Dual-lens smartphone cameras are coming(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Dual-lens smartphone cameras are coming
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/26/corephotonics-dual-lens-smartphone-camera/
12 comments
I had a different 3D phone (Sharp SH-12C) and absolutely loved it. Took all my photos in 3D. They also display fine on a 3D-TV or monitor. I want to get a 3D photo camera now that I'm on an iPhone, but it seems all those models have been discontinued, which is a shame.
The 3D photo I took from the top of Mt Fuji is absolutely breathtaking, IMHO. Gives a completely different sense of scale than a 2D photo.
The 3D photo I took from the top of Mt Fuji is absolutely breathtaking, IMHO. Gives a completely different sense of scale than a 2D photo.
Can you still purchase 3d tvs? I understood that the manufacturers decided to move in another direction.
Pretty much every HDTV sold today is 3D ready. It's just not a selling point any more.
Could you post a link to that photo?
The title is strange; this seems to be describing dual cameras, not just dual lenses.
One important advantage I'd expect but not listed: an increase in effective dynamic range (the ability to capture more range in shadows and highlights in the same photo [1]) may be possible if there's a sensible way to interpolate data from the 3x and base focal length cameras (which seems to be the case, if the low-light claims are to be believed).
[1] http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/kiGHs2ZNM_El1gxcFVmhHA2R...
One important advantage I'd expect but not listed: an increase in effective dynamic range (the ability to capture more range in shadows and highlights in the same photo [1]) may be possible if there's a sensible way to interpolate data from the 3x and base focal length cameras (which seems to be the case, if the low-light claims are to be believed).
[1] http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/o/kiGHs2ZNM_El1gxcFVmhHA2R...
That was my thought too... I was thinking that it was some new system of lenses for physical zoom.
With the title being a bit misleading (this isn't about 3D), the key takeaways are that two cameras/lens will allow:
1) Two different focal lengths/zoom levels without having to use digital zoom
2) Better low light quality due to twice as much information
3) Better depth analysis: quicker autofocus, blurred backgrounds, augmented reality
1) Two different focal lengths/zoom levels without having to use digital zoom
2) Better low light quality due to twice as much information
3) Better depth analysis: quicker autofocus, blurred backgrounds, augmented reality
With the CPU/GPU power available to today's smartphones, I see a lot of promise in software-assisted photo construction using multiple cameras. Sort of like triangulating a 2D or 3D location in space using multiple 1D measurements, different camera/lens pairs with differing strengths can be combined to produce something greater than either one could alone. Nice!
Marketing : Let's put 50 megapixel phones out there, people would love it and they would really distinguish us from all the iClones.
Engineering : But... http://xkcd.com/1014/
Marketing : Hmm.. how about 2 sensors, I mean 2 at the back side alone. 3D TVs are a big hit. People would love them. I bet God had plans when he put 2 eyes instead of one.
Engineering : Whatever...
Sensor manufacturers : Yaay !
HN guys : Wow, I got a dual cam app idea that FB would love to acquire... Ain't 2 instagrams better than 1.
Engineering : But... http://xkcd.com/1014/
Marketing : Hmm.. how about 2 sensors, I mean 2 at the back side alone. 3D TVs are a big hit. People would love them. I bet God had plans when he put 2 eyes instead of one.
Engineering : Whatever...
Sensor manufacturers : Yaay !
HN guys : Wow, I got a dual cam app idea that FB would love to acquire... Ain't 2 instagrams better than 1.
One thing that I'm confused about though. If the two lenses are at fixed depths (i.e. 1X vs. 3X), does this mean that the benefits of better low light, blurred backgrounds, and augmented reality will only be supported at the largest depth (3X), since most of the information would not be available for the same shot at 1X (i.e. the 3X shot is missing two-thirds of the information)?
For example, how can it improve low light on the 1X shot for the pixels outside of the 3X frame?
For example, how can it improve low light on the 1X shot for the pixels outside of the 3X frame?
It's actually even worse, isn't it? 3X has only 1/9th the solid angle, so ~90% of the pixels wouldn't be covered.
I think the re-focusing stuff is mostly a cool-looking gimmick that not many people will take advantage of. Instead of doubling their camera budget to buy 2 cameras, I think I'd rather have them pay double for a much better camera, and be more competitive with the best mobile cameras on the market, today.
As for shooting 3D with dual-lenses, I don't think there are many applications for that right now, but perhaps there will be in the future.
If for example recording video in 3D will make it look much better when watching it later with a VR headset, that could be pretty cool. It could also be used for creating models/avatars of yourself, again probably most useful in VR worlds/games, and other stuff like that.
As for shooting 3D with dual-lenses, I don't think there are many applications for that right now, but perhaps there will be in the future.
If for example recording video in 3D will make it look much better when watching it later with a VR headset, that could be pretty cool. It could also be used for creating models/avatars of yourself, again probably most useful in VR worlds/games, and other stuff like that.
As a result, noise is reduced and we end up with a cleaner picture -- just as we would if we had one big imaging sensor instead of two little ones.
But the two lenses are taking the picture from different angles, and with different focal lengths! I don't understand how matching of pixels is possible without an error greater than the noise they are trying to remove... It definitely can't be equivalent to one large sensor, as they claim. Unless they can somehow route the image from one lens to both sensors? Is that even possible?
But the two lenses are taking the picture from different angles, and with different focal lengths! I don't understand how matching of pixels is possible without an error greater than the noise they are trying to remove... It definitely can't be equivalent to one large sensor, as they claim. Unless they can somehow route the image from one lens to both sensors? Is that even possible?
If this is so good why aren't cameras using 2 lenses?
Wouldn't making zoom better by improving the one lens be cheaper than doing so by introducing other?
I am not mocking this, but am really interested. Because it seems like this idea would have already been tried & if it were good would already have existed mainstream for cameras.
I am not mocking this, but am really interested. Because it seems like this idea would have already been tried & if it were good would already have existed mainstream for cameras.
If this is so good why aren't cameras using 2 lenses?
The literal answer to this question is that most serious cameras have interchangeable lenses; I shoot with an Olympus OMD EM5 and primarily use three primes. A lot of people use zoom lenses, or primarily use zooms.
If you're only referencing cell phones, I assume that there is an obvious trade-off between size and putting another lens in the camera.
The literal answer to this question is that most serious cameras have interchangeable lenses; I shoot with an Olympus OMD EM5 and primarily use three primes. A lot of people use zoom lenses, or primarily use zooms.
If you're only referencing cell phones, I assume that there is an obvious trade-off between size and putting another lens in the camera.
Cameras aren't limited to impossibly thin lenses, so optical zoom is a lot more practical.
This is actually a great idea. Back in the early days of photo-journalism...it was quite common to have a dual-camera setup for PJs. Or even 3 lenses (35, 50, 90), and just switch between the two. The benefits were multiple: better, simpler prime optics. But also it turns out that most people develop a keener eye. Zoom lenses suffer to some extent from ~infinite degrees of freedom, which inhibit to some extent developing a good 'eye' for how each focal length distors reality from a 3d to 2d transition. So, by adopting dual optics...perhaps we can see faster, simpler and higher quality glass without the loss of practicality. Shooting portraits with 28s isn't always flattering, and shooting Landscapes with 90's can be equally frustrating.
I like the idea of this since you can use software to make better images.
This is one of the reasons some really old color movies were able to be restored so well. They filmed it with 3 lenses with one for each color (RGB). Since there were 3 sources of data the restoration it was much easier to find the best image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_masters
This is one of the reasons some really old color movies were able to be restored so well. They filmed it with 3 lenses with one for each color (RGB). Since there were 3 sources of data the restoration it was much easier to find the best image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_masters
I imagine the 3D would be fairly limited because the lenses are so close together. Would this be the case?
This article doesn't mention much about 3D being a feature of this particular implementation. It sounds like it uses 3D for other benefits -- quicker autofocus, augmented reality, blurred backgrounds.
But as far as taking photos in 3D, that doesn't sound like the main (or even a) drive behind this.
But as far as taking photos in 3D, that doesn't sound like the main (or even a) drive behind this.
The Evo 3D camera did pretty well when I tried it and the lenses aren't that far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Evo_3D
This new crop of phones doesn't save 3D images you can view on a 3D screen like the Evo 3D, though. It just uses the depth information for other things like blurring backgrounds and Kinect like computer vision.
This new crop of phones doesn't save 3D images you can view on a 3D screen like the Evo 3D, though. It just uses the depth information for other things like blurring backgrounds and Kinect like computer vision.
[deleted]
The photo I saw the other day appeared to show lenses at the top and bottom of a smartphone. That allows them to be as far apart as your eyes are.
Yes, the Optimus 3D's 3D photos are pretty meh...
Cats' heads are smaller than ours, so I guess their eyes are closer together than ours. Their agility doesn't seem to be hindered by poor 3D vision.
We use way more information than just binocular disparity to construct our stereopsis. Since we extensive experience in our environment, we can use relative sizes of known objects, atmospheric blurring, occlusions, we can move our head and see the apparent shifts of objects, etc. The triangulation provided by our two eyes is not the most powerful of our methods to estimate depth.
These techniques are very hard to reproduce, however. Artificial 3D sensors lean pretty heavily on some sort of triangulation, because it can be formulated mathematically.
These techniques are very hard to reproduce, however. Artificial 3D sensors lean pretty heavily on some sort of triangulation, because it can be formulated mathematically.
Perhaps they have a stronger Monocular Depth Cues part of the brain to make up for it
I'd rather use that space to have a bigger lens and then carry around interchangeable lenses.
I feel like you'd definitely be in the minority on that one. I like DSLRs too, but for a phone, simplicity is key. I don't want to carry a bag of lenses with my phone to take pictures with. It would also negate the benefit of having something that doesn't look a big serious camera that puts off live subjects and makes them uncomfortable.
Sounds great, right? Well, I used the dual lenses to take a 3D still or video maybe, oh, half a dozen times. Why? One reason was that the screen hurt my eyes when in 3D mode. Another reason was that unless someone else had a 3D screen, I wouldn't be able to share the files with them. And another reason was that except for some gimmicky action effects in the movies, 3D isn't really all that spectacular.
But it sounds like what's going on here, with the different focal lens stuff, is a lot different than just a 3D gimmick, and I'm interested to see what can be made of it.
Actually, one thing mentioned in the article -- depth analysis, to generate blurred backgrounds -- would, in principle, work on the HTC EVO 3D. Actually, I'm kind of bummed now that I didn't look into whether any existing software could do it. I would have liked to have been able to generate 2D stills that have an algorithmically generated shallow depth of field, sort of like what the Lytro (https://www.lytro.com) light field camera does.
BTW, in case anyone's interested, I broke the EVO 3D about a month ago and got a Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom (http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/s4zoom/) to replace it. The camera on this thing is amazing! It's got a 10x optical zoom and a Xenon flash, just like a regular point-and-shoot. Of course, when I'm talking on it in public, I end up looking like a dorkwad, because it appears as if I'm talking into a camera, not a cellphone, but it's totally worth it.