2018

>2018
>still no phones with camera with natural depth of field effect
Why can't we do any better?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-09-06 Portrait Mode Explained - YouTube.jpg (1708x960, 287K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-F5D-7WRA8o
edwinsetiawan.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/dof-vs-bokeh/
colesclassroom.com/depth-of-field-bokeh-and-compression-whats-difference/
bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1046808-REG/lytro_illum_light_field_digital.html
google.com/search?source=hp&ei=JwWQW_SfKOK1tgWu9KHYCw&q=depth of field vs bokeh&btnK=Google Search&oq=depth of field vs bo&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0j0i22i30l9.1172.6005..7458...0.0..0.125.1221.13j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0i131j0i131i20i264j0i20i264j0i67j0i20i263j0i22i10i30.cjFvfxZNpSg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera
people.com/movies/dave-bautista-may-not-return-guardians/amp/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because of physics. For a depth of field to be narrow you need much much bigger apertures, and for that you need bigger lenses (and sensors, which are very expensive). Unless you want to pay out of your ass for a phone with a fuckhuge lense that doesn't even compare to a tiny DSLR in terms of quality, there's nothing much to do about that.

Are you retarded?

You have a small camera, with a tiny sensor that can't pick up as much light as a camera with a larger CMOS sensor, such as the Hasselblad. The camera on your phone has an aperture of roughly f/4.8 +, and its lower lighting intake is generated by emulating an ISO at a higher speed, which results in a poor depth of field compared to an SLR, which on can buy a lens that has f/1.4 with 50mm, which, due to the dilation of its aperture, take in different type of focal point. Phone cameras are more of a "Point and Shoot" experience compared to SLR photography. So, the reason you can't get a depth of field affect, is because you're terrible at photoshop.

>He doesn't know about olloclip
Sad state of Jow Forums

Attached: eba9_olloclip_iphone_camera_lens.jpg (300x300, 9K)

youtube.com/watch?v=-F5D-7WRA8o

Oh yea, I know about those. But those toy lenses don't improve the lighting intake of the sensor. You're still using a sensor that intakes less lighting than a larger one, and you still can't adjust the aperture of the camera. If you think that is a solution, you're not really understanding the question. A radial dilation =/= proper light intake.

You should learn about light, Jamal.

That's literally attaching a separate camera to your phone.

try the HTC U11.

That sensor is still tiny. Even at an f/2.0, it can't produce a natural depth of field intake. You can list any phone you want, but its physics that determines the intake of a light into a sensor to produce the depth of field, not another camera.

Since when did Jow Forums become drop-out central?

Natural depth of field requires physical parts to achieve. Parts too large for a phone, it's simple physics dude.

I'm just saying U11 has the best camera but is almost never used in these comparisons because plebs don't know about anything other than applel ,pixlel and samshit.

what's a cheap beginner camera to get off a pawnshop?

>best camera
The image to the right is the best the HTC u11 can manage in depth of field. It has an aperture of f/2.0 and can "emulate" f/1.8 but it still lacks the ability to capture a true f/1.8 dilation. If you were to create a juxtaposition between this can lets say, a Nikon D50 with an f/1.8 50mm lens, the camera from 2006 would still produce a better quality image. The focal length on a phone camera seems almost non existent. OP asked about depth of field, not "What's your opinion on the best phone camera?" I'm going to say the stupidest thing that can probably get through to your lack of knowledge:

It's because science.

Jow Forums isn't really Jow Forums anymore... This new generation of kids are really stupid. Like really fucking stupid.

Attached: htc-u11-2-3.jpg (616x462, 74K)

Nigga, Hassy's sensor is fucking huge how can you compete with that

Attached: jbareham_160411_1012_0031.0.jpg (1500x1000, 221K)

>the best the U11 can manage
lmao suck my dick.

also
>muh Bokeh
only hacks wank over Bokeh this much.

How cheap?

Shut up photolet, go back

Attached: 1536139395418.jpg (342x368, 24K)

Bokeh is not depth of field. I really wish your parents could have afforded the abortion. Resources are being wasted on you.

Silicon Valley Chinkshit spygear compared to a medium format $10,000 hassy. Go fuck yourself.

