Slashdot Mirror


Liquid Lens Can Magnify at the Flick of a Switch

An anonymous reader writes "German engineers have designed the first liquid camera lens with no moving parts that provides two levels of zoom. 'Liquid lenses bend light using the curved boundary between watery and oily liquids. When the two liquids are held in the right container, the boundary between them can be made to curve in a way that focuses light simply by applying a voltage. Liquid lenses have attracted much attention because they are potentially smaller than conventional optics and cheaper to build. Samsung has already built them into some cellphones.'"

108 comments

  1. Lens isn't working by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Lens isn't working by Leontes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about using these in reading glasses or goggles. People find bifocles somewhat frustrating due to the disruption to field of vision.

      I can imagine: Let me put on my glasses. Oh, they are set for concave. ::tap:: Presto, convex.

      I guess there *is* something to see.

    2. Re:Lens isn't working by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Since they operate via surface tension, and would thus have to be horizontally arranged in order to have no distortion, my guess is that using such technology for glasses wouldn't work well.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:Lens isn't working by 2meen · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are already products out there which use liquid lenses to provide cheap classes to people in developing countries.

      http://www.adaptive-eyecare.com/ comes to mind (link from an article in Illustrerad Vetenskap http://www.illvet.se/Crosslink.jsp?a=1218&id=7354_ 2, a swedish popular science magazine).

  2. This is old by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A guy did this at Bell Labs 2 years ago, and around the same time so did some French company that was going to put them in cell phones.

    1. Re:This is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. It's obvious that you didn't get to the end of the fucking summary: "Samsung has already built them into some cellphones." Yes, it has been around for a short while, but it's still a pretty cool technology that is starting to work it's way into mainstream use.

    2. Re:This is old by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Funny

      "German engineers have designed the first... Samsung has already built them into some cellphones.'" Bell Labs aand Samsung used a time machine. It clearly says the German engineers have just done it first. The only possible explanation for Bell Labs doing it two years ago and Samsung having already built it in to cell phones is that they went forward in time in some kind of a time machine, possibly involving a flux capacitor of some sort, and brought the technology back with them to before it was first implemented.

      That, or it's a badly phrased article.

      In related news, German scientists have designed the first "circular device for the conveying of people and objects" and the first "source for the creation of heat and light by combustion of a 'fuel'." We may mock but the USPTO will still grant them a patent on the lot of it.
    3. Re:This is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is about liquid lenses with zoom capability, which is new.

      Samsung etc. have had liquid lenses, but they haven't been able to do zoom. The German researchers found out how to make it work.
      Hope that helps.

    4. Re:This is old by 2.7182 · · Score: 1

      Read my sig - they did it at Bell in 2003.

    5. Re:This is old by generikz · · Score: 1

      Confirmed, this is old news.

      The French company is Varioptic SA.

      Rgds,
      Julien

    6. Re:This is old by hubie · · Score: 1

      That same summary also said that these Germans designed the first liquid lenses. Those Samsung guys must do a pretty quick turnaround.

  3. Gads is this old by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I remember seeing this like 5 years ago. I was thinking that it would be pretty cool for telescopes on the moon. This it not even worth checking.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  4. Shake It by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

    If I shake it before snapping a photo, do I get a really cool bubble-like effect ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Shake It by RedElf · · Score: 1

      You might, but if you shake it even harder you might a liquid mess to clean up afterwards.

      --
      You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
    2. Re:Shake It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what I told your wife too, but she didn't listen....

    3. Re:Shake It by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      If I shake it before snapping a photo, do I get a really cool bubble-like effect ?

      Only if you Twist and Shout.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  5. Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Are there any earlier mentions of liquid lenses before Dune? The article links seems to think he was firtst. Even if there is, it's still a pretty nice catch by Frank Herbert.

    Will you look at that thing! Stilgar whispered. Paul lay beside him in a slit of rock high on the shield wall rim, eye fixed to the collector of a Fremen telescope. The oil lens was focused on a starship lighter exposed by dawn in the basin below them. The tall eastern face of the ship glistened in the flat light of the sun, but the shadow side still showed yellow portholes from glowglobes of the night.
    (ref. source http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=52
    1. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by xTantrum · · Score: 1
      i'm not sure if this is the same concept. but you can see a slight effect of this with water in a curved wine glass let's say. you'll notice that the shape of the glass can determine how near or far you can see.

      its actually quite interesting and i remember noticing this and thinking i'd get back to it. but once again, there is nothing new under the sun and we see man simply discovering nature and all her mysteries independant of geography, race or creed. i'm more of an amateur mathematician and i've never delved into optics but it is fascinating.

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    2. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by shrikel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except in Dune, the oil was suspended in a force field, allowing perfect (and perfectly adjustable) refraction. I've long wanted a telescope like that. No more recollimating my scope every time I take it somewhere out in the boonies over a bumpy dirt road!

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    3. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by obender · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are there any earlier mentions of liquid lenses before Dune?
      In the Mysterious Island novel by Jules Verne published in 1874, Cyrus Harding lits a fire with a lens made up of two watch glass lids stuck together and filled up with water. You can read the chapter here
    4. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      Very nice reference! I recall reading that story (quite some while ago though :). Not a zoom lens (as in Dune or in the article)... but to me it's still definitly a precursor the idea of a non-fixed liquid lens.

    5. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by frankmu · · Score: 1

      asimov in "foundation and empire" had a force field lens of some sort i think. darn, all of my scifi books are at my parents house!

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    6. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but liquids bending light does not qualify as a mystery of nature. Theory and math behind optics is taught in high school physics, though of course non-zoomable single-lens scenarios. Your eyes use soft lenses to focus over variable distances.

      The interesting point here that instead of theory, they have a working prototype.

      --
      I lost my sig.
    7. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by pclminion · · Score: 3, Informative

      Changing the shape of a lens doesn't adjust its refraction, it just... changes the shape of the lens. Refractivity is a property of the material, not the geometry of the lens.

    8. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Look straight through a flat piece of glass. Not a whole lot of distortion. Now look through a piece of glass with the same radius and volume, but thicker in the center than at the edges. Pretty different, huh?

      The light has to both enter and leave the lens. That's two transitions between materials with different indices of refraction. It matters very much what the angles of incidence are and the relative differences between them.

      The way you've worded your post is pretty much a flat contradiction of all optics since Newton. Go look up what a lens is.

    9. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way you've worded your post is pretty much a flat contradiction of all optics since Newton. Go look up what a lens is.

      I didn't say the shape of a lens doesn't matter. I said it doesn't alter the refractivity (and by that I mean its index of refraction). Of COURSE it alters the behavior of the lens. Refractivity is an intensive property, the geometry of the lens is an extensive property.

      Perhaps my wording wasn't as clear as it should have been. The point stands that the shape of a lens does not alter the ability of the material to refract light, it only alters the specific geometries of the refracted rays.

    10. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by hubie · · Score: 1

      The other guy posting is correct: refraction is only a property of the material and doesn't depend on the shape of the optic. Ultimately where the light rays go and their dependence on the shape of the optic enters into it via Snell's law.

      If you take a slab of material with a constant index of refraction, you can change the path of light rays going through it by changing the shape of the surface of a material, just like you describe. Another way to do it is to take a flat slab of material, like looking into one end of a cylinder, and change the light ray paths by changing the index of refraction as you go through the material. An example of the second case is a GRIN lens. There are plenty more examples of the variable index situation, such as acoustic waves being channeled or reflected through thermal layers in the ocean or through the atmosphere.

    11. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by TrixX · · Score: 1

      There are previous references, in anatomy books. You are probably using two adjustable (for focus, not zoom) liquid lenses to read this reply, unless you get a braille or aural representation of /.

    12. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      That explains the Wells/Verne Patent Extension Act I read about a few years ago when I was visiting 2010.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Given it's more or less the way our eye lens works, I'd say God (or Darwin, pick your choice) got the precedence over there. Just because it's written in a SciFi book doesn't quite mean it's new.

    14. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      2010 ruled! That was some year! Did you visit before or after the chin incident with president Leno?

    15. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by john83 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but liquids bending light does not qualify as a mystery of nature. Theory and math behind optics is taught in high school physics... They teach ray tracing in high school physics. Between that and the real physics - Maxwell's equations - is a bit of a gap.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    16. Re:Herbert used it in Dune in 1965... by shrikel · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing refraction and index of refraction (or refractive index, or refractivity). Light refraction is the changing of the direction of the light, which happens because of differing indices of refraction between two media and non-perpendicular angles of incidence. Changing the angle of incidence (by changing the shape of the lens) changes the refraction, though the INDEX of refraction of that particular material stays constant.

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  6. Naber porn by jrwr00 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Cool! now i can have a smaller cam to spy on my nabers :)

    1. Re:Naber porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now i can have a smaller cam to spy on my nabers You know, if your "nabers" is so small that you need a lens to see it, you'd be better off trying something like this.

      Just wondering, where did you get that euphemism from? It's the first time I've ever heard it. I even asked my neighbours, and they'd never heard of it either.
    2. Re:Naber porn by eln · · Score: 1

      First of all, you misspelled "Nabors".

      Secondly, I'm as big a fan of Gomer Pyle as the next guy, but I think spying on Jim Nabors (much less calling him "your" Nabors) is a little over the top.

  7. nearly on-topic: liquid crystal focussing by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This immediately reminded me of a talk I saw recently by Guoqiang Li from U. of Arizona. They're using liquid crystal lenses to make glasses with variable focusing power as a function of applied voltage. You could flip a switch to be able to see near or far - so if you're near-sighted but getting to the age where reading glasses would help, you're the touch of a button away.

    Liquid zoom is quite cool too, but thought this related enough to pass on.

    fyi:
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i15/8415lenses.htm l
    (PNAS citation in article)

    --
    Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
  8. Hubble by tedgyz · · Score: 3, Funny

    It sure would have made fixing the Hubble a lot easier.

    Earth to Hubble: Adjust lens voltage to 1.537mV.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Except, of course, that Hubble's MIRROR had spherical abberation and this is talking about lenses....

    2. Re:Hubble by tedgyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except, of course, that Hubble's MIRROR had spherical abberation and this is talking about lenses.... Ok, so fill the "lens" with Mercury. Work with me here.
      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    3. Re:Hubble by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      Uh no, Hubble uses mirrors.

      --
      You never catch me alive
    4. Re:Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But if the Hubble used liquid lenses instead of mirrors...

      Wouldn't it be the Bubble Space telescope?

    5. Re:Hubble by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Forget the Hubble, think how much some one who wore trifocals would ware for a pair of glasses that could sense distance and adjust. Or how much I would pay for my distance glasses to 'turn off' if I was reading. I would put up with a bit more bulk on my face because it would reduce eye strain.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    6. Re:Hubble by john83 · · Score: 1

      ...Or how much I would pay for my distance glasses to 'turn off' if I was reading. I would put up with a bit more bulk on my face because it would reduce eye strain. You could just take them off.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    7. Re:Hubble by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's no help when driving. Taking my glasses off each time I check my speedometer is not an option. The eye strain is caused by activities that involving looking up and down a lot; taking notes, driving, drawing, ect.

      --
      We are the Borg...
  9. Seeing double?? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Informative

    With better lenses we might see that this is a dup. These were reported in the media, and slashdot, a year or so back.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Seeing double?? by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      With better lenses we might see that this is a dup. These were reported in the media, and slashdot, a year or so back. Sorry if we can't all remember back that far!
      I must have had my beer goggles on.
      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    2. Re:Seeing double?? by Nullav · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm afraid the goggles do nothing. I'm sorry.

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    3. Re:Seeing double?? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      With better lenses we might see that this is a dup.

      Don't you mean a mirror?

    4. Re:Seeing double?? by pakar · · Score: 1

      I remember an old story of something similar many years ago where they where using a gas-lens for lasers to reduce the heat-stress you get on a glass-lens.

  10. Panasonic Lumix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that panasonic lumix (which is for sale NOW) had a liquid lens.

    1. Re:Panasonic Lumix by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Panasonic makes a lot of cameras under their Lumix brand. All of them use conventional glass lenses. Panasonic cameras, especially the FZ series and the L-1, are known for having high-quality lenses, but they don't involve any magic.

      What you may be thinking of is optical image stabilization, a movable element in the lens that shifts to compensate for jitter, reducing the need for a tripod. All Lumix cameras incorporate this.

  11. Can I take camera as carry on luggage? by Palmyst · · Score: 2, Funny

    If it contains liquid?

    1. Re:Can I take camera as carry on luggage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your body also contains liquids, and the combination of the two pushes you over the FAA "fear threshold" -- they'll let you on with the camera but only if you freeze-dry yourself first.

    2. Re:Can I take camera as carry on luggage? by bangwhistle · · Score: 1

      Yes, but less than 3 oz- so don't pack that telephoto lens.

