Advanced Depth Of Field in Compact Digital Cameras

[thisiswhatisthis]

hi,

with depth of field, we can perceive and simulate the distance in a 2d image.

as cameras get smaller, lenses started to get smaller which caused decreased dof. today, we still require heavy slr cameras and big lenses to get dof.

but i think, image processing technologies can easily imitate dof in compact and ultra compact cameras.

i was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago :



this is the original photo. no dof or slightly dof



this iz the z depth map. camera uses autofocus process to calculate the distance miliseconds before you take the photo. ( lens moves from macro mode to distance view mode and marks areas in corresponding distances. )



image processor blurs the areas accordingly to z depth map acquired from previous step. and you get a image with dof.

the level of artificial dof can be adjusted like 2x 4x 8x with user will...


would it be possible ? what do you think?

[TCav]

First, its increased DoF, not decreased DoF that happens as cameras get smaller.

Second, your technique certainly has some merit, but the oversharpening artifacts that appear around the outline of your fingers, limits and even negates the effect you're after.

[VTphotog]

To someone like me, who used to curse the limited DOF I had with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, this isn't a problem, its a solution. (compact cameras, not Photoshop)

brian

[thisiswhatisthis]

Originally Posted by VTphotog

To someone like me, who used to curse the limited DOF I had with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, this isn't a problem, its a solution. (compact cameras, not Photoshop)

brian

i am using canon ae-1 and i agree that it is harder to obtain it in lowlight conditions.



this is taken with ae-1



and this is with my panasonic dmc-fx35


i still believe i must have a option to take a photo like AE-1 in my FX35. maybe 3 modes like macro mode - view mode - view with lower DOF mode.

[thisiswhatisthis]

Originally Posted by TCav

First, its increased DoF, not decreased DoF that happens as cameras get smaller.

Second, your technique certainly has some merit, but the oversharpening artifacts that appear around the outline of your fingers, limits and even negates the effect you're after.

i believe it wont be that much visible in a 10-14 mp photo. those artifacts are result of my weak manipulation. i believe engineers can make it better.

[thisiswhatisthis]

i can't believe this topic didn't take attention.

[JimC]

One of the issues I'd see with that approach is that you may want the flexibility of photos with and without a shallower depth of field (adding blur later versus in camera).

But, the developer could always add that kind of data to the makernotes section of the EXIF (as manufacturers are already including info about focus points being used, focus distances, etc.), and they could add more data for multiple readings so that you'd have more flexibility later using software designed to take advantage of the info and apply it to the image.

But, I'm not sure if you'd have better results compared to some of the plugins you can find for editors that are designed blur the background in a pleasing way now.

Another issue should be increased autofocus focus time for the camera to try and measure distances to multiple points within the image before taking each photo.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by thisiswhatisthis

i can't believe this topic didn't take attention.

Most people don't know what a shallow DoF is, and many of the ones that do think it's a problem.

Your technique is only of interest to those who both want a shallow DoF, and don't have dSLRs. That rules out many of the people here.

[thisiswhatisthis]

Originally Posted by JimC

One of the issues I'd see with that approach is that you may want the flexibility of photos with and without a shallower depth of field (adding blur later versus in camera).

But, the developer could always add that kind of data to the makernotes section of the EXIF (as manufacturers are already including info about focus points being used, focus distances, etc.), and they could add more data for multiple readings so that you'd have more flexibility later using software designed to take advantage of the info and apply it to the image.

But, I'm not sure if you'd have better results compared to some of the plugins you can find for editors that are designed blur the background in a pleasing way now.

Another issue should be increased autofocus focus time for the camera to try and measure distances to multiple points within the image before taking each photo.

really? is there such plug-ins? thanks, i will google it.

and yes measuring with autofocus might be a little problem. and it is impossible to use it in videos

[thisiswhatisthis]

Originally Posted by TCav

Most people don't know what a shallow DoF is, and many of the ones that do think it's a problem.

Your technique is only of interest to those who both want a shallow DoF, and don't have dSLRs. That rules out many of the people here.

thats a sad thing to hear. sometimes shallow DoF is good and gives professional look to a photo.

i think it is second biggest problem of compact cameras after lowlight performance.