>Bokeh is not depth of field.
the OP is about the quality of the out of focus part, which is Bokeh. kys fagget.

Here's an idea, use SONAR to artificially map the pixels to the distances and apply blur accordingly.

Attached: 1535758853717.jpg (346x510, 31K)

No, bokeh refers to the entire image being out of focus. Depth of field refers to a subject with a focal point.

Planned parenthood. fuck. You let this one go.

Great idea! This would help Google more easily 3D map our homes.

Imagine being this stupid and trying to get through life.

>bokeh refers to the entire image being out of focus
Holy shit is this bait?

Attached: frodo.jpg (1600x1201, 179K)

You are like a baby

Attached: Lytro-illum.jpg (1024x682, 80K)

>calling it a hassy

Attached: 1536078096442.jpg (4800x6046, 3.26M)

based komari poster

I give.
edwinsetiawan.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/dof-vs-bokeh/
colesclassroom.com/depth-of-field-bokeh-and-compression-whats-difference/

Jow Forums really isnt what it used to be.

>bokeh refers to the entire image being out of focus
look up the definition you brainlet cuck.

Attached: 1535445608932.jpg (645x729, 81K)

>attaches and entire camera to a phone just to use the screen as a viewfinder
>problem solved.

I think I've out grown 4chins.

>wordpress
lmao!!!!! KYS you mongoloid.

Attached: 1508160171244.png (381x311, 126K)

see
I know its hard for you to read. just try...

yeah your blog is a great source, see

That's a start. Now look up depth of field.

that's the distance, and has nothing to do with Bokeh quality, you mongoloid.

see
then

see
Then google depth of field vs bokeh

That's not the point of this camera, and it's the normal screen of the camera, not a smartphone

>samefagging mongoloid doesn't know that Bokeh is: and keep spamming hoping people would just quit the discussion.

MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN MAN

OCTA OCTAGON
OCTA OCTAGON

bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1046808-REG/lytro_illum_light_field_digital.html

literally and entire camera that uses your phone as a viewfinder.

google.com/search?source=hp&ei=JwWQW_SfKOK1tgWu9KHYCw&q=depth of field vs bokeh&btnK=Google Search&oq=depth of field vs bo&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0j0i22i30l9.1172.6005..7458...0.0..0.125.1221.13j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0i131j0i131i20i264j0i20i264j0i67j0i20i263j0i22i10i30.cjFvfxZNpSg

>because muh physics hurr durr
Clearly, I'm looking for a workaround you fucking autistic mouth breather. You can't be THIS dense.
Note how and are trying to work around it.

Because a big lens won't fit in your pocket. Though considering how nowadays phones are bigger than what we called tablets they might get that one day.

Its okay, you don't understand the world, but don't get too upset when you're proven to be stupid.

Are you retarded?
If you are talking about the "Built-In Wi-Fi and Lytro Mobile App for iOS", every single camera brand do this

You are too dense for a simple conversation. Go back to your autism remedy therapy, unironic retard.

Still not a solution to the depth of field problem on a phone.

Okay.

And you still haven't get the purpose of the camera I posted
Tip: it's not a normal camera

>OP:
"Still no phones with camera with natural depth of field effect."
>You:
Just buy a camera lol

You still didn't get the point.

Nokia tried in 2013
>Nokiahas invested in Pelican Imaging to produce a plenoptic camera system with 16-lens array camera expected to be implemented in Nokiasmartphonesin 2014.
I hope plenoptic camera in smartphone will become something someday.

The absolute physical size of the device matters.

With optics small can't be fucking good. That's why they are making big telescopes and have big cameras to shoot expensive movies.

Modern phones use a plethora of bullhit tricks and filters to try and look better than they are, multiple cameras to take two differnt shitty pictures and pretend to be a one good picture, some even claim to employ machine learning to guess what a good picture would look like from a shitty camera input but all that is bullshit smoke and mirrors.

A small camera cant be a good camera due to fundamentla laws of physics, optics and a few quantum eents.

This was covered in my original post about physics. What the person I replied to:
Posted a camera that attaches to your phone.

And you still don't get the reply. Its okay.

