Another Zoom thread....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Xman, May 4, 2005.

  1. Xman

    Xman Guest

    I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again for
    a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers call
    lenses different names?

    In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....

    Standard Zoom Lens
    Zoom lens
    High Power Zoom Lens
    Telephoto Lens
    Super Telephoto
    Standard Telephoto

    Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    they all do the same thing, right?

    I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are so many
    different names that companies are calling them.
     
    Xman, May 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xman

    Frederick Guest

    Xman wrote:

    > I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    > money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again for
    > a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers call
    > lenses different names?
    >
    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    > they all do the same thing, right?
    >
    > I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are so many
    > different names that companies are calling them.
    >
    >
    >

    You haven't looked very far if the above list is the extent of what you
    have found.

    The greatest $$ making trick for Nikon & Canon are IS/AV lenses. It is
    just plain daft to focus development on in-lens IS. Plonkers who buy
    them without absolute need are providing incentive for Canon and Nikon
    not to make the IS DSLR bodies that they should be offering consumers.
    Unfortunately, they know that brand snobbery eliminates Konica / Minolta
    as serious competition. If there is a benefit, then it is that the
    profits are so good that they both sell great non-IS bodies very cheaply.
     
    Frederick, May 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Xman

    Frank ess Guest

    Xman wrote:
    > I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make
    > more money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell
    > it again for a different product. Is this what is going on when
    > camera/lens makers call lenses different names?
    >
    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls
    > them....
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same
    > thing...because they all do the same thing, right?
    >
    > I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are
    > so many different names that companies are calling them.


    It's part of the initiation ritual. You must slog through the
    undecipherables to reach an enlightenment.

    What they call them usually includes a ??-??? zoom range. Have a look
    at the results of using those ranges, or look through the camera/lens
    combo to see if the product suits your needs. Then you buy the lens
    that fits, and call it "mine".

    If you can't see some kind of result that matches what your eye wants
    to show the world, all the language is meaningless anyway. Too much
    technical fooferaw interferes with getting into it; in to photography
    as opposed to photographing test patterns and split hairs.

    --
    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, May 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Xman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Frederick <> writes:
    > The greatest $$ making trick for Nikon & Canon are IS/AV lenses. It
    > is just plain daft to focus development on in-lens IS. Plonkers who
    > buy them without absolute need are providing incentive for Canon and
    > Nikon not to make the IS DSLR bodies that they should be offering
    > consumers.


    Is it possible to do IS in the SLR body?! I thought it was done by a
    little prism that had to be way inside the lens, between other optical
    elements.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 4, 2005
    #4
  5. "Xman" <> writes:

    > I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make
    > more money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell
    > it again for a different product. Is this what is going on when
    > camera/lens makers call lenses different names?


    No.

    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same
    > thing...because they all do the same thing, right?


    No. The last three aren't zoom; they're fixed focal length.
    "Standard Telephoto" doesn't mean much. "Standard Zoom Lens" means
    it's one they want to sell with a body, they way one used to
    automatically get a 50mm lens with a body.

    > I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are
    > so many different names that companies are calling them.


    Look at what they do, not what they're called. Focal length (range,
    if zoom) and aperture (range, sometimes, if zoom...okay, varifocal).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Xman

    Skip M Guest

    "Xman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    >money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again
    >for a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers
    >call lenses different names?
    >
    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    > they all do the same thing, right?


    No, only some of them are the same thing...
    Let me see if I can help (I shoot Canon, so Nikon's terminology is a little
    unfamiliar to me)
    Standard Zoom=Lens that covers what is considered "standard" or "normal"
    focal length and goes to a short telephoto, usually 35mm to 70ish
    High Power Zoom Lens=Your guess is as good as mine on this one, probably
    means longish to even longer, 100mm or so to 400mm or so.
    Telephoto Lens= Not a zoom but a fixed focal length lens of longer than
    "standard" focal length, anything from about 70mm to about 200mm.
    Super Telephoto=Any fixed focal length lens longer than the above, from
    300mm to however long the mfr. can get it, Nikon makes a 600mm lens, Canon
    has one (special order, megabucks) at 1200mm, some of the aftermarket guys
    have them in the 800mm range.
    Standard Telephoto=Ya got me on this one, I have no clue what the difference
    between a telephoto and a "standard" telephoto could possibly be.
    "Standard" and "telephoto" would seem to me to be mutually exclusive. I'm
    sure somebody out there will fill us both in... ;-)
    Then, of course, you also have the wide zoom (28-35mm), super wide zoom
    (16-28 or 35mm), ultra wide zoom (12-24mm), etc.
    >
    > I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are so
    > many different names that companies are calling them.


    It can be confusing, even the people in the shop can't always keep it
    straight...
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, May 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Xman

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Xman wrote:

    > I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    > money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again for
    > a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers call
    > lenses different names?
    >
    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    > they all do the same thing, right?


    I don't think you quite understand what zoom means.

    Zoom has nothing to do with the magnifying power of a lens.

    A zoom lens is nothing more than a lens with a variable
    focal length.

    If you take the maximum focal length and divide it by the
    minimum focal length, you have the zoom factor:

    A lens that can be adjusted from 28mm to 84mm has a zoom
    of 84/28 = 3X

    If you take a 100mm to 300mm lens it also has a
    3X zoom.. 300/100= 3X

    A 200mm to 600mm lens would have a zoom of..
    600/200 = 3X

    Note the X describes the *range* the focal length can
    be adjusted.. It does NOT describe the magnifying
    power of the lens.

    The X in zoom lenses isn't the same as the X you
    see in telescopes and binoculars.. In this case the
    X means how close a binocular or telescope can make
    distant objects appear. 10X = 10 times closer.

    For a quick primer in 35mm lenses:

    Fixed lenses in the range of 50mm to 80mm are considered
    'standard'. They approximate what our eyes see.

    As focal lengths become less than 50, then you go
    towards wide angle.

    As focal lengths go above 50mm, then you move towards
    telephoto.

    So. For *fixed* lenses you can have three basic formats:

    - Wide angle (focal length less than 50)
    - Standard (focal lengths of 50-80)
    - Telephoto (focal lengths over 80)

    Note that *all* fixed lenses have a zoom of 1X. Take
    the Nikon 600mm f/4D for instance. This lens has
    tremendous magnifying power.. (Roughly equal to a
    12X set of binoculars)... BUT if you use the zoom
    formula (Max focal length / Min focal length), you wind up
    with: 600mm/600mm = 1X

    All fixed lenses (no matter how powerful) have a
    zoom of 1X.. Of course, no fixed lenses are called
    zoom lenses, so the point is moot :)

    If you make lenses with variable focal lengths (zoom)
    then they can fall into the same categories.

    If you look at at a 17-35mm lens, both focal lengths
    are under 50mm so both are considered wide angle.
    A 14-35mm lens is a wide angle zoom. Despite this
    being a 2.5X zoom lens, it makes things appear
    smaller and further away. It has NO magnifying
    power.

    So.. For zoom lenses you can also have three formats:

    - Wide angle zooms
    - Standard zooms
    - Telephoto zooms

    Nikon goes a bit further and uses adjectives like
    Super and High power. These are just catch phrases.

    One would expect a Super telephoto lens to have more
    power than a standard telephoto.. And, in fact they do:

    A 105 mm telephoto is a Standard telephoto
    A 600 mm telephoto is a Super telephoto.

    Here's an exercise that will make what I've said
    apparent..

    Go to Nikon's web site for thier lenses:

    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

    Look at all the Zoom lenses. Find a zoom lens that has a
    fixed (or single) focal length.. Bet you can't.

    Now try find a fixed focal length lens that is
    described as a zoom :)
     
    Jim Townsend, May 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Xman

    [BnH] Guest

    check out minolta 7D

    =bob=

    "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Is it possible to do IS in the SLR body?! I thought it was done by a
    > little prism that had to be way inside the lens, between other optical
    > elements.
     
    [BnH], May 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Xman

    Matt Ion Guest

    Really great definitions, Jim. A little long-winded overall, but the
    core information was solid and succinct. :)


    Jim Townsend wrote:
    > Xman wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    >>money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again for
    >>a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers call
    >>lenses different names?
    >>
    >>In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >>
    >>Standard Zoom Lens
    >>Zoom lens
    >>High Power Zoom Lens
    >>Telephoto Lens
    >>Super Telephoto
    >>Standard Telephoto
    >>
    >>Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    >>they all do the same thing, right?

