If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto
lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Wally |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Wally wrote:
A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Just love this gem: "That's why some photos can turn out looking like images in a funhouse mirror, with an enlarged nose or a hand as big as a head." Seems these experts have never heard of "perspective". The cluelessness of college professors never ceases to amaze me. Wally -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
J. Clarke wrote:
Wally wrote: A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Just love this gem: "That's why some photos can turn out looking like images in a funhouse mirror, with an enlarged nose or a hand as big as a head." Seems these experts have never heard of "perspective". The cluelessness of college professors never ceases to amaze me. That's why we are so indebted to the Wallys of the world. I mean what would a physicist know about light. Dave Cohen Wally |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Dave Cohen wrote in news:gklql0$h9l$1
@news.motzarella.org: J. Clarke wrote: Wally wrote: A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Just love this gem: "That's why some photos can turn out looking like images in a funhouse mirror, with an enlarged nose or a hand as big as a head." Seems these experts have never heard of "perspective". The cluelessness of college professors never ceases to amaze me. That's why we are so indebted to the Wallys of the world. I mean what would a physicist know about light. Dave Cohen Wally The article is half-rubbish. They are confusing curved focal planes with wide angle distortion. In addition, they fail to mention that almost no lenses produce a curved focal plane today, edge problems being primary the result of coma and spherical aberration. What the article could have said (with less clueless general-science writer filler) is that having curved focal plane greatly simplifies and cheapens the cost of making lenses do what they do. Years ago, Berhard Schmidt developed ultra fast (200mm f0.7, etc) lenses that actually curved the film in a mount, so they could achieve the lens speed without undue lens complexity of design. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Dave Cohen wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: Wally wrote: A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Just love this gem: "That's why some photos can turn out looking like images in a funhouse mirror, with an enlarged nose or a hand as big as a head." Seems these experts have never heard of "perspective". The cluelessness of college professors never ceases to amaze me. That's why we are so indebted to the Wallys of the world. I mean what would a physicist know about light. Maybe you should ask one. The particular professors are not physicists, two are electrical engineers and third a materials scientist. Now, try addressing the points raised rather than practicing scientism. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Rich wrote:
Wally wrote: A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm The article is half-rubbish. They are confusing curved focal planes with wide angle distortion. In addition, they fail to mention that almost no lenses produce a curved focal plane today, edge problems being primary the result of coma and spherical aberration. What the article could have said (with less clueless general-science writer filler) is that having curved focal plane greatly simplifies and cheapens the cost of making lenses do what they do. Years ago, Berhard Schmidt developed ultra fast (200mm f0.7, etc) lenses that actually curved the film in a mount, so they could achieve the lens speed without undue lens complexity of design. Interesting but yes there's a lot of confusion in the article. The advantage goes to wide angle lenses though, not 500mm telephotos. The most extreme wide angles are only practical with fisheye distortion and most of those are actually very compact & lightweight. Long telephotos don't seem to suffer much from geometric distortion. I've seen similar invention ideas and my first thought was if you capture on a domed sensor, you still have to flatten that out for printing and there will still be resolution loss in that stretching process. It's probably easier to just shoot fisheye & flatten in software, I don't know, maybe a little advantage shrug. The best application might be for 3D panoramas like google maps street view and those virtual reality real estate browsing plug-ins. Fisheyes are used there and perhaps this idea could lower the cost of these very specialized needs. Maybe making it possible to wear a 3D VR cap beanie for super cheap :-) or some other scientific application but I don't really see the application for general photography. Fast, Bendable Computers Military antennas are the closest application. http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18283/?a=f Notice the bend is in one dimension, not a dome/parabolic shape. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Rich wrote:
Dave Cohen wrote in news:gklql0$h9l$1 @news.motzarella.org: J. Clarke wrote: Wally wrote: A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Why throw out the working technology you already have just because someone has invented a new technology to do the same job? Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. The point is the flexibility, which means the convexity can be changed in camera. The article is half-rubbish. They are confusing curved focal planes with wide angle distortion. In addition, they fail to mention that almost no lenses produce a curved focal plane today, edge problems being primary the result of coma and spherical aberration. What the article could have said (with less clueless general-science writer filler) is that having curved focal plane greatly simplifies and cheapens the cost of making lenses do what they do. Years ago, Berhard Schmidt developed ultra fast (200mm f0.7, etc) lenses that actually curved the film in a mount, so they could achieve the lens speed without undue lens complexity of design. The tiny Minox spy camera curved its film plane in both camera and the special required enlarger, in order to get the most detail out of the smallest package. It's considered efficient and economical these days to train technicians and engineers only in the aspects of science needed for their specific job, rather than wasting time giving them a general scientific education as preliminary groundwork. That article clearly shows what a false economy that attitude is. -- Chris Malcolm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Wally wrote:
A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. What exiting things the future holds in store. Wally Actually, most telephotos do not have significant distortion. Distortion usually comes from high field angles, and of course telephotos do not have high field angles. Only in the case of very fast telephotos do we have the problem. Most of us can't afford that kind of lens anyway :-) Whether college profs understand optics that well depends on which college. Guys from Arizona State or Rochester sure do- those are excellent schools for optical engineering. I suspect the talk was an attempt to get more funding for development. Some folks will say anything for funding. Indeed, if they are trying an unconventional approach, they well may not have used lenses much for practical things. I worked on projects with diffractive optics, with semiconductor processing folks doing much of the work. While we had some optical designers involved, the semiconductor fab people were definitely not well acquainted with actually using optics. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Dave Cohen wrote:
That's why we are so indebted to the Wallys of the world. I mean what would a physicist know about light. Dave Cohen Wally I suspect much of the article was written by marketing types, or the reporter himself may have garbled things. Many times the actual scientists are "filtered" by other folks. As someone in another post mentioned, scientists and engineers are getting very specialized, so the optics experts who probably did work on the project may not have been the ones quoted. I worked with a number of physicists who, like me, were putting in considerable time as lens designers. Some had some pretty good patents in optics to their credits. One had the patent for tilting lens elements for image stabilization. Unfortunately, his patent was dated over thirty years ago, and undoubtedly ran out before lens stabilization became so popular. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Toss out your 500mm lenses
Wally wrote:
A news article that appeared today advises that "clunky telephoto lenses" could soon be a thing of the past. The story lumps phone cameras and long teles together as giving lousy quality images that are distorted like funhouse mirrors. These scientists (who have probably never used a telephoto lens before) have developed a new flexible sensor material that can form concave sensors. Such sensors can compensate for field curvature of lenses, which can be an advantage (if your subject has a flat focus plane). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0113155847.htm If these guys succeed and if their invention is adopted by the SLR camera makers, you might as well toss out your flat field macro lenses too. Or, the SLRs of the future might need interchangeable sensors, each with different convexity, because different lenses will have different curved fields. Put an appropriate sensor in the lens. Contacts between the body and lens carry the image to your storage medium. Or you could move the image from sensor to storage with RF telemetry. Wait. If you put your controls and your storage medim and a VF on the lens, too, you won't *need* a body. Then photography will become an out-of-body experience. I apologize in advance. -- Blinky Killing all posts from Google Groups - The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anyone seen any Nikon 500mm f/4 VR lenses? | Dave[_27_] | Digital Photography | 14 | September 10th 08 09:49 AM |
Anyone seen any Nikon 500mm f/4 VR lenses? | Dave[_27_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | September 10th 08 09:49 AM |
[photos] real macros not taken with 500mm lenses :) | Troy Piggins[_14_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 34 | July 12th 08 02:38 PM |
[photos] real macros not taken with 500mm lenses :) | Troy Piggins[_14_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 24 | July 12th 08 02:38 PM |
Ebay- Ricoh KR10M plus lenses (includes 500mm mirror lens) & pentax MG. | simon | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | September 17th 05 09:03 PM |