1. Let there be light:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...nsless-camera/
:heart:
Printable View
1. Let there be light:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...nsless-camera/
:heart:
B.b.b.ut I'm conservative, and kinda Christain, and I think this is cool! :(
I will admit that it's almost bedtime and I've had a long day pulling levers at the factory, so I didn't read this as deeply as I would like. But doesn't it sorta seem like they just created a lens that is simply different than how we generally consider lenses to be?
I don't mean to diminish what they've done, just wondering how one defines lenses and optics as image-capture technology evolves.
I don't think that the term 'lens' is a s broad as you make it appear.
This pretty much makes this idea useless for every day usage, but maybe they can use there are some other uses for it.Quote:
The disadvantage, at least for the moment, is that it takes time to acquire the data for each image. So the camera only creates images of still scenes.
It isn't. A lens works through diffraction of light - that's the physical principle behind it. Everything else, while it may result in a picture, is not a lens.
It's an aperture assembly + a sensor
The idea at the heart of the system is cooler than conservative Christians could ever imagine:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/0...lgorithm/all/1
Yeah, stick it to 'em Aimless!
Well I'm probably conservative by Minx's standards, and some flavor of Christian as well, and I find it completely uninteresting so maybe he has a point. Or maybe excitation about imaging is the quirk and not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by coinich
Christians are known for not liking photographs because they steal your soul.
you're misremembering an amish myth. :p
That's not a myth. Old World Amish sects shun photography, not as a technology that "steals their soul", but as part of the modern 'English' world that "steals" from their modest principles. They see photos as vanity, and therefore, an obscenity.
...
that's what I said