    >
    >
    > I don't think you quite understand what zoom means.
    >
    > Zoom has nothing to do with the magnifying power of a lens.
    >
    > A zoom lens is nothing more than a lens with a variable
    > focal length.
    >
    > If you take the maximum focal length and divide it by the
    > minimum focal length, you have the zoom factor:
    >
    > A lens that can be adjusted from 28mm to 84mm has a zoom
    > of 84/28 = 3X
    >
    > If you take a 100mm to 300mm lens it also has a
    > 3X zoom.. 300/100= 3X
    >
    > A 200mm to 600mm lens would have a zoom of..
    > 600/200 = 3X
    >
    > Note the X describes the *range* the focal length can
    > be adjusted.. It does NOT describe the magnifying
    > power of the lens.
    >
    > The X in zoom lenses isn't the same as the X you
    > see in telescopes and binoculars.. In this case the
    > X means how close a binocular or telescope can make
    > distant objects appear. 10X = 10 times closer.
    >
    > For a quick primer in 35mm lenses:
    >
    > Fixed lenses in the range of 50mm to 80mm are considered
    > 'standard'. They approximate what our eyes see.
    >
    > As focal lengths become less than 50, then you go
    > towards wide angle.
    >
    > As focal lengths go above 50mm, then you move towards
    > telephoto.
    >
    > So. For *fixed* lenses you can have three basic formats:
    >
    > - Wide angle (focal length less than 50)
    > - Standard (focal lengths of 50-80)
    > - Telephoto (focal lengths over 80)
    >
    > Note that *all* fixed lenses have a zoom of 1X. Take
    > the Nikon 600mm f/4D for instance. This lens has
    > tremendous magnifying power.. (Roughly equal to a
    > 12X set of binoculars)... BUT if you use the zoom
    > formula (Max focal length / Min focal length), you wind up
    > with: 600mm/600mm = 1X
    >
    > All fixed lenses (no matter how powerful) have a
    > zoom of 1X.. Of course, no fixed lenses are called
    > zoom lenses, so the point is moot :)
    >
    > If you make lenses with variable focal lengths (zoom)
    > then they can fall into the same categories.
    >
    > If you look at at a 17-35mm lens, both focal lengths
    > are under 50mm so both are considered wide angle.
    > A 14-35mm lens is a wide angle zoom. Despite this
    > being a 2.5X zoom lens, it makes things appear
    > smaller and further away. It has NO magnifying
    > power.
    >
    > So.. For zoom lenses you can also have three formats:
    >
    > - Wide angle zooms
    > - Standard zooms
    > - Telephoto zooms
    >
    > Nikon goes a bit further and uses adjectives like
    > Super and High power. These are just catch phrases.
    >
    > One would expect a Super telephoto lens to have more
    > power than a standard telephoto.. And, in fact they do:
    >
    > A 105 mm telephoto is a Standard telephoto
    > A 600 mm telephoto is a Super telephoto.
    >
    > Here's an exercise that will make what I've said
    > apparent..
    >
    > Go to Nikon's web site for thier lenses:
    >
    > http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
    >
    > Look at all the Zoom lenses. Find a zoom lens that has a
    > fixed (or single) focal length.. Bet you can't.
    >
    > Now try find a fixed focal length lens that is
    > described as a zoom :)
    >
    >
    >
    >



    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0518-1, 05/02/2005
    Tested on: 5/3/2005 11:29:06 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, May 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Xman

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Xman wrote:
    > I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make more
    > money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell it again for
    > a different product. Is this what is going on when camera/lens makers call
    > lenses different names?
    >
    > In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >
    > Standard Zoom Lens
    > Zoom lens
    > High Power Zoom Lens
    > Telephoto Lens
    > Super Telephoto
    > Standard Telephoto
    >
    > Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same thing...because
    > they all do the same thing, right?
    >
    > I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are so many
    > different names that companies are calling them.
    >
    >
    >