    3. Re:Can I take camera as carry on luggage? by Crystalmonkey · · Score: 1

      No. -The TSA

  12. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Back in high school, I sat about 5 desks away from the board. My glasses had broken and out of fear, I never told my parents. How did I manage without em? I cried! Kinda. I would let my eyes wet and squint a little so that I could see the board clearly. Of course it only lasts a few seconds and I would have to readjust the amount of liquid and squinting.

    If you think that's ridiculous, then how's this: I would take lense (that had broken long ago from the frame [frame was broken too]) and cup it around my eye and put my hand over it and discreetly viewed through it, without anyone noticing. I would look like I'm just thinking hard or something

    And you know how the thing with duct tape goes. after my 4th pair of glasses, and when i started driving, I had to duct tape it together. But sometimes when I ran out of tape I would have to take the lens out and put it between my brow and area under my eye, and squeeze it together to hold it in place..looking like a pirate. Anyone else done that before?

  13. with a technology like this... by MorderVonAllem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...could you somehow have a lens with multiple focus points? I'm thinking if you have 4 people in a picture you could focus on each of their faces with one lens and have a nice picture with everyone in focus rather than someone in the background a bit blurry.

    1. Re:with a technology like this... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uhh, no need. You can do that with glass lenses. Its called depth-of-field, aperture, etc. The higher the f number, the deeper it is. Up the f, increase the depth of field, everyone is in focus (at the cost of decreased shutter speed - the f number is a ratio of 1/x of the diameter of the lens, so less light). Down the f number and you get nice portraits where only a small DOF exists and everything forward, or back, is out of focus.

    2. Re:with a technology like this... by Negadecimal · · Score: 1

      Up the f, increase the depth of field, everyone is in focus

      That is, until diffraction effects start to kick in. Had to learn that one the hard way: shooting product shots at a maximum f/29 until discovering mysteriously sharper images at f/12. Now, I'll admit I don't know how much of that truly is diffraction (as opposed to a cheaper lens), but do I know it's something to consider.

    3. Re:with a technology like this... by hubie · · Score: 1

      The effect of diffraction is pretty easy to calculate (assuming both your lenses are "perfect" and have circular apertures). The size of the blur spot due to diffraction is roughly 2.44*L*F, where L is the wavelength of light and F is the f-number. So, your f/29 lens has a blur spot that is a little bigger than twice that of the f/12 lens. If you are talking about a digital camera, than it is a bit simpler to compare the blur spot against the pixel size. If it is on film, then you need to compare it against the grain size distribution.

      A nice quick calculation can be done if you take the good average number for the wavelength of sunlight of 500 nm (or half a micron), round down the 2.44 to 2.0, and you only need to remember that your blur spot is basically your f-number in microns.

    4. Re:with a technology like this... by migloo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have coaxial annular lenses, each with its own focal length, you get as many focal planes. You can thus make a multifocused picture at the cost of more blurry background.
      This has been used for bifocal soft lenses for presbyopia. Focus splitting with diffraction gratings is more commonly used now.

    5. Re:with a technology like this... by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      ...could you somehow have a lens with multiple focus points? I'm thinking if you have 4 people in a picture you could focus on each of their faces with one lens and have a nice picture with everyone in focus rather than someone in the background a bit blurry.

      You don't want multiple focal planes: you want to focus light from different planes to the same focus (the film, detector, whatever). But to answer your question, no - this would not work, no matter what lens medium and scheme you had.
  14. No moving parts? by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the curving of the liquid layers be considered a moving part?

    1. Re:No moving parts? by Wicko · · Score: 1

      Liquid isn't considered a mechanical part.

    2. Re:No moving parts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't the flow of electrons be considered moving parts also?

    3. Re:No moving parts? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the motion of electrons in a CPU be considered a moving part? Look ma, I've proven that "solid state" is a myth!

    4. Re:No moving parts? by hubie · · Score: 1

      Unless you are designing a hydraulic system.

  15. Pretty Neat by Wicko · · Score: 1

    Would be neat to have this on glasses or something like that. Your glasses can double as reading/seeing glasses, if you need a different prescription or something for different activities. I imagine it wouldn't take much power, just charge them when you go to sleep or something.

  16. I did this before! by TheBearBear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    back in high school i would cry a little and squint my eye so I can see the board. I needed glasses bad!

