6 ms·

> You simply can't replace great optics with software (at least, not yet). The lens quality and software quality should be complementary ways to improve the im

> You simply can't replace great optics with software (at least, not yet). The lens quality and software quality should be complementary ways to improve the image. My DSLR has much better lenses than my phone. My phone has Night Sight, which is an amazing software solution for getting the best out of its relatively poor optics. (IIUC, it aligns multiple short exposures to minimize motion blue in an overall long exposure, as well as denoising/color-enhancing/stuff with ML.) I'd love to use them together.

mikepurvis 7y ago
You'd think there'd be an opportunity for a disruptive newcomer here, but I guess there are enormous barriers to entry on both sides. Perhaps the watershed will be when one of the major camera manufacturers offers a device with good optics that is also capable of running user-installed software, whether that device is a conventional form-factor camera, or perhaps a sensor/optics-only box that works in conjunction with a phone. EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like this has happened— Sony released some lens-only cameras in 2013 and it doesn't seem like too much has come of it: https://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-your-smartphone-to-get-better-pictures-with-1447446839 https://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-your-smartphone-to-get-bet...
- ska 7y ago
  Fundamentally, phones just give bad workflow for photo processing and organizing. The more you care about this, the harder it is to justify this approach as your primary workflow.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    Sure, but no one's doing processing or organizing on the back of a DSLR either. Maybe the real problem here is that 13 years after the original iPhone, iCloud and Google Photos are still the least-bad solutions for archiving a family photo stream from multiple devices— there's a missing middle option between those and the prosumer solutions like Lightroom and Aperture (which in turn have their own issues, like the fact that AFAIK they mostly tackle organizing a local library; you're largely still on your own when it comes to things like collaboration and managing backups). Anyway, I would have thought the dealbreaking issues with an augmented phone/camera would more be around the dearth of tactile controls, but that can be at least partially addressed by moving some of them to the strap-on accessory.
    - ska 7y ago
      I think we agree. I don't see a gap in camera-processing for either phones or DSLRs, because the experience sucks on both. But you are right there is a gap between "consumer" software and "pro" software that could be addressed. I don't know if offloading a bit of processing to your phone from a camera would fix much really. Ergonomics of cameras is much better for taking photos, and there isn't much in there you don't need. I guess you could get rid of the screen entirely, and some of the user controls. That could be nice but would be difficult from a product point of view, as you would be dependent on the whims of a larger market. See all the difficulties getting standardized on things for car, where there is much more incentive...
    - mceachen 7y ago
      I agree with both of you. I'm hoping to hit a chunk of that "middle option" you spoke of with PhotoStructure (details in my profile). I'm building sharing next, so hopefully that aspect will be addressed as well. Hosting the software yourself addresses privacy concerns. The beta is being offered for free in exchange for feedback.
falcrist 7y ago
Unfortunately, camera manufacturers have been very slow to adopt computational photography techniques in professional grade bodies. We're just now starting to see things like image stacking (usually called "digital ND filter" or other such nonsense). I'd like to see in-camera HDR, better processing, etc. Hopefully the camera industry steps up the quality of it's software before it collapses into obscurity. Right now the only thing keeping it afloat is the fact that we haven't found good ways to take the effects of large apertures and longer focal lengths. I feel like the moment phone manufacturers are able to convincingly fake something like an 85mm f/1.4, we're just going to be done with full-frame cameras.
- aikinai 7y ago
  It’s not just the look of the larger aperture and longer focal lengths, The sharpness is abysmal. I can’t stand that watercolor look that every smartphone photo has. Also dynamic range, but that’s much easier to fake.
  - dylan604 7y ago
    It's easier to fake, but it's still not the same. By that, I mean that the final image might have that look, but you can't do anything with it after the fact. With a RAW image with true dynamic range, you can do whatever you want with it and change it up as you wish. The compression on the images is also another thing contributing to the watercolor look and lack of sharpness. Cell phone cameras are worried about space constraints on the device itself and across the network.
    - falcrist 7y ago
      Most phones I've dealt with actually allow you to output raw image files. I'm not saying they have the same dynamic range as my A7iii, but they're not compressed or color-value limited like JPEG.
  - falcrist 7y ago
    True, but there are going to be ways to make smartphone images sharper. You can already do some work in Lightroom to mostly bridge the gap. IMO professional camera manufacturers need to get ahead of that by putting computational photography techniques in their full frame bodies.

