Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Light Field" imager for phones, Kinect style uses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Light Field" imager for phones, Kinect style uses

    Very interesting stuff. The Lytro camera was interesting because of every pixel having depth data encoded, but they're taking it way past that..

    Lytro camera gallery: https://pictures.lytro.com/lytroweb/stories/82377

    The camera in your smartphone may soon have a new trick: depth perception. Toshiba, Samsung and Silicon Valley startup Pelican Imaging are developing image sensors and software that would allow cameras to detect the distance of objects within the scenes they photograph.


    Your next phone camera might be able to sense depth

    The camera in your smartphone may soon have a new trick: depth perception. Toshiba, Samsung and Silicon Valley startup Pelican Imaging are developing image sensors and software that would allow cameras to detect the distance of objects within the scenes they photograph.

    The new camera technology could start showing up in smartphones as soon as this year. Initially, it will allow consumers to do things like refocus their pictures after they take them, much like they can with Lytro's "light-field" camera today. But because of their small size and, in some cases, high resolution, the new cameras could also be used in a wide range of other applications. In the future, they could be employed in new, more precise versions of Microsoft's Kinect, the gesture-sensing game controller; in cars as collision-preventing backup cameras; as identification systems that can precisely distinguish individual faces; and in a kind of three-dimensional scanner for 3-D printing. "This type of technology is the next big thing for imaging," said Chris Chute, an imaging analyst at research firm IDC. I recently met with Pelican and got a demonstration of its technology. The company has designed a chip that, instead of containing a solitary image sensor, has an array of 16 or even 20 of them. To get depth information, the chip essentially employs the principle of parallax, the same basic method astronomers use to measure the distance to nearby stars. Pelican's software is able to determine the distance to a particular point in an image by using the known distance between its multiple sensors and the sensors' viewing angles to that point. Pelican's software takes the images recorded by each of the individual sensors in its array and combines them, yielding not only an 8 megapixel image, but one with depth information for each point within it. The company's technology appears to be an improvement on what's come before. Pelican's system yields both a high-resolution image, which Lytro's camera doesn't do, and a high-resolution depth map, which the Kinect can't match.

    Unlike Kinect and similar systems, Pelican's technology doesn't involve bouncing light or lasers off an object. That should make it perform much better outdoors in bright light situations, which tend to trouble the Kinect. And unlike other depth-cameras, Pelican's system is being designed from the ground up to be small enough to fit into a smartphone. At our meeting, Pelican CEO Chris Pickett and marketing Vice President Paul Gallagher demonstrated how they could take a picture with the company's camera module and change the focus of the image after the fact. They could focus on a person in the foreground or something in the background, or have everything be in focus. While it will be cool to have that capability in a smartphone, you already can do the same things with a Lytro camera. But Pelican's camera has other potential uses. For example, it could allow users to easily select an object in an image to adjust its exposure or copy it to another picture. It could allow users to interact with their phones with 3-D gestures. And it could be used in for face-detection systems that determine whether someone is authorized to use a device. Pelican says that it's already working with some of the existing smartphone camera system makers and hopes to have its system on a smartphone by early next year. But cameras like Pelican's could also have some important uses outside of phones. Many cars now have backup cameras and some have proximity sensors that warn drivers when they are about to hit something. A single Pelican camera could serve both functions. They could also be used inside cars. Gallagher noted that cars include sensors that determine when an air bag should be deployed. Currently, those sensors detect only weight. They can't detect whether a rider's feet are propped up on the dash or whether the person is leaning forward to look in the glove compartment, both of which could be dangerous positions if an air bag were to deploy. But a car's safety system could use information from a depth camera to determine riders' positions and whether it would be safe to deploy an air bag.
    >
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 13 April 2013, 18:08.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Interesting concept!
    Particularly the lightfield concept for mobile phones: it completely negates the need of an autofocus system and just moves it to use of a different sensor and processing (and most phones have quite a lot of processing power).

    The other ideas are also interesting. They seem a bit futuristic, but technology advances so much...
    pixar
    Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

    Comment


    • #3
      What all of these articles leave out is that lightfield processing comes at a MASSIVE resolution cost. That fancy 16mp sensor becomes a 2mp sensor (or less) really fast when you start using it for lightfield imaging.

      Also let's not forget that tiny sensors take lousy pictures in general.

      Add those two things together...
      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

      I'm the least you could do
      If only life were as easy as you
      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
      If only life were as easy as you
      I would still get screwed

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gurm View Post
        What all of these articles leave out is that lightfield processing comes at a MASSIVE resolution cost. That fancy 16mp sensor becomes a 2mp sensor (or less) really fast when you start using it for lightfield imaging.

        Also let's not forget that tiny sensors take lousy pictures in general.

        Add those two things together...
        Well, Nokia has a phone with a 41 MP sensor; they claim downscaling gives better results... But it means that very high pixel count sensors are not an issue per se. Tiny sensors take lousy pictures, but there is improvement. And there is the old saying: the best camera is the one you have with you...
        pixar
        Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by VJ View Post
          Well, Nokia has a phone with a 41 MP sensor; they claim downscaling gives better results... But it means that very high pixel count sensors are not an issue per se. Tiny sensors take lousy pictures, but there is improvement. And there is the old saying: the best camera is the one you have with you...
          40MP sensor with a cheap little lens. Sorry but I find it extremely hard to believe such a tiny lens (as you can find on most cell phones and even low end point and shoot cameras) is capable of anything near that resolution. Forget 40MP, I bet these lenses are useless for 12MP just as well.
          "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree ... but there are many developments ongoing on tiny lenses (fluid filled, ...). So my guess is that it is possible that there will be good enough quality from a tiny lens/sensor...
            pixar
            Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by VJ View Post
              I agree ... but there are many developments ongoing on tiny lenses (fluid filled, ...). So my guess is that it is possible that there will be good enough quality from a tiny lens/sensor...
              If/When that happens, a lot of people will find themselves keeping large amounts of top quality polished glass which cost them many thousands of dollars (SLR lenses, telescopes) which will suddenly become pretty worthless. I'm all for it but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
              "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

              Comment


              • #8
                Rumors swirling about the Lumia 928 is that it will have the 41MP sensor from the "old" PureView 808 with Lumia 920 optics, which are the best smartphone optics currently out. Though the MP count hasn't been confirmed yet. Announcement is May 14th I believe.

                Light field imagers would be a great consumer camera because, let's face it, most of us don't know how to take a proper photo and auto-focus sucks. If the tech could eliminate the focus problem and get a resolution boost it would be an amazing technology. Just take the picture quick as you please and focus it later.
                “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
                –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TransformX View Post
                  If/When that happens, a lot of people will find themselves keeping large amounts of top quality polished glass which cost them many thousands of dollars (SLR lenses, telescopes) which will suddenly become pretty worthless. I'm all for it but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
                  Well, there is a difference between "good enough" and "very good". I'm sure the phone will reach the point where it is "good enough" for simple point and shoot camera usage. But for high quality things, the SLR lenses and other stuff will offer much better quality.
                  I think it might more be the end for the compact cameras with small sensors: at present they only offer a better lens (glass + zoom), better AF and better controls.


                  In a way it is funny to see that something so complicated as light field imaging might actually bypass the need for AF. Add to that more extensive use of dynamic range (stacking multiple exposures), and it might eliminate exposure problems by just stacking more or less images. Interesting times...
                  pixar
                  Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are there any interesting advances in personal photo printing? I understand those who do print these days just go to a service to have it done since the cost is reasonable. I used to do my own b/w printing but never ventured into color ... been decades anyway and before digital photos. It would be nice to print at home if the cost was low and the quality high. How about a low cost portable digital printer for wallet or 4x5s?
                    <TABLE BGCOLOR=Red><TR><TD><Font-weight="+1"><font COLOR=Black>The world just changed, Sep. 11, 2001</font></Font-weight></TR></TD></TABLE>

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      So there are several options for that, Xortam.

                      The "best" option is a portable dye sublimation printer.

                      The problem is that portable dye subs never really "caught on" in the big way anyone had hoped. We own a Canon Selphy dye sub, it is super portable and the cost of prints works out to about 25 cents per 4x6 which is comparable to a photo shop with identical results (they use a dye sub too!) in about 20 seconds. This process means that ink is sublimated directly to your paper. It lasts a long time (same as most photo labs).

                      There are a TON of Canon Dye Subs available now, with lots of different features:



                      But you have to order the kits, usually stores don't stock them now:



                      That's a $27 kit that makes 108 prints. Literally 25 cents per print.

                      ...

                      That said, portable inkjet photo printing has gotten better. I personally dislike it - no matter how nice the printer, the ink always seems to once in a while streak, you can't touch the photo until it's dry, and although they CLAIM the photos last for 25 years I'm a little leery.

                      Hope this helps!
                      The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                      I'm the least you could do
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                      If only life were as easy as you
                      I would still get screwed

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Also I'd like to point out, on the original topic, that rule 34 seems to have been violated. Unless my google-fu has failed me, there is at this time no Lytro-pr0n.
                        The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                        I'm the least you could do
                        If only life were as easy as you
                        I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                        If only life were as easy as you
                        I would still get screwed

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gurm View Post
                          Also I'd like to point out, on the original topic, that rule 34 seems to have been violated. Unless my google-fu has failed me, there is at this time no Lytro-pr0n.
                          So now you've made me google 'rule 34' and I have been corrupted.
                          FT.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by xortam View Post
                            Are there any interesting advances in personal photo printing? I understand those who do print these days just go to a service to have it done since the cost is reasonable. I used to do my own b/w printing but never ventured into color ... been decades anyway and before digital photos. It would be nice to print at home if the cost was low and the quality high. How about a low cost portable digital printer for wallet or 4x5s?
                            As Gurm mentioned: dye sublimation printers... They were quite popular some years ago, I have a HiTi PhotoShuttle and give good quality. Although to me the price is higher than that of ordered prints. I'm basically expecting the next thing to be colour-e-ink displays to appear as photoframes, but technology is not there yet.

                            Originally posted by Fat Tone View Post
                            So now you've made me google 'rule 34' and I have been corrupted.
                            Me too... And why am I not surprised it originated from xkcd?
                            pixar
                            Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So the thing with dye-sublimation is that there is no dithering. In fact, many photo processing labs have switched over to it. The way it works is that the exact color gets mixed in a tank through the process of solid-gas sublimation, and then dropped back onto the paper through the opposite process. It used to be dreadfully slow, and it still isn't super speedy. Like I said, 20-30 seconds for a print.
                              The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

                              I'm the least you could do
                              If only life were as easy as you
                              I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
                              If only life were as easy as you
                              I would still get screwed

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X