  17. It can truly be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're through the looking glass, people.

  18. i am sceptical by eneville · · Score: 1

    i might be wrong, in fact, very likely to be wrong, but wouldn't applying voltage cause hydrogen, or other gasses to be released from the water, and thus reduce the life span of the lens if it has to do much refocusing? and even so, wouldnt the released gasses interfere with the focusing?

    1. Re:i am sceptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they are using water.

    2. Re:i am sceptical by Wog · · Score: 1

      Liquid does not always mean water.

  19. Great for Democracy by soren100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This liquid lens technology sounds like it might really help create tiny and cheap cameras that people can use to bring more justice to the world.

    It seems that police brutality is getting so common now that they are willing to beat members of the media on camera . (The clip begins with the narrator suggesting that the protestors were "asking for it" by throwing rocks at the police, but they can't spin the footage of their own camerapeople getting beaten up.)

    What's worse, is that police now tend to focus on people with cameras , as you can also see in the above video.

    The tapes are very helpful in prosecuting police misconduct , so we neeed more people taping.

    Otherwise, the police tend to lie about the incidents , even going so far to claim in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes in Britain that 5 different cameras watching the action were all somehow not functioning .

    In a Missouri case, a teenager was being harassed by the police at a DUI checkpoint for not telling them where he was going -- when he asked why he was being detained, he was told If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight.

    Stuff like this happens all the time, and it will be a great day when we can start getting more of it on tape. Then the police can keep policing the citizens, but the citizens can also police the police.

    1. Re:Great for Democracy by Lorkki · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then the police can keep policing the citizens, but the citizens can also police the police.

      But if the police police police police, who will police the police police?

    2. Re:Great for Democracy by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait a second... somehow, your UID is fairly low, but your post reads like a screed directly off Reddit. What gives?

      Seriously, why turn an article on scientific discovery into a political... essay?

    3. Re:Great for Democracy by *SECADM · · Score: 1

      the police

      --
      sure I'll have a sig.
    4. Re:Great for Democracy by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      "But if blah blah blah blah blah, who will blah blah blah blah?"

      I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment - can you elaborate?

    5. Re:Great for Democracy by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for the M$ joke, personally.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    6. Re:Great for Democracy by Mike89 · · Score: 1

      But if the police police police police, who will police the police police?
      I dunno, Coastguard?
  20. The first? Already Built Into? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These two statements seem to contradict each other.

    "German engineers have designed the first liquid camera lens with no moving parts"

    "Samsung has already built them into some cellphones"

  21. Hey, wait a second... by baKanale · · Score: 1
    From the summary:

    German engineers have designed the first liquid camera lens... Samsung has already built them into some cellphones.
    If it's the first liquid camera lens, then how has Samsung already built them into their cellphones?
    1. Re:Hey, wait a second... by lagfest · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are referring to the two levels of zoom as the new feature.

    2. Re:Hey, wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      you, my friend, are great at missing context.

      it's the first liquid lens system that is capable of variable levels of magnification with no moving parts.

      then the summary mentions some crap about liquid lenses in general.

      and then it mentions how samsung is already using liquid lenses in their cell phones.

      no, it doesn't suggest that they use liquid lens systems with variable magnification and no moving parts.

    3. Re:Hey, wait a second... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      because there was some time between the discovery and the time it was being reported on? During that time Samsung developed the camera?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. Fewer moving parts? by n0w0rries · · Score: 1

    I bought a canon sd600 a few months ago, and it died on my second glamis trip. Sand (from the air, it was never dropped) ruined the lense. So I bought an Optio W30 instead. No moving parts to get sand in.

    So if this is such old news, why don't cameras use this technology? Because then they would last too long?

  23. A little earlier by UtilityFog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from here: In the Philosophical Transactions (Abridged), Volume 4, 1694-1702 pp. 97-101 + 1 plate, there is an article by Stephen Gray on "Microscopical Observations and Experiments" in which Mr. Gray explains the making of a water microscope.

  24. Camera perhaps, but not telescope by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    I believe one of the early English astronomical refractor telescopes (one of William Herschel's iirc, possibly the 20-foot one) had a lens made of two hemispherical pieces of glass filled with white wine.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Camera perhaps, but not telescope by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      I believe one of the early English astronomical refractor telescopes (one of William Herschel's iirc, possibly the 20-foot one) had a lens made of two hemispherical pieces of glass filled with white wine.