mikepurvis 7y ago

You'd think there'd be an opportunity for a disruptive newcomer here, but I guess there are enormous barriers to entry on both sides. Perhaps the watershed will be when one of the major camera manufacturers offers a device with good optics that is also capable of running user-installed software, whether that device is a conventional form-factor camera, or perhaps a sensor/optics-only box that works in conjunction with a phone. EDIT: Nevermind, it looks like this has happened— Sony released some lens-only cameras in 2013 and it doesn't seem like too much has come of it: https://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-your-smartphone-to-get-better-pictures-with-1447446839 https://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-your-smartphone-to-get-bet...

ska 7y ago
Fundamentally, phones just give bad workflow for photo processing and organizing. The more you care about this, the harder it is to justify this approach as your primary workflow.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  Sure, but no one's doing processing or organizing on the back of a DSLR either. Maybe the real problem here is that 13 years after the original iPhone, iCloud and Google Photos are still the least-bad solutions for archiving a family photo stream from multiple devices— there's a missing middle option between those and the prosumer solutions like Lightroom and Aperture (which in turn have their own issues, like the fact that AFAIK they mostly tackle organizing a local library; you're largely still on your own when it comes to things like collaboration and managing backups). Anyway, I would have thought the dealbreaking issues with an augmented phone/camera would more be around the dearth of tactile controls, but that can be at least partially addressed by moving some of them to the strap-on accessory.
  - ska 7y ago
    I think we agree. I don't see a gap in camera-processing for either phones or DSLRs, because the experience sucks on both. But you are right there is a gap between "consumer" software and "pro" software that could be addressed. I don't know if offloading a bit of processing to your phone from a camera would fix much really. Ergonomics of cameras is much better for taking photos, and there isn't much in there you don't need. I guess you could get rid of the screen entirely, and some of the user controls. That could be nice but would be difficult from a product point of view, as you would be dependent on the whims of a larger market. See all the difficulties getting standardized on things for car, where there is much more incentive...
  - mceachen 7y ago
    I agree with both of you. I'm hoping to hit a chunk of that "middle option" you spoke of with PhotoStructure (details in my profile). I'm building sharing next, so hopefully that aspect will be addressed as well. Hosting the software yourself addresses privacy concerns. The beta is being offered for free in exchange for feedback.

falcrist 7y ago

Unfortunately, camera manufacturers have been very slow to adopt computational photography techniques in professional grade bodies. We're just now starting to see things like image stacking (usually called "digital ND filter" or other such nonsense). I'd like to see in-camera HDR, better processing, etc. Hopefully the camera industry steps up the quality of it's software before it collapses into obscurity. Right now the only thing keeping it afloat is the fact that we haven't found good ways to take the effects of large apertures and longer focal lengths. I feel like the moment phone manufacturers are able to convincingly fake something like an 85mm f/1.4, we're just going to be done with full-frame cameras.

aikinai 7y ago
It’s not just the look of the larger aperture and longer focal lengths, The sharpness is abysmal. I can’t stand that watercolor look that every smartphone photo has. Also dynamic range, but that’s much easier to fake.
- dylan604 7y ago
  It's easier to fake, but it's still not the same. By that, I mean that the final image might have that look, but you can't do anything with it after the fact. With a RAW image with true dynamic range, you can do whatever you want with it and change it up as you wish. The compression on the images is also another thing contributing to the watercolor look and lack of sharpness. Cell phone cameras are worried about space constraints on the device itself and across the network.
  - falcrist 7y ago
    Most phones I've dealt with actually allow you to output raw image files. I'm not saying they have the same dynamic range as my A7iii, but they're not compressed or color-value limited like JPEG.
- falcrist 7y ago
  True, but there are going to be ways to make smartphone images sharper. You can already do some work in Lightroom to mostly bridge the gap. IMO professional camera manufacturers need to get ahead of that by putting computational photography techniques in their full frame bodies.