5 comments

  • krackers4 hours ago
    Isn't this the lytro camera?
    • stevenjgarner4 hours ago
      I believe the lytro camera was a plenoptic, or light field, camera. Light field cameras capture information about the intensity together with the direction of light emanating from a scene. Conventional cameras record only light intensity at various wavelengths.<p>While conventional cameras capture a single high-resolution focal plane and light field cameras sacrifice resolution to &quot;re-focus&quot; via software after the fact, the CMU Split-Lohmann camera provides a middle ground, using an adaptive computational lens to physically focus every part of the image independently. This allows it to capture a &quot;deep-focus&quot; image where objects at multiple distances are sharp simultaneously, maintaining the high resolution of a conventional camera while achieving the depth flexibility of a light field camera without the blur or data loss.<p>Something I find interesting is that while holograms and the CMU camera both manipulate the &quot;phase&quot; of light, they do so for opposite reasons: a hologram records phase to recreate a 3D volume, whereas the CMU camera modulates phase to fix a 2D image.
    • hbarka1 hour ago
      I remember Lytro. There was a lot of fanfare behind that company and then they fizzled. They had a lauded CEO&#x2F;founder and their website demonstrated clearly how the post-focus worked. It felt like they were going to be the next camera revolution. Their rise and demise story would make a good Isaacson-style documentary.
    • fainpul3 hours ago
      Light field cameras are mentioned under &quot;related work&quot;:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imaging.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;svaf&#x2F;static&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;Spatially_Varying_Autofocus.pdf#page=3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imaging.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;svaf&#x2F;static&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;Spatially_Varyin...</a>
    • analog314 hours ago
      The article mentions a spatial light modulator, which I believe the Lytro camera did not have.
      • Forgeties794 hours ago
        The image(s) were also trash unfortunately and a PITA to process. Barely usable even in ideal circumstances.
        • NooneAtAll32 hours ago
          eh??<p>Processing was as simple as &quot;click on the thing you want in focus&quot;. and 4MP was just fine for casual use it was targetting
  • achille4 hours ago
    Paper has some more useful examples:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imaging.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;svaf&#x2F;static&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;Spatially_Varying_Autofocus.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imaging.cs.cmu.edu&#x2F;svaf&#x2F;static&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;Spatially_Varyin...</a>
    • John78787813 hours ago
      It&#x27;s not even loading for me (probably because it&#x27;s a huge file).
  • Qbit_Enjoyer4 hours ago
    As soon as I saw the headline, I began thinking about microphotography- no more blurry microbes! I could get excited for something like this.
  • feverzsj2 hours ago
    I also like my 3d games without DOF.
  • m4633 hours ago
    I wonder if this camera might somehow record depth information, or be modified to do such a thing.<p>That would make it really useful, maybe replacing carmera+lidar.