4 ms·
I agree, I'm not sure I can comprehend a situation in which capturing the central figure with such high visibility is worth destroying the rest of the video fra
by seanalltogether 16y ago
I agree, I'm not sure I can comprehend a situation in which capturing the central figure with such high visibility is worth destroying the rest of the video frame.
edit - Maybe it would be good for scientists tracking animals, however the distance they shoot from would require a very wide array of cameras.
- icefox 16y agoDo you think a sports franchise would be interested in being able to show slow motion "see-through" shots? How about tracking people in a crowd especially when you can pick which person after the fact, there might be some government somewhere that might care to do that on every street corner. Or much more simple and $$$. Track every people in CVS so you can figure out which one stole the razor blades.
- joshu 16y agoSo, a lens is a mechanism for doing a significant amount of computation. All this does is move some of that computation from optics to software. If you take out some of the optics from a real lens you get a blurry image too. That doesn't mean the remaining lenses aren't doing something useful -- or that the output is bad. It just needs further processing. Post-processing, you end up with interesting images. More examples: http://www.refocusimaging.com/gallery/ http://www.refocusimaging.com/gallery/
- electromagnetic 16y agoI'd be interested in what this kind of array could do if it could be used to take cinema-quality video with your examples level of post-processing.