>Posted a camera that attaches to your phone.
It's not, faggot
Since you are retarded, let me spoonfeed you:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

Nah, let me spoon feed you:
OP asked why no PHONE has a natural depth of field. If you have to attach an entire separate device, you are not using your phone's lens.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Apparently. Most of the people ITT are beyond retarded. Arguing with them isn't going to teach them to comprehend.

There is research to implement this kind of sensor in smartphones.
Once we'll get this, we will have the DoF we want.

So is it currently a solution? Is this currently used in smartphones? Do you see the failure in your logic?

Currently no, but it's the future. Come on, it's supposed to be a "technology" board, not "consumer advice"

You can't research around physics brainlet

Yea so lets talk about technology, not what might or might not happen in a few years. OP asked a specific question. I gave a specific answer. And I read your wikipedia source, then read more on light field cameras, it would still require a larger lens with a huge aperture to achieve an adjustable depth of field. Its not in cameras because of this.

goddamn you're retarded

another low IQ shitskin. kill yourself animal

It looks like shit, who cares.

just apply blur and map strong lights to hexagons through software lol

Attached: 1521727163937.jpg (1296x730, 90K)

>natural depth of field effect
JUST FASHION, MAKE YOUR PHOTOS LOOK LIKE MADE FROM EXPENSIVE AND HEAVY CAMERA WITH BIG LENSS, BUT IT NOT

is this steve fucking jobs

I know you jest, but Dave Bautista in Blade Runner 2049.

Why would anyone want half of their picture to be all blurry?

>the aesthetic quality...
For fucks sake, it was right in front of you.

Trips confirm

Attached: impressive.png (457x303, 186K)

>.jpg

>No, bokeh refers to the entire image being out of focus.
End yourself immediately.

You're not a native English speaker aren't you? I wonder if there's any language in the world in which that sentence makes sense

You want the subject to be sharp and extraneous details in the background to be blurry, so as to emphasize the subject

BUT DUDE

AI DEPTH OF FIELD

AI

He is the latest rendition of athletes turned Hollywood actors (read: WWE fake wrestler supports the three pillars of Hollywood (support pedophilia, hate trump and suport rape) so he gets Triple AAA casting slots

people.com/movies/dave-bautista-may-not-return-guardians/amp/

Natural is impossible, but something like this could simulate it pretty well.
Or just, you know, buy a real camera.

Attached: c8de5bad6d03d57cf6d53e866ac98d7e.jpg (280x210, 16K)

When is Nvidia going to AI ray trace irl?

you asked for *natural* depth of field, not an artificial imitation

you got your answer

Get the fuck out, unironic autistic mouth breather

The fuck was Apple thinking?

Razor sharp eyes is what you want. People also like shallow depth of field and handily lenses like 85mm f1.4 give that and work in lower lughting conditions. Photography is all physics, photos are the way they are because of that. But go ahead and shoot f16 indoors, im sure people can learn to love noise as much as shallow dof

That was a rich idea on paper, but the actual implementation is useless. The photos have more artifacts than the British Museum and the dynamic range is no better than on run of the mill smartphone cameras.

I like how the iPhone has the worst white balance.

Yes, and remember you can't have extreme sharpness at f/16 or with tiny phone sensors due to diffraction.
I'm no bokeh whore but I never shoot below f/5.6 unless I actually need the depth of field.

I like how the iPhone amputates the entire left "hand".

I like to shoot at high shutter speeds, relatively far out, I like 3.2 to freeze motion under varying light (in the city). And yeah diffraction is a bitch, had some great landscapes early on made so-so by shooting past the diffraction limit. Hell even when I do do portraights I'm more liable to shoot largely at 4-5.6f most of the time since those razor thin focuses are a pain and most people want more shots to go through and less time being shot.

That too.

yeah man and dressing up a faggot with a skirt makes him a girl huh?

>gigantic lens
>tiny ass sensor
That's like strapping a garden hose to a pinhole and expecting decent water flow.

if the background of the pic on the right looks natural your eyes are fucked dude

Isn't depth of field created by having two cameras? Kindof like how our eyes work? If there were two cameras spaced around, you could use geometry and calc to get the distance and apply a blur

Attached: FCAA469F-4D85-4AE7-8234-2C018CC7569D.gif (243x226, 27K)

$300 and under cheap

If you say so...
Weird of you to bring that up, user.