Wavy Lenses Extend Depth of Field in Digital Imaging

genegeek writes "On Feb 25 CDM Optics was awarded a patent for a new digital imaging system utilizing "Wavefront Coding" that produces images with 10-fold the depth of field of conventional lenses. The image itself is blurred until processed. Image examples are here."

Comments

Re:So

[egomaniac]

Basically what this is saying is that if I go out and get a new whiz-bang camera with this funky new lens, I will be able to take a picture almost as good as the pictures I take with my 30 year old Cannon AE-1, and not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

You stick to your film. I'll stack my Nikon D1X against your 30-year-old camera any day of the week, personally. And that's not even top of the line anymore -- Canon has a new 11MP camera that puts any 35mm camera to shame.

Just because $300 consumer digicams are crap doesn't mean that digital hasn't already surpassed film. It's just a matter of making it affordable now.

Film and digital resolution comparisons

[JeremyR]

There are at least two experienced photographers (Rob Galbraith and Michael Reichmann) who feel that the 11-megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds delivers images with detail exceeding that of 35mm and approaching (in some cases besting) medium format film. They've published some very interesting comparisons:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.as p? cid=7-4833-4853

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camera s/ 1ds/1ds-field.shtml

This may just change someone's opinon on how digital compares to film. I know it made me rethink the "conventional wisdom" that many more pixels are needed to reproduce film detail.

Cheers,
Jeremy

what is more interesting to me as a photographer..

[dbc]

... and I can't find out because the site is /.'ed :-(
is this: Can this technology be used to control (not just increase, but also decrease) depth of field at image processing time? More specifically, can I get selective focus *after* creating the image? In criticizing my own work, I ususally wish I had openned up for *less* depth of field. I realize that sports photographers don't have this problem :-) but some of us nature photographers do.

Noise floor and linearity

[Andy Dodd]

If anything, as other people posted, digital is closer to the "real thing".

One person mentioned that Fuji Velvia is great for landscapes but murders skin tones. This is because the sensitivity curve of a digital can be easily optimized, while it's very difficult to tweak the sensitivity and linearity of films based on chemical reactions.

As to rounding to the nearest bit - There's a lower limit in both electronic and film recording of the precision that a light level can be recorded which is distinguishable from noise. This is called the "noise floor" - Use enough bits, and then all the bit roundoffs will be well below the noise floor of even film media. (Which does indeed have a noise floor, just as digitals do. The nice thing about digitals is that with improved electronics and sensors, the noise floor of the sensor is dropping while film is staying the same. One of the things "pro" digitals are known for is having far less noise than lower-end digitals, and those improvements are constantly moving down to the consumer level.)

And for those that WANT the nonlinearities/quirks of film - All a camera manufacturer has to do is model the nonlinearities of major film types and then they can easily be emulated, just like guitar amps that use modeling techniques to emulate older units.