    Don't be confused. Lens quality still follows quality manufacturers.
    The amount of zoom is still determined the same way, and you can ignore
    the fancy names, and look at the quality reputation of the company, and
    the numbers on the lens.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Xman

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Frederick wrote:
    > Xman wrote:
    >
    >> I know marketing kind of changes things around for companies to make
    >> more money and will sell one thing and then change the name and sell
    >> it again for a different product. Is this what is going on when
    >> camera/lens makers call lenses different names?
    >>
    >> In regarding Zoom lenses...here's what I'm saying. Nikkor calls them....
    >>
    >> Standard Zoom Lens
    >> Zoom lens
    >> High Power Zoom Lens
    >> Telephoto Lens
    >> Super Telephoto
    >> Standard Telephoto
    >>
    >> Now...I can only imagine all these can be called the same
    >> thing...because they all do the same thing, right?
    >>
    >> I'm just a little confused while shopping for lenses while there are
    >> so many different names that companies are calling them.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > You haven't looked very far if the above list is the extent of what you
    > have found.
    >
    > The greatest $$ making trick for Nikon & Canon are IS/AV lenses. It is
    > just plain daft to focus development on in-lens IS. Plonkers who buy
    > them without absolute need are providing incentive for Canon and Nikon
    > not to make the IS DSLR bodies that they should be offering consumers.
    > Unfortunately, they know that brand snobbery eliminates Konica / Minolta
    > as serious competition. If there is a benefit, then it is that the
    > profits are so good that they both sell great non-IS bodies very cheaply.


    There is a profit disincentive for Nikon and Canon to provide IS bodies
    as opposed to IS lenses. They sell only one body, but can sell the IS
    lenses in different sizes, qualities, and make more money....


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Rubin wrote:
    []
    > Is it possible to do IS in the SLR body?! I thought it was done by a
    > little prism that had to be way inside the lens, between other optical
    > elements.


    Alternatively, you move the sensor. Difficult to do in the days of film,
    though.

    Whether the IS is better by moving the sensor or by moving lens elements
    remains a moot point. There are clear system cost and failure mode
    differences of course.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Xman

    Frederick Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Paul Rubin wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>Is it possible to do IS in the SLR body?! I thought it was done by a
    >>little prism that had to be way inside the lens, between other optical
    >>elements.

    >
    >
    > Alternatively, you move the sensor. Difficult to do in the days of film,
    > though.
    >
    > Whether the IS is better by moving the sensor or by moving lens elements
    > remains a moot point. There are clear system cost and failure mode
    > differences of course.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >

    .... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable to
    churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.
     
    Frederick, May 4, 2005
    #13
  14. Image stabilisation methods (was: Re: Another Zoom thread....)

    Frederick wrote:
    []
    > ... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    > multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    > in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    > buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable
    > to churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.


    Perhaps, although in the smaller sensor cameras there are few enough
    photons already without shortening the exposures further. Would you still
    need motion sensing in the camera, or infer the motion by trying to
    de-convolve the image? My guess is that this would be five years ahead at
    least.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 4, 2005
    #14
  15. Xman

    Frederick Guest

    Re: Image stabilisation methods

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Frederick wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    >>multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    >>in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    >>buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable
    >>to churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps, although in the smaller sensor cameras there are few enough
    > photons already without shortening the exposures further. Would you still
    > need motion sensing in the camera, or infer the motion by trying to
    > de-convolve the image? My guess is that this would be five years ahead at
    > least.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David
    >
    >

    Is it lack of photons? My physics is a bit rusty, but my aged corneas
    seem to cope with lack of photons to produce a noise free image at far
    higher resolution than any CCD TV camera can.
    I am guessing that noise reduction will continue to improve, and pixel
    size will reduce - following the present trend. Pixel density in P&S
    cameras already makes a 1:1.5 ratio 30mp DSLR possible - but not
    desirable. Better 12 million mainly clean pixels than 30 million mainly
    dirty ones - especially if the rest of the electronics are going to
    stuggle to keep up with processing the image(s) anyway. However, in
    1995 I would have thought that a CPU containing 50 million transistors,
    and needing to dissipate the 80 watts of power it uses through it's
    surface of half the size of a postage stamp was not possible. Now it is
    a commodity you can buy for less than $100.
    Noise reduction can also be effected by comparing two consecutive
    "identical" images - but how this might be applied to several different
    images - in the case of in camera software image stabilisation is a
    question I can't answer. It doesn't seem likely. Deconvolving blurred
    single images (if it was possible) isn't photography - it's digital art,
    and applying that to any subject that contains depth of field makes it
    seem even more practically impossible than it already probably is.
     
    Frederick, May 4, 2005
    #15
  16. Xman

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Frederick wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Paul Rubin wrote:
    >> []
    >>
    >>> Is it possible to do IS in the SLR body?! I thought it was done by a
    >>> little prism that had to be way inside the lens, between other optical
    >>> elements.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Alternatively, you move the sensor. Difficult to do in the days of
    >> film, though.
    >>
    >> Whether the IS is better by moving the sensor or by moving lens
    >> elements remains a moot point. There are clear system cost and
    >> failure mode differences of course.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David
    >>

    > ... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    > multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    > in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    > buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable to
    > churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.


    By their nature, such schemes reduce resolution, so greatly increased
    inherent resolution is needed before implementing that method. It will
    doubtless be reached, and cost always favors the simpler approach.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 4, 2005
    #16
  17. Xman

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Image stabilisation methods

    Frederick wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Frederick wrote:
    >> []
    >>
    >>> ... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    >>> multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    >>> in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    >>> buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable
    >>> to churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps, although in the smaller sensor cameras there are few enough
    >> photons already without shortening the exposures further. Would you
    >> still need motion sensing in the camera, or infer the motion by trying
    >> to de-convolve the image? My guess is that this would be five years
    >> ahead at least.
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >> David
    >>

    > Is it lack of photons? My physics is a bit rusty, but my aged corneas
    > seem to cope with lack of photons to produce a noise free image at far
    > higher resolution than any CCD TV camera can.
    > I am guessing that noise reduction will continue to improve, and pixel
    > size will reduce - following the present trend. Pixel density in P&S
    > cameras already makes a 1:1.5 ratio 30mp DSLR possible - but not
    > desirable. Better 12 million mainly clean pixels than 30 million mainly
    > dirty ones - especially if the rest of the electronics are going to
    > stuggle to keep up with processing the image(s) anyway. However, in
    > 1995 I would have thought that a CPU containing 50 million transistors,
    > and needing to dissipate the 80 watts of power it uses through it's
    > surface of half the size of a postage stamp was not possible. Now it is
    > a commodity you can buy for less than $100.
    > Noise reduction can also be effected by comparing two consecutive
    > "identical" images - but how this might be applied to several different
    > images - in the case of in camera software image stabilisation is a
    > question I can't answer. It doesn't seem likely. Deconvolving blurred
    > single images (if it was possible) isn't photography - it's digital art,
    > and applying that to any subject that contains depth of field makes it
    > seem even more practically impossible than it already probably is.

    Do you have any idea of the complexity of that aged visual cortex in
    your head, or of the massively parallel processing, knowledge based, and
    experienced as it is, and the result being what you see? You wouldn't
    be able to carry around a computer capable of that kind of processing,
    at least not for another couple of decades.

    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, May 4, 2005
    #17
  18. Xman

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:58:33 +1200, Frederick wrote:

    >> Alternatively, you move the sensor. Difficult to do in the days of film,
    >> though.
    >>
    >> Whether the IS is better by moving the sensor or by moving lens elements
    >> remains a moot point. There are clear system cost and failure mode
    >> differences of course.

    >
    > ... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    > multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    > in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    > buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable to
    > churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.


    That would be easier to manage when taking pictures of stationary
    objects, as the multiple short exposures could be taken at
    reasonably spaced time intervals. But to adequately capture
    pictures containing moving objects, you'd probably want those
    multiple exposures (how many, 3 or 4, or more?) to be captured
    within a 1/250th second window for normal lenses. For a 200mm or
    300mm lens you'd probably want all of the images to be captured
    within 1/1000th second or less, requiring a sensor/RAM/CPU system to
    be able to capture individual images at the rate of several thousand
    per second. The computational power needed to process all of that
    (you don't want to wait 10 seconds or more between shots) might be
    so high that the camera would need an internal fan to cool its
    CPU(s), to say nothing about the larger batteries needed. These
    hurdles may eventually be overcome, but what's the soonest you might
    expect to see something like this in a consumer product? :)
     
    ASAAR, May 4, 2005
    #18
  19. Xman

    Diane Wilson Guest

    In article <6ZZde.1214824$8l.859874@pd7tw1no>,
    says...
    > Really great definitions, Jim. A little long-winded overall, but the
    > core information was solid and succinct. :)


    As long as we're covering basic terminology, there's one
    more (there's always "one more").

