Nikon reveals a lens that captures wide and telephoto images simultaneously(digitalcameraworld.com)
digitalcameraworld.com
Nikon reveals a lens that captures wide and telephoto images simultaneously
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/dash-cams/nikon-reveals-incredible-lens-that-captures-wide-and-telephoto-images-simultaneously
101 comments
Despite a number of what look like copy paste articles, I see no actual pictures of what the pictures taken look like. Maybe we'll see at CES but until then these feel like clickbait.
official link: https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2024/1219_01.html
still no photos, but they say more info will come during CES
still no photos, but they say more info will come during CES
I assume there are no photos because the actual images on the sensor will look like gibberish - it'll effectively be two different images overlaid, and look a total mess.
However, feed that mess into AI, and it might successfully be able to use it to see both wide and far.
However, feed that mess into AI, and it might successfully be able to use it to see both wide and far.
If CAT scan imagery exists, I suppose this sort of image processing shouldn't be impossible to do-- though I readily admit I have no idea what the logic behind it might look like without some sort of wavelength-based filtering that would make a photographer shudder.
Tomographic reconstruction is in principal pretty straightforward (Radon transform). MRI is much (much), fwiw, though RF not optics.
I don't think wavelength filtering will help you here, as you don't control the input at all. Some sort of splitter in the optical chain might, but you'd be halving your imaging photons with all that entails. Or you can have e.g. a telephoto center and a wide fringe. It's an interesting idea.
I don't think wavelength filtering will help you here, as you don't control the input at all. Some sort of splitter in the optical chain might, but you'd be halving your imaging photons with all that entails. Or you can have e.g. a telephoto center and a wide fringe. It's an interesting idea.
The intended output is, in essence, a wide-angle photo but with much greater detail in the center as if that portion had been taken by a telephoto lens and placed on top like smartphones do - but with no offset like smartphones normally deal with.
The processed result would be quite uninteresting to look at: it's a wide-angle photo where the outer portion is much more blurry than the center. Considering the current intended application, the picture probably would probably be pretty mediocre.
This is very specific technology that solves very specific problems (and might one day make its way to smartphones), but not something I'd expect to produce glamor shots right now.
The processed result would be quite uninteresting to look at: it's a wide-angle photo where the outer portion is much more blurry than the center. Considering the current intended application, the picture probably would probably be pretty mediocre.
This is very specific technology that solves very specific problems (and might one day make its way to smartphones), but not something I'd expect to produce glamor shots right now.
As a robotics engineer interested in computer vision and optics, I’d actually like to see the unprocessed image. I can imagine what it would look like, but would appreciate simply seeing it.
As a photographer who worked at a newspaper in college for a few years, I just think including an image makes sense in an article about a novel lens.
As a photographer who worked at a newspaper in college for a few years, I just think including an image makes sense in an article about a novel lens.
This is Nikon (and Mitsubishi). It will really work, but they hold their cards close to their chest, and embargo sample images (they don't like low-quality images getting out). They probably plan something splashy for CES.
CES should be interesting, this year.
CES should be interesting, this year.
You are right.
I mean, a lens is only a third of the camera, the other two being the sensor, and the ISP. A lens doesn't produce a photo in itself.
This would be like someone announcing a new RAM innovation -- and people asking what its Cinebench or Geekbench score is.
This would be like someone announcing a new RAM innovation -- and people asking what its Cinebench or Geekbench score is.
A lens is a BIG part of the final image you get. So much so that the common advice in most photography forums is that within a price gap, buy the best lens you can find and an okay camera. Camera tech, especially in large dedicated full-frame and APS-C units, has plateaued since 2018, and most cameras from that period take exceptionally good pictures, even by today's standards. Thus, lens availability, price, and quality, as well as AF tracking, are what fundamentally differentiate modern cameras.
EDIT: I got pulled into the discussion without reading the article. The lens is for industrial uses.
EDIT: I got pulled into the discussion without reading the article. The lens is for industrial uses.
You're missing that this is not designed as a tool for photographers, but rather in a collaboration with Mitsubishi aimed at better situational awareness for vehicle operators. The headline doesn't mention this, but it's impossible to miss in the article.
In the context of the GP, I think the point still stands though which is roughly: “the lens matters a lot”.
Without knowing more about the optics, it’s hard to know how much of a role the sensor/ISP play in the innovation, but those are well established and widely capable across both photographic and industrial use cases.
Very curious to eventually learn more about this and whether it might eventually find its way into traditional cameras.
Without knowing more about the optics, it’s hard to know how much of a role the sensor/ISP play in the innovation, but those are well established and widely capable across both photographic and industrial use cases.
Very curious to eventually learn more about this and whether it might eventually find its way into traditional cameras.
Sure, I guess. But the whole discussion is so void of subject matter knowledge that it's like trying to argue the pros and cons of different bowling balls in terms of how well they pair with Brie.
Nikon is an optics company that's also made cameras for a long time, and then very nearly didn't; before the Z mirrorless line took off, the company's future as a camera manufacturer was seriously in doubt. But even a Nikon that had stopped making cameras entirely after the D780 would still be an optics company. There is no serious reason to assume the necessity of some sensor/ISP "special sauce" behind the novel optics announced here to make the system work. And considering where Nikon's sensors actually come from, if there were more than novel optics involved here, I'd expect to see Sony also mentioned in the partnership.
Of course that's not to say photographic art can't be made with commercial or industrial equipment; film hipsters notwithstanding, pictorialism in the digital era has never been more lively. But I would expect this to fall much in that same genre of "check out this wild shit I did with a junkyard/eBay/security system installer buddy find", rather than anything you'd expect to see on the other end of a lens barrel from a Z-mount flange.
Nikon is an optics company that's also made cameras for a long time, and then very nearly didn't; before the Z mirrorless line took off, the company's future as a camera manufacturer was seriously in doubt. But even a Nikon that had stopped making cameras entirely after the D780 would still be an optics company. There is no serious reason to assume the necessity of some sensor/ISP "special sauce" behind the novel optics announced here to make the system work. And considering where Nikon's sensors actually come from, if there were more than novel optics involved here, I'd expect to see Sony also mentioned in the partnership.
Of course that's not to say photographic art can't be made with commercial or industrial equipment; film hipsters notwithstanding, pictorialism in the digital era has never been more lively. But I would expect this to fall much in that same genre of "check out this wild shit I did with a junkyard/eBay/security system installer buddy find", rather than anything you'd expect to see on the other end of a lens barrel from a Z-mount flange.
I couldn't tell from the article: is it for human eyeballs or for computers?
If it's for eyeballs it would be nifty to know what kind of image displays both kinds of information at once.
If it's for computers, what is the advantage over two cameras right next to each other? Less hardware? More accurate image recognition? Something else?
If it's for eyeballs it would be nifty to know what kind of image displays both kinds of information at once.
If it's for computers, what is the advantage over two cameras right next to each other? Less hardware? More accurate image recognition? Something else?
These are questions for their CES presentation next week, not for me.
I would expect a big photo with an ok resolution including inside an area of much higher resolution (aka teleobjective part). That special area can be cropped later to obtain a much bigger photo with all the detail than a tele would bring.
I recommend reading the article if you haven’t already as it mentions this is for vehicles, there isn’t a mention of photographers.
This is not a lens for photographers, it's an industrial piece of technology...
Technically speaking you do not need a lens to capture an image (see pinhole cameras) BUT for most applications a lens is a necessity. It is the first part of the image capture pipeline and has a huge influence over the final image.
aren't there some cameras that have swappable lenses? Does Nikon know anything about those?
Yes. And yes. What’s your point? The use case mentioned is AI/driver assist for vehicles.
Neither the article nor official link gave much optical design detail. Here's my guess. A (substantially) radially symmetric system comprising a wide-angle positive-short-focal-length first lens followed closely by a negative-short-focal-length whose diameter is small (thus covering a small range of angles, in the center field of view, from the first lens). A single central sensor behind the negative element is for telephoto images, while a collection of sensors distributed radially around the first lens and off axis capture wide angle images.
Imagine a low-index ball lens in contact with a thin high-index negative lens. That's the idea. I'm sure the real design uses multiple surfaces/elements for each lens, and I'm sure it's hyper-optimized. I'm interested to learn how close my guess is to reality.
Apologies for the complex wording to describe geometry.
Imagine a low-index ball lens in contact with a thin high-index negative lens. That's the idea. I'm sure the real design uses multiple surfaces/elements for each lens, and I'm sure it's hyper-optimized. I'm interested to learn how close my guess is to reality.
Apologies for the complex wording to describe geometry.
On an only slightly related note, I'd be happy if the same was available on smartphones, in software: my mobile photography is of the school "take a lot and discard almost as many" and having to choose between the different lens/sensor pairs ahead of snap is entirely alien to that process. So the camera software is forever set to that main lense and all the other ones are just dead weight in my pocket (and stuff manufacturers don't allow me to not buy when I need a new phone, preferably one with a good main camera)
I think I understand that the precessor would not be able to read out the sensors at the same time, but time-multiplexed bracketing has been done before, it really should not be too hard or weird to apply that concept to multiple sensors? (some sensors with integrated memory might even be able to do concurrent capture/deferred readout?)
I think I understand that the precessor would not be able to read out the sensors at the same time, but time-multiplexed bracketing has been done before, it really should not be too hard or weird to apply that concept to multiple sensors? (some sensors with integrated memory might even be able to do concurrent capture/deferred readout?)
This feels like the kind of thing that's so obvious it's hard to believe it isn't being pursued... Google could, for example, make a _huge_ splash with the Pixel 10 by presenting this with the option of after-the-fact optical zoom or wide angle shots, or using the multiple lenses for some fancy fusing for additional detail. And to your point, DSLRs have been doing deferred readout in the sense of storing to an on-device cache before writing out to the SD card while waiting for previous frames to complete their write ops... this same sort of concept should be able to apply here.
I don't know much more about the computational photography pipeline, but I imagine there might be some tricky bits around focusing across multiple lenses simultaneously, around managing the slight off-axis offset (though that feels more trivial nowadays), and, as you say, around reading from the sensors into memory, but then also how to practically merge or not-merge the various shots. Google already does this with stacked photos that include, say, a computationally blurred/portrait shot alongside the primary sensor capture before that processing was done, so the bones are there for something similar... but to really take advantage of it would likely require some more work.
But this is all by way of saying, this would be really really cool and would open up a lot of potential opportunities.
I don't know much more about the computational photography pipeline, but I imagine there might be some tricky bits around focusing across multiple lenses simultaneously, around managing the slight off-axis offset (though that feels more trivial nowadays), and, as you say, around reading from the sensors into memory, but then also how to practically merge or not-merge the various shots. Google already does this with stacked photos that include, say, a computationally blurred/portrait shot alongside the primary sensor capture before that processing was done, so the bones are there for something similar... but to really take advantage of it would likely require some more work.
But this is all by way of saying, this would be really really cool and would open up a lot of potential opportunities.
The biggest issue with doing this, for most people, is that now each of your photos is 3x time the size and they need to spend more on their phones and/or cloud storage.
What we really need is a better way of paring down the N photos you take of a given subject into the one or two ideal lens*adjustments*cropping tuples.
I’m imagining you open a “photo session” when you open the camera, and all photos taken in that session are grouped together. Later, you can go into each session and some AI or whatever spits out a handful of top edits for you to consider, and you delete the rest.
Use case is for taking photos with children or another animals where you need approx 50 photos to get one where they’re looking at the camera with their eyes open and a smile, then today you need to manually perform some atrocious O(N*K) procedure to get the best K of the N photos.
I’m imagining you open a “photo session” when you open the camera, and all photos taken in that session are grouped together. Later, you can go into each session and some AI or whatever spits out a handful of top edits for you to consider, and you delete the rest.
Use case is for taking photos with children or another animals where you need approx 50 photos to get one where they’re looking at the camera with their eyes open and a smile, then today you need to manually perform some atrocious O(N*K) procedure to get the best K of the N photos.
Even a simple "A vs B" selection process would be an improvement to what most of what we spray'n'pray photographers currently use. It's been forever on my list of mobile apps I might want to write (I expect that similar things exists, but I also kind of expect that they are all filled with other features that I really would not want to have)
What if you make an AVIF image sequence, with the zoomed photo followed by the wide angle photo? Presumably AV1 is smart enough to compress the second based on the first.
> Google could, for example, make a _huge_ splash with the Pixel 10 by presenting this with the option of after-the-fact optical zoom...
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this just an inferior version of after-the-fact photo capture?
On a serious note, what do you really mean by this? I have trouble imagining how that would work.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this just an inferior version of after-the-fact photo capture?
On a serious note, what do you really mean by this? I have trouble imagining how that would work.
iPhones can do this. They support taking photos simultaneously from the two or three cameras on the back; the cameras are hardware-synchronized and automatically match their settings to provide similar outputs. The catch is you need a third-party app to access it, and you'll end up with two or three separate photos per shot which you'll have to manage yourself. You also won't get manual controls over white balance, focus, or ISO, and you can't shoot in RAW or ProRAW.
There are probably a good number of camera apps that support this mode; two I know of are ProCam 8 and Camera M.
There are probably a good number of camera apps that support this mode; two I know of are ProCam 8 and Camera M.
If the Light L16 https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/4/10/17218758/l... hadn't failed, you might have seen this (as the "weaker but still useful" version of the tech spread down-market.)
But I'm not sure what you mean by "choosing lens/sensor pairs" - do any modern phones even expose that? The samsung version is just "you zoom. Occasionally the field of view jumps awkwardly sideways because it switched lenses."
But I'm not sure what you mean by "choosing lens/sensor pairs" - do any modern phones even expose that? The samsung version is just "you zoom. Occasionally the field of view jumps awkwardly sideways because it switched lenses."
But zooming is lens selection (if implemented like that). I don't want to be bothered with zooming. A full frame of each sensor, pick and crop later.
I want to point the side with the cameras at whatever I want to take a picture of, hit the release button and move on. All that careful framing? That might be enjoyable to do ahead of time if you take pictures of carefully arranged flower bouquets or something like that, but that's very far from many of the use cases of the always-at-hand camera. Give me ultrawide, tele and whatever exists in between at a single press of a button and let me go back to whatever I was doing while the desire to persist a visual situation came up. Memory is cheap, selection is a chore but one that can be done time-shifted. I'm not suggesting to take away your ahead of time framing, I'm just longing for an option to simply read them all (sequentially, if necessary). Perhaps even throw in a readout of the selfie-cam for good measure.
I want to point the side with the cameras at whatever I want to take a picture of, hit the release button and move on. All that careful framing? That might be enjoyable to do ahead of time if you take pictures of carefully arranged flower bouquets or something like that, but that's very far from many of the use cases of the always-at-hand camera. Give me ultrawide, tele and whatever exists in between at a single press of a button and let me go back to whatever I was doing while the desire to persist a visual situation came up. Memory is cheap, selection is a chore but one that can be done time-shifted. I'm not suggesting to take away your ahead of time framing, I'm just longing for an option to simply read them all (sequentially, if necessary). Perhaps even throw in a readout of the selfie-cam for good measure.
There are different depth of field and focus point. In modern system do you want left eye or right eye focus of the subject the camera choose. Hence whilst one can have a wide angle lens that can roughly good coverage of the scene, tele even normal lens cannot act like what you fancy about if you look carefully.
And this I just have a photo by the camera for the camera with the camera is a market taken over by phone now.
But for photography taken by camera, it is specialised these days. You want a picture you choose, you frame, background blur, for the first photo left ey of the subject of the far right corner and the second is on the right eye of … etc. You choose. And that requires choice by the camera man, or person, not the camera.
And this I just have a photo by the camera for the camera with the camera is a market taken over by phone now.
But for photography taken by camera, it is specialised these days. You want a picture you choose, you frame, background blur, for the first photo left ey of the subject of the far right corner and the second is on the right eye of … etc. You choose. And that requires choice by the camera man, or person, not the camera.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Yet, in an article about a camera lens, there isn't a single picture from it.
There're only 312 words in that article. Clearly not worth even one picture.
Maybe because that's the most exciting and revealing part of the tech?
Or maybe the output is boring. i.e. two different output streams with acceptably sharp image with well controlled distortion.
Or maybe the output is boring. i.e. two different output streams with acceptably sharp image with well controlled distortion.
Not sure what the policies are on banning sites, but can this website please be banned?
I'm on mobile, this website has deceptive hitboxes so "dismiss" on the notifications prompt will almost hit the advert on the bottom. Once I finally managed to read the article and hit the bottom of the page, it had a popup which hijacked navigation so I couldn't easily return to HN.
Will record this behavior if asked.
That said... There's not much to say about this? Is it using "meta" lenses printed on silicon? Wish the article would have had any information whatsoever. I suppose we'll learn more at CES. :P
I'm on mobile, this website has deceptive hitboxes so "dismiss" on the notifications prompt will almost hit the advert on the bottom. Once I finally managed to read the article and hit the bottom of the page, it had a popup which hijacked navigation so I couldn't easily return to HN.
Will record this behavior if asked.
That said... There's not much to say about this? Is it using "meta" lenses printed on silicon? Wish the article would have had any information whatsoever. I suppose we'll learn more at CES. :P
I am guessing it is some sort of anamorphic lens that has the center portion telephoto and then smears out the wide angle around the edges of the sensor. So you need a translation algorithm to get back to a normal image.
I'm guessing it's a beam splitting prism with 2 paths, one for wide angle, and the other for telephoto. They used to make cameras with 3 ccds for color video.
From my time with optics this seems the most likely setup. Getting good optical efficiency out of the setup might take some cleverness though - ideally you're not dumping loads of light that are "out of frame" for one sensor.
The other option is concentric optics with a pick out mirror for the central light path. Bit harder to make but you get more flexibility re: how much of your light collecting area gets split to which sensor.
The other option is concentric optics with a pick out mirror for the central light path. Bit harder to make but you get more flexibility re: how much of your light collecting area gets split to which sensor.
I'm guessing it's a regular camera lens, surrounded by a wide angle lens which is donut-shaped.
Both images end up superimposed on the sensor, and there is probably a lot of distortion too, but for AI that might not be an issue.
Both images end up superimposed on the sensor, and there is probably a lot of distortion too, but for AI that might not be an issue.
Needlessly complex, and machine vision camera users don't like the ambiguity that comes with ML processing on the frontend of their own stuff.
True, but if you're going for frontend ML, which is effectively a black box anyway, you might as well have some non-human-understandable bits in the optics and hardware too.
Various designs for microlens arrays do similar things - thousands of of 0.001 megapixel images from slightly different angles are fairly useless for most human uses, but to AI it could be a very powerful way to get depth info, cut the camera thickness by 10x, and have infinite depth of focus.
Various designs for microlens arrays do similar things - thousands of of 0.001 megapixel images from slightly different angles are fairly useless for most human uses, but to AI it could be a very powerful way to get depth info, cut the camera thickness by 10x, and have infinite depth of focus.
not sure how you took the idea "we want wide and narrow views of the same perspective" and thought building a light field camera might be a practical approach
While it is possible to build a consumer lightfield camera (Lytro was one example), they aren't as magical as you might think until you get much larger lens sizes than people are going to tolerate to get appreciable zoom range.
I did a bunch of manual creation of light-field photos over the years.[1] To get interesting compositions, you need an effective lens diameter of about 30 cm in diameter or more. To get super-resolution good enough for zoom, you're going to probably need something that size.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/---mike---/albums/721777202979...
I did a bunch of manual creation of light-field photos over the years.[1] To get interesting compositions, you need an effective lens diameter of about 30 cm in diameter or more. To get super-resolution good enough for zoom, you're going to probably need something that size.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/---mike---/albums/721777202979...
Not disputing the feasibility of light field imaging. That approach really doesn't do anything for the use case the camera Nikon/Mitsubishi are showcasing. Light field cameras have low resolution for their sensor sizes, lower optical efficiency, are expensive to manufacture, require processing that would make this a bad fit for the near-realtime ADAS functions you need for automotive machine vision, and have no advantage when it comes to favoring one part of the image in terms of angular resolution.
Like, why even mention them?
Like, why even mention them?
And I would have no idea how to calibrate it.
If it produces an EXR with clearly seperate images with different lenses, fine. Like a 3D EXR with left and right.
If it produces an EXR with clearly seperate images with different lenses, fine. Like a 3D EXR with left and right.
Depending on the lens production process, the relationship between the wide angle and regular angle might be fully defined (ie. you don't need to calibrate it, you can just read the transformation matrices off the datasheet and it's gonna be correct to within 0.1 pixels).
the press release specifies there's no offset/parallax which would rule this out
no because the light enters the same lens
So it's a fisheye lens?
If you plot pixels per degree over the field of view of a fisheye lens you will see that vastly more pixels are dedicated to the center "eye". And also the field of view is large. Which is what this novel lens claims to also do.
If you plot pixels per degree over the field of view of a fisheye lens you will see that vastly more pixels are dedicated to the center "eye". And also the field of view is large. Which is what this novel lens claims to also do.
It might be like that - but there are other options as well.
There are companies that make stereo lenses, capturing two images side-by-side on a single sensor, for people who want to take 3D photos on their interchangeable-lens cameras. And there are "anamorphic" lenses that squeeze things horizontally but not vertically - in digital terms, producing non-square pixels. Very popular in films in the 70s and 80s. And when it comes to corrective glasses, bifocal and varifocal/progressive lenses are another common type of lens providing variable optical properties.
Self-driving cars need to deal with both "stopped at a crosswalk, are there pedestrians?" (which needs a wide view) and "driving at 70mph, stopping distance about 300 feet, what's that thing 300 feet away?" (which needs a zoomed in view)
If you look at https://www.pexels.com/photo/city-street-in-fisheye-16209078... for example - it's wide (which is good) but the details at 300 feet ahead aren't winning any prizes. Far more pixels are wasted on useless sky than are used on the road ahead.
There are companies that make stereo lenses, capturing two images side-by-side on a single sensor, for people who want to take 3D photos on their interchangeable-lens cameras. And there are "anamorphic" lenses that squeeze things horizontally but not vertically - in digital terms, producing non-square pixels. Very popular in films in the 70s and 80s. And when it comes to corrective glasses, bifocal and varifocal/progressive lenses are another common type of lens providing variable optical properties.
Self-driving cars need to deal with both "stopped at a crosswalk, are there pedestrians?" (which needs a wide view) and "driving at 70mph, stopping distance about 300 feet, what's that thing 300 feet away?" (which needs a zoomed in view)
If you look at https://www.pexels.com/photo/city-street-in-fisheye-16209078... for example - it's wide (which is good) but the details at 300 feet ahead aren't winning any prizes. Far more pixels are wasted on useless sky than are used on the road ahead.
Side by side seems unlikely in this as they claim both lenses have the same optical axis. But good to mention in the overview you give here.
No, a fisheye is still just a very wide lens with a single focal length. This lens claims to have two focal lengths.
The fisheye transform is destructive though. Reversing it is a probabilistic process (not really a big problem now with generative ML but still)
No it is not destructive, math-wise the transformation is bidirectional and can be used many times without any detail losses. The problem is sampling by the image sensor, some pixels endup with larger fiel-of-view than others, so reconstructed flat image of fractions of the fisheye would have different sharpness over the frame.
So it is destructive in a practical sense. You still need a generative process to fix the "sharpness problems" otherwise you will get a blurred halo after you deconvolve it.
I wouldn't want generative ML to infest my car's safety features tbh.
Fortunately you are wrong.
Fortunately you are wrong.
nit: All wide lenses also capture a "telephoto" image in the center. The only thing a telephoto lens does is to spread that image out over the whole sensor.
Maybe their lens is variable focal length, providing more magnification in the center at a presumed cost of clarity.
Maybe their lens is variable focal length, providing more magnification in the center at a presumed cost of clarity.
I wonder whether that is entirely so (though the difference may not be relevant for the intended applications of this lens.) The reason I say this is that one can often tell whether a telephoto lens is being used at long range, as opposed to a normal lens at shorter distance, by the way the former seems to compress the longitudinal axis (at least when one is watching a movie rather than a still image.) This effect seems to me to be independent of focal depth, in that it does not seem to depend on having nearby or distant objects markedly out-of-focus, though I may be mistaken about this. Do magnified long-distance movies shot with normal focal-length lenses look like their telephoto equivalents?
Yes, mathematically telephoto is exactly just cropped wide angle. The same light field is falling on the front element of either lens so, modulo focus effects and distortion, it could not be otherwise.
(Differing projections/distortions such as fisheye are likewise exactly equivalent to mathematical transforms for the same reason.)
You can see that this is true when using a (physical) zoom lens. When zooming, there is no change in the projected image of any sort other than it simply grows larger.
The effect you are referring to is complementary to parallax and is likewise due exactly to physical proximity to or distance from the subject being photographed. (Telephoto lenses require the subject to be further away to remain in the frame; in doing so, they move relatively closer to the background, thus longitudinally compressing the scene.)
(Differing projections/distortions such as fisheye are likewise exactly equivalent to mathematical transforms for the same reason.)
You can see that this is true when using a (physical) zoom lens. When zooming, there is no change in the projected image of any sort other than it simply grows larger.
The effect you are referring to is complementary to parallax and is likewise due exactly to physical proximity to or distance from the subject being photographed. (Telephoto lenses require the subject to be further away to remain in the frame; in doing so, they move relatively closer to the background, thus longitudinally compressing the scene.)
The source of that compression effect is the relative distances top the sensor of different elements in the picture - so a result of long vs short range, rather than long vs short focal length. At a long range, your nose is 1% closer to sensor than your eyes are. At a _really_ close range, it's maybe 50% closer to the sensor than your eyes are. Given a fixed range, though, you can achieve the same look by using a long lens, or by cropping a shot taken with a shorter lens.
The thing is, distance and focal length aren't independent. People don't usually shoot long lenses in close quarters, and don't shoot distant subjects with wide angle lenses, we just tend to fill our frames with the subject. That means the compression effect is technically not related to focal length, but in practice ends up showing up more when using longer lenses.
The thing is, distance and focal length aren't independent. People don't usually shoot long lenses in close quarters, and don't shoot distant subjects with wide angle lenses, we just tend to fill our frames with the subject. That means the compression effect is technically not related to focal length, but in practice ends up showing up more when using longer lenses.
> Do magnified long-distance movies shot with normal focal-length lenses look like their telephoto equivalents?
Generally, I think the answer is yes. But the more complicated answer is that every lens design has its own flavor of distortion. An image from a lens optimized for telephoto shots is going to have slightly different characteristics than a cropped image from a lens optimized for wide shots.
The compressed effect I think you are referring to is likely attributable to perspective, most noticeable when the movie does one of those zoom shots where they keep the subject at the same relative size in the frame while moving the camera in or out. Like on this shot: https://youtu.be/in_mAvHu9E4?t=19
Generally, I think the answer is yes. But the more complicated answer is that every lens design has its own flavor of distortion. An image from a lens optimized for telephoto shots is going to have slightly different characteristics than a cropped image from a lens optimized for wide shots.
The compressed effect I think you are referring to is likely attributable to perspective, most noticeable when the movie does one of those zoom shots where they keep the subject at the same relative size in the frame while moving the camera in or out. Like on this shot: https://youtu.be/in_mAvHu9E4?t=19
This is definitely a real effect. I can’t doodle this out right now but if you grab a piece of paper and draw out the triangles for a pinhole camera with different focal lengths you can see how the angles (and horizontal separation at the image plane) are quite different with different focal lengths.
It must be a lens that smoothly varies focal length depending on the distance from the center. You want pedestrians and bikes on the vicinity, as wide angle as possible and cars far away for emergency braking and ACC in the center of the image when going straight on a highway.
I don't know if it needs to be smoothly varying instead of having just two zones with a step between them.
Either way, I'd expect it to need significant amount of processing to get anything useful.
Either way, I'd expect it to need significant amount of processing to get anything useful.
This is fascinating, I didn't think that was possible.
What would be the optimal sensor geometry for such a lens? The distortion would be crazy, wouldn't it? Nowhere near a rectilinear projection.
What would be the optimal sensor geometry for such a lens? The distortion would be crazy, wouldn't it? Nowhere near a rectilinear projection.
Like many here, my first thought was "telephoto is just a crop of a wide-angle, so what are they bragging about?" Here's my speculation:
Most lenses are "distortion corrected" because they assume they will be displayed on a flat surface. A little explanation for those not familiar: When you take a picture of a brick wall with your camera parallel to the wall, notice that the bricks on the edge of the photo are the same size as the ones in the center, even though the edge bricks are further away from the camera. This means more pixels are allocated per degree of view near the edge of the field-of-view than at the center.
An "uncorrected" lens is basically what we would call a "fish-eye" lens. Here (ideally) the same number of pixels are in a one-degree circle in the center of the field-of-view as are in a one-degree circle near the edge.
I don't think they would crow about just using an "uncorrected" lens either, so I'm going to guess that this is a "reverse-corrected" lens system where a one-degree circle in the center gets more pixels than it would at the edge. This would be the obvious approach if they want a good center crop but want to capture all the periphery as well.
Most lenses are "distortion corrected" because they assume they will be displayed on a flat surface. A little explanation for those not familiar: When you take a picture of a brick wall with your camera parallel to the wall, notice that the bricks on the edge of the photo are the same size as the ones in the center, even though the edge bricks are further away from the camera. This means more pixels are allocated per degree of view near the edge of the field-of-view than at the center.
An "uncorrected" lens is basically what we would call a "fish-eye" lens. Here (ideally) the same number of pixels are in a one-degree circle in the center of the field-of-view as are in a one-degree circle near the edge.
I don't think they would crow about just using an "uncorrected" lens either, so I'm going to guess that this is a "reverse-corrected" lens system where a one-degree circle in the center gets more pixels than it would at the edge. This would be the obvious approach if they want a good center crop but want to capture all the periphery as well.
Exactly; in other words, a telephoto may just be "a crop of a wide-angle," but in a wide-angle lens, the area any given field of view covers on a sensor will always be lower resolution than than if it were spread across the entire sensor by a telephoto lens.
Given the automotive context of this product, I would expect the goal was to maximize the resolution for center FOV (more clearly resolve objects further down the road) while simultaneously maximizing the overall FOV angle (see closer objects in peripheral vision).
In practice, the raw image probably looks like the old Photoshop "bulge" filter, and then somewhere in the image pipeline, it will get reprojected into a regular image that is quite blurry at the edges and becomes increasingly high-res toward the center.
(Another way of looking at this would be that this is an optical adaptation to the uniform, cartesian nature of image sensors, allowing a "foveated" image without a gradation in sensor pixel density.)
Given the automotive context of this product, I would expect the goal was to maximize the resolution for center FOV (more clearly resolve objects further down the road) while simultaneously maximizing the overall FOV angle (see closer objects in peripheral vision).
In practice, the raw image probably looks like the old Photoshop "bulge" filter, and then somewhere in the image pipeline, it will get reprojected into a regular image that is quite blurry at the edges and becomes increasingly high-res toward the center.
(Another way of looking at this would be that this is an optical adaptation to the uniform, cartesian nature of image sensors, allowing a "foveated" image without a gradation in sensor pixel density.)
This sounds pretty elegant but I don't think it's correct.
I don't have a good sense for what the R&D required to spin up a new bespoke sensor is, but I think it's sort of high - I assume there's a reason Nikon seem to source most of their sensors from Sony. Assuming you get to use a custom sensor for your camera, you also lose a bit of sensitivity at the "fovea."
Also, Nikon's own press release also refer specifically to an "optical lens system with both telephoto and wide-angle lens functions," which leads me to believe this isn't an innovation at the sensor level.
I don't have a good sense for what the R&D required to spin up a new bespoke sensor is, but I think it's sort of high - I assume there's a reason Nikon seem to source most of their sensors from Sony. Assuming you get to use a custom sensor for your camera, you also lose a bit of sensitivity at the "fovea."
Also, Nikon's own press release also refer specifically to an "optical lens system with both telephoto and wide-angle lens functions," which leads me to believe this isn't an innovation at the sensor level.
I don't think the parent comment is saying this is a new sensor; rather that the lens spreads the center over a wider area of the sensor (hence more pixels) and squeezes the edges into a smaller area (hence less pixels).
I was talking about the lens achieving the difference in image distribution across the sensor, not a sensor with non-uniform pixels.
I don't think you can get enough difference in the effective focal length to make this worthwhile with a single fisheye like that although I might be wrong.
I’m imaging a variable focal length across the image plane, decreasing as the distance to the centre increases.
I imagine two optical paths that coincide at the output. But who knows, no details are provided, so it's only speculation.
I imagine it taking pictures like this:
https://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/escher-today/balcony/?lang=...
https://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl/escher-today/balcony/?lang=...
It’s nice to see innovation in optics yet I think it's more for niche scenarios like sports
Couldn’t find the article inside this ad collection.
This has no future with 200mpx sensors becoming common.
200mpx sensors have an incredible future with this becoming available
You'd need some incredible amount of processing power to process all that data, and it also assumes the lens is even "sharp enough" to capture that resolution.
Even high-end full frame lenses + sensors with a fixed focal length struggle to reach 200MP of detail. (60MP Sony A7RV with pixel shift can take pictures with 240MP). No way this weird monstrosity can get anywhere near 200MP in a moving vehicle.
Even high-end full frame lenses + sensors with a fixed focal length struggle to reach 200MP of detail. (60MP Sony A7RV with pixel shift can take pictures with 240MP). No way this weird monstrosity can get anywhere near 200MP in a moving vehicle.
Cropping isn't the same as capturing at a different focal length.
Isn’t it optically? Ignoring lens imperfections and assuming infinite resolution, you should get the same image cropping vs. equivalent focal length, no?
I think it does, yes. Cropping 25% of the center of a 35mm F/2.0, you'd get the equivalent of a 70mm F/4.0, but with only 25% of the pixels obviously.
I expect depth of focus to be different.
It will not, I specifically included the F-stops for that reason.
The depth of field is determined by the focus distance and the aperture of the lens. Both remain unchanged.
Note that 35mm F/2.0 is the same aperture as 70mm F/4.0. Both lenses have an aperture of 17.5mm. (35/2.0 == 70/4.0)
You can easily verify this with your favorite zoom lens. If you have an 24-70 F/2.8 available to you, you can verify by taking 2 pictures; one at 35mm F/2.8 and one at 70mm F/5.6. Crop the 35mm one to 25% area (half the width, half the height). Render both images to the same size (print, fill screen, whatever) and see for yourself.
The depth of field is determined by the focus distance and the aperture of the lens. Both remain unchanged.
Note that 35mm F/2.0 is the same aperture as 70mm F/4.0. Both lenses have an aperture of 17.5mm. (35/2.0 == 70/4.0)
You can easily verify this with your favorite zoom lens. If you have an 24-70 F/2.8 available to you, you can verify by taking 2 pictures; one at 35mm F/2.8 and one at 70mm F/5.6. Crop the 35mm one to 25% area (half the width, half the height). Render both images to the same size (print, fill screen, whatever) and see for yourself.
Yes, depth of focus will be larger, as signified by the larger f-number.
I think it's not the same. Changing focal length changes the perspective warping, right? That's why fisheye lenses look crazy, and telephoto lenses "compress" depth.
This might be a function of the sensor geometry too, though.
Cropping the centre of a fisheye photo will look the same as a normal or telephoto lens if they are taken at the same distance (the crop will have less resolution of course)
After looking it up, yes you are right, they are the same. I was thinking of changing the distance to subject instead.
Fisheye lenses look crazy because they are deliberately made that way. Rectilinear lenses don't do it.
> assuming infinite resolution
this is an assumption that goes against the concept of "f-number" so if one does it, they should not expect to get to anything sensible.
this is an assumption that goes against the concept of "f-number" so if one does it, they should not expect to get to anything sensible.
I just meant sensor pixels, because you’re obviously losing those when cropping, but you get the same perspective as from larger focal length (since you’re not moving).
I agree that the images correspond to the same region in object space. Further assumptions on optical resolution don't work well, as the optical resolution depends on the f-number.
The angular resolution depends purely on the aperture diameter, not the f-number. There should be no difference between capturing the image in high resolution, and blowing it up for a lower resolution sensor.
All that should be needed is a 200mpx sensor that can output the entire frame in 12mpx, and 12mpx of the central area in full resolution. It's similar to how our eyes work.
Let me guess, it's going to be "AI assisted"
They started the development in 2020, so it may still be a blockchain.