Invisible Flash?

W

Wileec

Guest
None of the photos they showed looked very good to my eye - neither in detail, nor color, so no interest from me.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
None of the photos they showed looked very good to my eye - neither in detail, nor color, so no interest from me.
The same was said of the first digital cameras. Yet I fail to see film bodies listed in your sig. I share your doubts about this system but simply dismissing it based on a single sample from a prototype doesn't do it justice.

First experiments with new technoloyg are usually inferior. The question is, can it be improved over time? I do see multiple issues that this technique has to solve before becoming succesful:
  • Cameras have IR and UV filters for a reason. So removing them means that you'll end up with a specialized low-light camera. But a large-pixel-low-MP camera would achieve the same (specialize in low light) but with the added versatility of being usable in normal light.
  • The need to "bracket" the shots (one UV/IR, one normal) makes it not useable for action shots. Depend on hand-held bracketing and your shots will always be blurry. Depend on a tripod and... well, now we can do a 1/2" exposure anyway, right?
  • The color information of the 2nd shot will always be full of noise. Either we transfer that noise back into the original image or we don't amplify the signal resulting that much resulting in dull, dead colors
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,434
Location
Bournemouth, UK
'all' it sounds like they've done is make a IR (invisible) light flash gun and then there's another shot directly after with no flash to try and make the image look more normal

if you try and work out what problem they think it is solving,. I'm not sure there's much of a market,. most consumers are likely happy with the results they get from direct flash on a small point and shoot and anyone professional is going to be doing something already

I guess since the IR flash is not visible there might be applications for survellience or where you cannot disturb the subject (wildlife)?
 
W

Wileec

Guest
The same was said of the first digital cameras. Yet I fail to see film bodies listed in your sig. I share your doubts about this system but simply dismissing it based on a single sample from a prototype doesn't do it justice.

First experiments with new technoloyg are usually inferior. The question is, can it be improved over time?
Most people blasting digital in the early days just plain didn't get it - and in truth most shooting with it now, still don't. And, there are still people who shoot film that may never shoot digital. Each has it's pros and caveats. Ones personal preference for image capture doesn't qualify as a statement of what will and won't work.

I stated why, I personally, had no interest in the approach that was sited. My interest, or lack thereof, doesn't imply it's failure or success. It's just an opinion. After all, we all know that a computer will ever need more than 64k of RAM. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

garyosborne

Guest
After all, we all know that a computer will ever need more than 64k of RAM. :wink:
WHAT? you have more than 64k RAM...are you some sort of hacker? next you'll be telling me you have a dot matrix printer and do ascii portraits

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom