Hey, hook this up to a scope!

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 03:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Well, we already do have Foveon, although I wasn't impressed by examples of pictures taken with it.

I think those sensors are low QE, and of course, they don't record the
photon energy precisely, just one of three bands.

On Thursday, 19 April 2018 06:47:21 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Well, we already do have Foveon, although I wasn't impressed by examples of pictures taken with it.

Low ISO shots are decent, it's higher ones where it falls apart.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:32:56 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 9:31:00 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
although I doubt there's much you
can do with tilting the focal plane that you can't do already in
Photoshop.

Although its true that image manipulation programs can distort
images in a keystone shape, and dropping the front is equivalent to
cropping an image made with a wide-angle lens, what with the
Scheimpflug rule, tilting the back controls which elements of an
image are in focus, and that can't be done after-the-fact.

Depends on the subject, and the degree of perfection desired. That's
actually not hard to do in Photoshop, although an imaging expert
could
probably tell the difference. For a static scene, however, like a
landscape or architecture shot, you can do it by shooting a series
at
different focus positions and combining them. In fact, many cameras
can shoot a burst sequence automatically that way, with 8-10 shots
at
different focuses in just a second or so.

Taking many shots with slightly different focus and then combining
them is becoming the standard way of taking macro images of e.g.
small insects. There the change in focus is obtained by making small
movements of either the whole camera or the object. The final image
will have a dramatically increased depth of focus compared to a
traditional single-shot image.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 22:51:15 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Ultimately all filter systems will be abandoned. Why throw away
photons?

Because sometimes there are far too many photons.

The H filter for solar observations for instance is a filter system
which is very unlikely to be abandoned.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:37:02 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Taking many shots with slightly different focus and then combining
them is becoming the standard way of taking macro images of e.g.
small insects. There the change in focus is obtained by making small
movements of either the whole camera or the object. The final image
will have a dramatically increased depth of focus compared to a
traditional single-shot image.

Yes, I've done quite a bit of this for macro flower images (I have a
long running project of documenting all the local wildflowers- partly
a science project, partly an artistic one). It's a simple technique in
Photoshop, and there are quite a few dedicated tools, as well.

Sounds like you guys might be interested in that new computerized camera with 16 lenses.

The Light L16 is the one I was thinking of.

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 7:33:26 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/984647...ra-for-106-000

Cheaper than what Trump payed for Stormy Daniel for night ? (o:

Paul Schlyter:
Taking many shots with slightly different focus and then combining
them is becoming the standard way of taking macro images of e.g.
small insects. There the change in focus is obtained by making small
movements of either the whole camera or the object. The final image
will have a dramatically increased depth of focus compared to a
traditional single-shot image.

Here are some of my focus-stacked macro-photos for your viewing
pleasu

https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/15852579501
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21925559786
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14663257341
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/34885963754

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm