Focus your camera AFTER the picture is taken

As an amateur photographer one of my greatest frustrations is when I get that perfectly-timed shot, and then find out the camera focussed on the wrong thing. Thousands of my photos have had to be discarded for poor focus, despite the fact that what I was capturing would have been stunning. A new company is about to introduce a new light field technology camera which claims to be able to focus your shot after the fact, allowing you to shoot now and choose the focal point later. It also allows 3D pictures to be taken with the same shot.

This has the potential to transform digital cameras, and to allow fewer photos to tell a more complete story of any event.

The breakthrough is a different type of sensor that captures what are known as light fields, basically all the light that is moving in all directions in the view of the camera. That offers several advantages over traditional photography, the most revolutionary of which is that photos no longer need to be focused before they are taken.

That means that capturing that perfect shot of your fast-moving pet or squirming child could soon get a whole lot easier. Instead of having to manually focus or wait for autofocus to kick in and hopefully center on the right thing, pictures can be taken immediately and in rapid succession. Once the picture is on a computer or phone, the focus can be adjusted to center on any object in the image, also allowing for cool artsy shots where one shifts between a blurry foreground and sharp background and vice versa.

Time for the Megapixel Wars to End?

I have owned a large number of digital cameras, all the way from when 640 x 480 was state of the art to a new 12 megapixel Canon camera that I picked up to shoot a wedding in the Spring. And something has become obvious as megapixels have multiplied like rabbits - the number of megapixels in a camera has very little to do with the quality of pictures you get. It is not just that we've exceeded the human eye, but rather that after a point the expanding number of megapixels simply shows up the flaws in the lens. Consumer Reports has noticed the same thing and is finally calling for an end to the magapixel race.

The problem isn't the sensor. It's the glass. Writer Ray Maxwell points out that lenses will at some point reach a limit and that simply adding more pixels to a sensor will not result in more detail or better images. So, while and laptop and desktop computers may continue to follow Moore's Law, cameras with glass lenses will not. And that limitation is why the writer ends the article with "If someone produces a 35mm full frame camera with 100 Megapixels, beware. Given the limitations of the wavelength of light, no lens can live up to that resolution."

We're already seeing this transformation in the computer industry, which used to focus on CPU speed. Now, they are shifting to multiple threads, power efficiency, and other measures of excellence.

HARDWARE REVIEW: Canon PowerShot SX200 IS

The Short Version: I love this camera. While it has a few clear weaknesses, it more than makes up for them in quality, ability, and manual controls.

Background: I am a photography enthusiast. Not the kind who stalks around taking random pictures of strangers, or who wanders the forest looking for interesting plants. The kind who enjoys taking pictures at events: quiz meets, softball games, weddings, etc. to share with friends. I own a Canon EOS 50D (digital SLR) but also like to have a smaller point-and-shoot for travel or situations where the "snap-click" noise of an SLR is unacceptable. My last point-and-shoot had proved bad for the lower-light situations where I tend to shoot, and a wedding was coming up that I wanted to cover. In the past, I had always gone for ultra-compacts but this time around I wanted something that could handle both low-light and long zooms while still being pocketable. I tried an Olympus Stylus 9000 (returned due to impossibility of focusing reliably and blur indoors) and researched the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3. But in the end, I chose the Canon Powershot SX200 IS and purchased it from Amazon.Com.

The Good: This camera is a joy to use. It has an automatic mode, a "super-easy" mode, 5 scene modes, a dedicated "special scenes" mode with less-used options, video, full manual, aperture priority, shutter priority, and Program mode, like an SLR. Unlike the competition, the camera has nearly as much customizability as an SLR and the controls are fairly easy to use due to a new menu structure for Canon camera. The pictures are clear, crisp, and has relatively low noise even down to 1600 and 3200, when compared to other point-and-shoot models. The SDHC card slot will accommodate even the largest 32 GB models of memory card (yes, I tested with one those those) and saving to card is quick. The 3.0" LCD on the back is also clear and crisp. And I love the "selective desaturization" mode in the camera. And how do you beat 12x zoom (28 to 300mm equivalent lens) in this size package?!

The Bad: The camera is not perfect. First, while very pocketable, it is not an ultra-compact - it is about as long as an iPhone but 4 to 5 times as thick and it is has definite heft in your hand and pocket. Second, time from shot to shot is not quick, even in "burst" mode, sometimes taking a full second or 2 to recycle between shots. Third, battery is life is only moderate - over the course of a wedding and reception (about 8 hours) I went through 3 fully-charged batteries, and the batteries themselves take over 2 hours to recharge. Finally, when zoomed to the extreme, the camera often finds it hard to find a focal point and may vacillate between two of them, forcing you to let go of the shutter and recompose the shot. This lead me to lose a few really critical photographs.

The Bottom Line: This camera is a keeper, but you'll want to keep your SLR for the most important or challenging occasions. The 12x zoom is great for getting in close or finding a good wide-angle option. It is pocketable, has a plethora of manual options to allow you to get the best shot, has several really fun auto options, and comes in at under $400 even at the expensive shops. How much did I like this camera? Let's just say that I am now one of 3 friends who all own the Canon PowerShot SX200 IS.

Scanning membership cards into your camera-phone

This is a great idea. I am always losing those "frequent buyer cards, but my iPhone is always with me.

http://www.tisgoud.nl/blog/2008/05/11/WalletCardsOnMyIPhone.aspx

Comcast to watch your living room

Most of the time when I see a post on Slashdot about some privacy issue I chalk it up to paranoia. So, this morning when I was parusing the site and saw a post about how Comcast plans to monitor who's watching TV, I was about to have my same reaction - the über-geeks are flipping out again. But then I read the article in question, and I have to say - I agree with the über-geeks on this one. Basically, Comcast plans on putting cameras in their equipment that they install in your house (DVR, cable box, etc...), so that they can watch who's watching TV and better program towards the watcher. Sounds like a great idea... until you realize that this kind of technology has about 18,000,000 ways of being misused. To quote the Slashdot post:

While this sounds 'handy,' it also sounds a bit like the TV sets in 1984.

Emergency Glasses

Annoyingly, neither this video nor pretty much any online resource really explains WHY this "pinhole glasses" technique works. However, I have read about pinhole cameras before, so I can provide a high-level explanation. Any lens works NOT by focussing a single image, but rather by aligning multiple images (really multiple paths of visible light) in such a way that they converge and form a single image on the receiving medium (either film, a light sensor, or your retina). A good lens focusses the multiple images formed by light coming in from all sides of the lens into a single image. A bad lens leaves multiple images at the point of "seeing". In the case of pinhole glasses or a pinhole camera, you can do without a lens, because you are minimizing the number of images coming through, leaving little chance for blur. In doing so, the image that DOES come thru is darker and lower in contrast than through a lens, and of course you lose all peripheral vision.

That is a very non-technical explanation, but I think it does the job of explaining why this cool experiment works.