sensitivity with respect to creative photography....
My reasoning was purely for insulative purposes, however your links are very interesting. I'm a mechanic, and will use an infrared camera for troubleshooting quite often. They actually save a lot of time, and have their place. I believe this technology has many great possibilities, one of witch I just realized by looking at your links would be to make lens covers that would filter a narrow wavelength.
Another really cool thing to do with this would be to make a "radar trap" type cover for aircraft. A pattern could be made that would allow radar to travel through and trap it on the back side.
I'm intrigued by this, I think humanity in general will benefit from this. I just disagree with the idea that it will make a "better" lense for your small devices. It may make a "smaller" lense, but there will be tradeoffs.
BTW: Thank you Captincranky Sir, for not being cranky with me.
While I appreciate the camaraderie of the SLR people in their united stand against 'smartphones', I think you may be missing something. Nanoscale lens structures are manipulating photons, possibly individually. This does not only mean nifty new detail in your selfie backgrounds, it also means the capability to focus infra and uv and possibly lower and higher level energies. These mean your 'smartphone' becomes a universal viewing device with the appropriate snap in sensor chips. Setting aside the selfie crowd, there's the ability to put several different frequency lens types together in a single unit and integrate the screen view. I'm thinking Tricorder here. Stay tuned.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Yeah, that's exactly what this privacy / security concerned world needs, every a**hole with a smartphone / "tricorder" that can now image infrared / thermal through walls to see, "who's home".......
I bet Samsung will release it as a feature first, but Apple likely patented the "Tricorder" a couple of decades ago. (Just the shape though, "rounded edges"). I'm sure a lawsuit would ensue.
Last edited:
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Yeah, that's exactly what this privacy / security concerned world needs, every a**hole with a smartphone / "tricorder" that can now image infrared / thermal through walls to see, "who's home".......
I bet Samsung will release it as a feature first, but Apple likely patented the "Tricorder" a couple of decades ago. (Just the shape though, "rounded edges"). I'm sure a lawsuit would ensue.
Yea, I'm remembering the whole "X-ray" camera issues way back when, and everyone thought people were looking at them naked.... Anyone say Déjà Vu.
Only this time it will be for real, and I'm getting one!
Makson
Posts: 115 +26
The most ridiculous comment that I have ever heard relating to a a device which is basically a telephone with a poor excuse for a camera in the body of the device.
Never, ever in a thousand years should anyone be allowed the utter gall to make a hint of a comparison and post it in an article on a technical site.
Shaun Knight is probably a juvenile who writes about the dreams he had the (k)night before.
A basic $450.00 real camera (Nikon/Canon/Sony Compact) will leave a pathetic 'phone camera for dead.
Oh Shaun, wake up, try putting your mobile 'phone on a tripod in a high wind ..... my Nikon did not budge .....
...that in itself shoots your silly article down in flames.
Never, ever in a thousand years should anyone be allowed the utter gall to make a hint of a comparison and post it in an article on a technical site.
Shaun Knight is probably a juvenile who writes about the dreams he had the (k)night before.
A basic $450.00 real camera (Nikon/Canon/Sony Compact) will leave a pathetic 'phone camera for dead.
Oh Shaun, wake up, try putting your mobile 'phone on a tripod in a high wind ..... my Nikon did not budge .....
...that in itself shoots your silly article down in flames.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Wow! You have a Nikon? I'm ever sooo impressed.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
That doesn't have anything to do with lens quality, now does it?
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
Oh Cliff, the man /boy ? ? just joined because he felt the need to sound important. And in this world today, making yourself "self important", is a dirty thankless job which nobody else is going to do for you....
Did I tell you he owns a Nikon.......and a tripod?
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Oh Cliff, the man /boy ? ? just joined because he felt the need to sound important. And in this world today, making yourself "self important", is a dirty thankless job which nobody else is going to do for you....
Did I tell you he owns a Nikon.......and a tripod?
It doesn't budge in high wind also ! Don't forget that detail !
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
How could I?
I'm just wondering if the "high wind" was of his own creation....." namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
How could I?
Wouldn't movement in high winds be fault of the tripod, and not of the device mounted to it?
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
It depends on how you look at it. The camera is less "aerodynamic", than the tripod Since it presents a rectangular face to any prevailing wind, Most of the tripod is rounded legs, which allow air to flow around them more easily. The camera traps the wind, and transfers the force to the tripod, which I suppose, ultimately "allows" the movement. "Obsessed", or perhaps "very conscientious photographers", sometimes hang a sandbag on the legs of a tripod to steady it further. (The added mass is acted upon by gravity, blah, blah, blah, thereby imparting added rigidity). But then any flex in the tripod/camera mount or the tripod pivot is of concern also. Heavier telephoto lenses are connected to the tripod, and the camera body hangs off them. That's to reduce stress on the camera's tripod socket, among other considerations such as centering the fulcrum point for balance.
Lens focal length has a great impact on recorded movement in an image, and as the focal length to sensor size ratio increases, movement is move apparent. (There another few paragraphs it would take to explain that effect fully. Please take my word for it).
The short answer is, there's a lot of s*** going on there, but I suppose the tripod gets most of the blame. That's because the ideal tripod would be infinitely rigid and massive. (One quality would predicate itself on the other).
In my prior post, I was alluding to the fact that the "high winds" might have been generated by the camera operator, (our very critically minded poster), talking loudly and rapidly himself. One viable solution there would be to talk in the opposite direction of the camera / tripod assembly, with one's back to the camera's field of view. (Most amateur photographs suck so badly, it's hard to convince an average rational person, that the "photographer", had their eves open when the picture was taken anyway).
I know this whole series of posts were a joke, but hey, you asked....(y)
Last edited:
namesrejected
Posts: 398 +302
Yea, I guess its splitting hairs.
The cellphone is less aerodynamic than the camera, the camera is heavier than the cell phone.
Well, I guess this will be it for me, time to let this thread die... DIE!!!!
Similar threads
