Wavy Lenses Extend Depth of Field in Digital Imaging

genegeek writes "On Feb 25 CDM Optics was awarded a patent for a new digital imaging system utilizing "Wavefront Coding" that produces images with 10-fold the depth of field of conventional lenses. The image itself is blurred until processed. Image examples are here."

So

[Ravenscall]

Basically what this is saying is that if I go out and get a new whiz-bang camera with this funky new lens, I will be able to take a picture almost as good as the pictures I take with my 30 year old Cannon AE-1, and not have the leeway of doing photo processing tricks in the darkroom.

Personally, I will stick to analog photography.

Can't go Digital Yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love having a shoe box of pictures in my closet from the years. Where are my digital pictures going to be in 15 years?

"Everybody gather around the glowing box, We're going to look at the family album"
W_A_V_E_S

Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE.

[JeremyR]

Because the sensors used in digital cameras are typically much smaller than, say, a 35mm frame, the depth of field (DoF) at a given f-stop and "35mm equivalent" focal length is already much deeper than the DoF on a 35mm camera (at the same aperture and a comparable focal length).

I guess an extremely deep DoF is preferable in some cases, but in a lot of photography, it is desirable to use a shallow DoF in order to throw everything other than the subject out of focus (making for a nice, pleasing, soft background and drawing attention to the subject). This is very difficult to do with small-sensor digital cameras.

So I wonder if these "wavy lenses" can be used "in reverse" to narrow the depth of field for the purposes of enhancing creative DoF control?

Cheers,
Jeremy

Not everyone has a darkroom.

[Alkaiser]

For the hobbyist, this works out great. Not everyone has the resources necessary to get a drkroom going, and can't pull off all the tricks of the trade or for that matter develop their own film.

I loved shooting pictures for the college newspaper, because that meant that whatever leftover film I had from the shoot, I could take those extra shots and develop those slides.

Now, with digital, I never have to worry about developing film, or buying new film, so the cost of me getting a camera went down a significant amount. On top of that, I never had to worry that the shots I take didn't quite come out right. I have an instant look at the shot I had.

Once the SLR bodies on the digitals go down in price a bit more, I'll be able to shoot pretty much whatever I was able to shoot with an analog camera. (With the exception of slide film.)

Also, the digital camera is much more environmentally friendly. All those chemicals you use during processing gotta go SOMEWHERE.

Re:So

[mrm677]

Ok, I'll load my 30-year old Canon with some Kodak Technical Pan film. Lets make 16x20" enlargements and see how we compare, huh?

Or, lets take wide-angle pictures. With the cropping factor on your Nikon D1X, how can you be any wider than say 32mm (35mm equivalent).

Digital is great, but in some cases, 35mm cameras are still superior. Especially low-light and wide-angle photography.

Analog 'tricks' are still better though.

[caveat]

Just because the base image quality may not be better (for 8x10 and larger from a 35mm sized camera, digital is so much better, but I like analog for 3X5 snapshots) doesn't mean the tricks and effects are neccessarily better.

Photoshop is great software, but no matter how much I try, basic manipulation (on b&w images particularly), especially brightness/contrast adjustment and dodging/burning, always gives me much better results under an enlarger. Same for exposure effects; Photoshop's solarize filter is good, but there's just some intangible warmth and...analog-ness to a well-solarized paper print. Maybe it's just the random scatter and size of the grain of film against the gridded regularity of the digital images, or the slight variation in quality across the print (not imperfect, but not...digitally homogenous), but for purely aesthetic ends, I have to go with film and paper.

like everyone else I shall speak before reading...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they've been ./ed into oblivion.

Thinking about this from first principles, however.
There is only so much information flowing through the lens. By making it "wavy" aren't they just spreading the information out over a larger volume. In that case, they must be giving up either some contrast or some spatial resolution. Mayhaps someone more acquainted with the product can speak to this?

Mother nature is a b**ch, she doesn't give you anthing for free.

Re:Digital photography needs LESS DoF, not MORE.

[jandrese]

Or you could just hit everything behind the subject with a blur filter. One of my favorite features of my digital camera is the long depth of field, which allows me to capture deep or unusually shaped objects with excellent clarity.

In the end, I would rather have to throw away extra data rather than never have the data in the first place.

Re:So

[blaine]

Yeah, and you don't have to buy film for a digital camera.

Don't think this is a big deal? I'm into amateur photography, and I have a camera that I only bought 9 months ago that I've taken 1500 shots with. Have I kept them all? No. Have I printed them all? No.

And that's the point, for me. I paid $1k for a camera, and now I can take as many pictures as I'd like, without having to pay for it every damn time. The pictures that I do want printed, I can get done for very reasonable prices at places like Shutterfly. And the ones that turn out bad, or I just don't feel like printing, cost me exactly $0.

Do some math. How much would I have spent on film and processing for a traditional 35mm camera in the last 9 months, had I gone that route instead of the digital? By my reckoning, it'd be at least $500, if not more, depending on the quality of the film I purchased. Within another year or so, the camera will have paid for itself, if only in reduced cost per image.

And as for artistic purposes ... uhh ... what? A lot of professionals and artists have begun switching to digital. There's nothing about digital that makes it any less artistic. In fact, if nothing else, it gives the artist more freedom, in that they can more easily review their work, and learn from their mistakes. The turnaround time is far shorter (ie. instantaneous), and that means that they can take more shots, and more quickly tell if they're getting the effect they desire.

Re:So

[esper_child]

Digital hasn't surpassed film, and never will. They are two different mediums. And yes, I have done that challange before, my 30 year old 135 camera put the digital in its place. The only digital I have seen that could match my camera for detail was a digital backing someone made for the various medium format cameras out there. 11 MP is not something that I would worry about putting my 135 film to shame. It takes atleast 16MP to match the detail of Velvia (yes it does matter what film you compare to digital) and that is just in the 135 format. There are black and white films out there that go WAY past this, and I am not sure about color.
Digital and film are just mediums. It is like compairing paint and ink. It really has to do with who is in control of the brush as to the quality of the final product. There are things that my digital will pickup that my film will not and there are things that the film will pickup that the digital will not. It really is all in the selection of the right medium for the job.
I personally don't like to use digital as almost all of my work is black and white. The only thing i have used the digital for lately is to replace the poloroid backings in studio work. I can't really comment on the state of the 135 print films as I only use my 135 for slides and the occationally for black and white on the run. I use primarily an assortmant of medium format gear, and produce results that keep my customers happy. It is my opinion that digital will never replace film as far as black and white is concerned.
If you can find for me a digital camera that can take on any of my film cameras. And to the person thinking that this new whiz-bang camera will improve pictures to make them look better think again it is mearly a tool. It is like having a much longer range of f-stops to control your depth of feild with, it will not really improve the pictures that much. It will be much like using a pinhole camera (though probly without the really long shutter times). Will be really nice though in the world of landscapes. Also, if you can reverse it you should be a great tool for surealistic photography.

Re:35mm

[cei]

But my 6x6 is a toy [holgamods.com] for little children...

Re:So

[Cerebus]

My ancient Pentax K-1000 only uses batteries for its internal light meter. In fact, my K doesn't have batteries in it right now; I use a handheld self-powered meter to take a reading, and my own experience to judge exposure.

I can shoot in in extreme cold and extreme heat. What's the temp rating on your batteries?

I can choose the light sensitivity I need for my shooting conditions, bound only by the speed of the film available to me. How fast, in ISO numbers, is your CCD? I can get 3200, 6400 or higher. And for special effects I can go infrared.

My permanent storage is both cheaper and more permanent than yours over the long term.

Finally, a lot of Pulitzer shots are extra shots that were initially unpublished. Digital storage invites a photographer to erase that which the editor rejects. Film doesn't.

Re:So

[Jeffrey Baker]

The Canon D1S does not "put any 35mm to shame". It takes pictures that are approximately as detailed as 35mm film, while solving none of the problems of an SLR and introducing all the problems of a digital sensor: chromatic aberration and aliasing, mainly. The Canon costs $8000! For that price you can buy a nice film camera ($1000), a few good prime lenses, and a shitload of film, plus airfare to the shoot and a nice meal afterwards, and some hookers.

IMHO the Canon is a great camera but for the price it doesn't begin to pay dividends unless you are shooting hundreds of frames per week.

Re:Digital has better colour? What???

[egomaniac]

Slide film captures the colour exactly as it was, whereas digital rounds it to the nearest bit.

This is what we refer to as "argument by bizarre definition".

Slide film captures color via photochemicals that change in response to light. Digital cameras capture color via sensors that signal in response to light. Saying that one is better "by definition" is patently absurd.

If slide film is inherently perfect, why are there so many different slide films with different color responses? If slide film captures color "exactly as it was", why is Fuji Velvia widely known for producing great landscape shots but murdering skin-tones? Slide film has all the same color concerns that any other capture method has -- good red response but poor greens, or great blues but muddy purples, for instance. Nothing is perfect, especially when the only real way to judge them is using the also-imperfect human eye.

I'm not basing my "better color" assertion on a bizarre definition of the abstract ideal. It's just my opinion, but I hold that my professional digital SLR, with little or no post-processing, produces better color than anything the film world has to offer. "Good color" is a subjective thing, and while you may disagree with me about that (cite examples please!), I stand by my statement.

Re:Digital has better colour? What???

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It may be more vivid, due to some post-processing tricks, but it will never be as real or as authentic. Slide film captures the colour exactly as it was, whereas digital rounds it to the nearest bit. Slide film colour is as faithful and rich as the real thing.

This sounds just like the whole 'Analog sound is warmer' argument I hear from some guy that just spent $15k on a stereo.

Re:This is backwards

[renehollan]

Your observations about depth of field are noted, but, I suspect you've never...

...tried to photograph live insects, i.e. honeybees buzzing about a flower. In these circumstances, with conventional close-up lenses, depth of field is measured in tenths of a milimeter, and exposure time is 1/250 second at best.

There are techniques for achieving this, but they involve non-moving subjects, and multiple exposures over successive focal planes.

Re:So

[blaine]

Eh. Is this really a downside?

I mean, I still try to put a lot of thought into my shots. The difference with digital is, I'm not afraid to try weird things out, because I'm not spending $3/shot or more.

Case in point: I'm hoping to do some weird forced perspective shots in the near future, similar to some early films used for creating huge monsters, or tiny people. It's just something I've wanted to try out, and I'm sure it's going to take me a lot of tinkering. If I was paying for film, I don't know that I'd do it; it'd be pretty expensive just to play around with for the sake of playing around (I don't think I'm ever going to use this for any sort of serious work).

So, for me, it's not a downside. Hell, sometimes I shoot without thinking about framing too much, and I like how it turns out. With a traditional film camera, I just don't think I'd be willing to experiment so much, given the cost per shot.