Anyway, this is rather off topic, but I suppose it could become a factor in future generations of AP. Good to know what's around the corner at least.
Neil. On 5 August 2011 18:52, BEDFORD NEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it uses a method totally different than that which we are used to, > IE focus on one point and nothing else. It must be a compound lens that > doesn't actually have a focal point as such, rather than vector dynamics > coming into play, I.E. it just captures everything in a linear way, like > parallel (light) lines as opposed to known focused vectors, if that makes > any sense. > > In some ways, I suppose its recreating the human eye even more, where we > can chose what's in focus in real scene, well, to some degree depending on > your age and the ability you have left to focus :-) > When you have good eyesight, It happens almost instantaneously, giving the > effect that everything is in focus, or that's how it used to work with me > anyway, you just disregard what you don't want or need to see. > > If you clicked on the link < > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387422,00.asp> it gives some more > information, but I dare say more will come online as time goes by. > > Neil. > > > On 5 August 2011 18:35, Edward Martin III <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> Lee writes "This whole idea makes sense to me only if the camera has a >> >> large lens diameter-to-aperture ratio such that the sensor image is >> entirely in focus anyway." >> >> Yes, otherwise it would be very silly. >> >> "...can it generate pixels for highly-contrasting edges from within a >> >> large gradient area (sharpness would not qualify for this)?" >> >> I would imagine that was simply a software issue. >> >> >> "So if the idea is to offer a user-selectable bokeh derived from a >> well-focused image, that would be understandable to me, but if the >> idea is for the camera to put into focus what comes from the lens >> originally as out-of-focus, then I wonder." >> >> That's pretty much what I figured too, except that -- outside of >> certain episodes of The X-Files -- one cannot further "enfocus" a shot >> that wasn't focused. >> >> I cast a hairy eyeball on the few folks I've seen on other lists >> talking about how this lets you put the focus on anything you want. I >> think "well, yes, I guess that's sorta true, but if the shot's out of >> focus, then you can unsharp-mask until the cows are built of razor >> wire and you don't get a better image than you shot." >> >> Cheers, >> >> Edward >> >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