    "Super wide" refers to wide angles with very wide coverage,
    excluding fisheyes. For 35mm, a super-wide would be less
    than 28mm (with 24mm being kind of "on the line"). They're
    usually not cheap, but they can take extraordinary photos
    if you know what you're doing. (And extraordinarily bad
    if you don't know what you're doing.....)

    Diane
     
    Diane Wilson, May 4, 2005
    #19
  20. Xman

    Frederick Guest

    Re: Image stabilisation methods

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Frederick wrote:
    >
    >> David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Frederick wrote:
    >>> []
    >>>
    >>>> ... or the way it could well be is to move nothing, but instead take
    >>>> multiple short exposures, compare them, correct them, and combine them
    >>>> in camera. This will need bigger sensors and faster/bigger memory
    >>>> buffers - but once we are there, it's much cheaper and more reliable
    >>>> to churn out chips than intricate mechanical and optical devices.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps, although in the smaller sensor cameras there are few enough
    >>> photons already without shortening the exposures further. Would you
    >>> still need motion sensing in the camera, or infer the motion by
    >>> trying to de-convolve the image? My guess is that this would be five
    >>> years ahead at least.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers,
    >>> David
    >>>

    >> Is it lack of photons? My physics is a bit rusty, but my aged corneas
    >> seem to cope with lack of photons to produce a noise free image at far
    >> higher resolution than any CCD TV camera can.
    >> I am guessing that noise reduction will continue to improve, and pixel
    >> size will reduce - following the present trend. Pixel density in P&S
    >> cameras already makes a 1:1.5 ratio 30mp DSLR possible - but not
    >> desirable. Better 12 million mainly clean pixels than 30 million
    >> mainly dirty ones - especially if the rest of the electronics are
    >> going to stuggle to keep up with processing the image(s) anyway.
    >> However, in 1995 I would have thought that a CPU containing 50 million
    >> transistors, and needing to dissipate the 80 watts of power it uses
    >> through it's surface of half the size of a postage stamp was not
    >> possible. Now it is a commodity you can buy for less than $100.
    >> Noise reduction can also be effected by comparing two consecutive
    >> "identical" images - but how this might be applied to several
    >> different images - in the case of in camera software image
    >> stabilisation is a question I can't answer. It doesn't seem likely.
    >> Deconvolving blurred single images (if it was possible) isn't
    >> photography - it's digital art, and applying that to any subject that
    >> contains depth of field makes it seem even more practically impossible
    >> than it already probably is.

    >
    > Do you have any idea of the complexity of that aged visual cortex in
    > your head, or of the massively parallel processing, knowledge based, and
    > experienced as it is, and the result being what you see? You wouldn't
    > be able to carry around a computer capable of that kind of processing,
    > at least not for another couple of decades.
    >


    If I had a point, it was that I don't think that noise is the result
    less than one photon being available to strike each sensor pixel. It is
    more likely the result of the limitations of the methods and materials
    presently used. Maybe someone who knows physics and is better at maths
    than me can calculate how many photons actually do strike each pixel per
    millisecond on a sensor at a given light condition.
    Nature seems to indicate that maximum pixel density equates to about
    200mp for a DX sized sensor in good light (eagle), and about 50mp in
    poor light (human). Maybe we aren't as far from the limit as I thought,
    as 50mp is only twice the resolution of 12mp.
     
    Frederick, May 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ForceSHO

    YACT: Yet another CEF thread..

    ForceSHO, Feb 2, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    418
  2. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    939
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    804
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  4. klausa
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    426
    Nostrobino
    Jul 30, 2005
  5. smily
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,301
    smily
    Jul 8, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page