      The first beer goggle prelude?
  25. from the summary by mrcdeckard · · Score: 0, Redundant
    this:

    "German engineers have designed the first liquid camera lens

    and this:

    Samsung has already built them into some cellphones.'"


    i'm not a grammar nazi, but 180 degree contradiction makes the whole summary meaningless. . .

    mr c
    --
    "Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
  26. Might be fine for crap images by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    Thanks, but I think I'll stick with Nikon's ED glass and mechanical movement. The liquid lens might work for cheap crappy images, but real photographers are amazingly picky about their glass. We buy into a lens system - the camera is just an accessory to the lens.

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Might be fine for crap images by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      How do you know the quality of this new lens; have you seen many pictures using them, or do you have a working theory that shows liquid lenses will produce poor quality images? Surely liquid is a good road to go down, since you can tailor the material to the purpose. Glass isn't as flexible. (No pun intended.)

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    2. Re:Might be fine for crap images by Uusilehto · · Score: 1

      How do you know the quality of this new lens; have you seen many pictures using them, or do you have a working theory that shows liquid lenses will produce poor quality images?
      I haven't seen any images taken with these new liquid lenses but I think I'll stick with glass for a little while. It has only been perfected as an optical material for the last 150-200 years. Exactly how long has liquid been used for this purpose? Just like many other innovations in the photographic industry, these are likely to never surpass the currently dominating technology (in this case, optical glass), although they will likely be used for some of the less "demanding" areas, such as mobile phones, keychain cams and Olympus DSLR's (sorry, had to say that one). For what it's worth, I'm a long-time photographer mostly working in the fields of large format (4x5in and up) and small format (Mostly Canon DSLR's, although only for work-related requirements)photography.
    3. Re:Might be fine for crap images by hubie · · Score: 1

      You can make a pretty good educated guess, or guesses. The liquid surface tension will want to pull the lens into a spherical shape, which doesn't give great imaging performance (especially off axis). Also, if only one lens is used, then you'll get chromatic distortions where your image quality depends on the wavelengths of light. I would be interested to see whether the camera phones that use these lenses give better images than those that used a fixed focus lens.

    4. Re:Might be fine for crap images by Uusilehto · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly. I'd like to see them do aspherical lenses with those Liquid Tension Experiments.

    5. Re:Might be fine for crap images by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      It has only been perfected as an optical material for the last 150-200 years.


      The same could be said about film. Even professionals seem to be using a lot of CCDs today. "Older is better" is not an argument. "Liquid lenses suffer from fundamental geometric limitations" is, but that is not what you said.
    6. Re:Might be fine for crap images by Uusilehto · · Score: 1

      You can't just lump all photography under the same category. There's still no substitute for film in the field of large format photography. The largest commercially available digital (one-shot, not scan) back is still at least three times smaller than a 4x5" sheet of film. And those backs cost 25,000+.

    7. Re:Might be fine for crap images by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 1

      My point was he simply stated the liquid lenses are not suitable for development because they were new. I didn't say CCDs had replaced film throughout the industry, but they are definitely a solid option for several different types of photography, even though they a few hundred years in development behind film.

  27. No, that's different. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Uhh, no need. You can do that with glass lenses. Its called depth-of-field, aperture, etc.

    Depth of field just means that sharpness decreases more or less gradually for points at planes parallel to the plane of focus, so that if you aperture is small enough, you get acceptable practical sharpness at a range of distances from the lens, and not just at the plane of focus.

    The crucial thing is that by using depth of field, you have the following limitations:

    1. Every point that you want to be sharp in the image must lie within the field of focus for the aperture and focal length that you're using. If they're too far apart, you can't do it.
    2. Every point in the field of focus will be sharp.

    What the GP proposed could, conceivably, not have those limitations (I don't know for sure). It would be hella harder to use, though.

  28. Re:First makings of the "bionic eye" by hubie · · Score: 1

    They have them now. The going price for them in is the neighborhood of Six Million Dollars.

  29. Liquid Lens ? by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

    What, there are several of us, now ?
    P.S.: Hint: look at my username

  30. Stupid dylsexia by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

    I first read that as "liquor lens" and thought somebody had finally made a working pair of beer goggles...

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
    1. Re:Stupid dylsexia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an anonymous coward, Carleton!

  31. IEEE Spectrum article from 2004 by BiggerBadderBen · · Score: 1

    And here are some Dutch guys doing it 3 years ago:

    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/4172
  32. Clearly... by Grayden · · Score: 1

    Buffalo.