NunoC Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · why buy an expensive SLR when computational photography exists on your phone? | |
I'd offer a different view and say the current situation is transitory.
Phones give impressive results with "computational photography" for a couple of reasons. There is no shutter, so when you capture a photo, in reality the phone will be looking at the last few seconds of continuous exposure and merging multiple frames to build your photo, and it has those frames to work with as independent units so it can distort them and stabilise camera and subjects. And second, it's where the action is, both in terms of silicon and algorithmic development; it's where you get the biggest payoff, RoI, for innovating.
But it doesn't need to be like this in perpetuity. Sooner ou later, you can bring this tech to standalone cameras (global/electronic shutters, silicon, and algorithms) and then cameras will be better than phones at this too *. Some of that exists already in expensive cameras, like the A9 series. And for most it won't be worth the expense. But I don't think that kills cameras, it only makes them more niche.
* The silicon/algorithms can even be left to post-processing. All you need to be able to do is, as on phones, for every exposure, record not only the "actual" picture, but also a 1 second, 60 frame, RAW movie of the second before you even pressed the shutter. That gives the computational photography in Sony this or Adobe something more data to work with. Our cameras are already live view, the only limitation is how much of this we can actually capture and record in a way that is similarly helpful (as on phones). That's maybe harder to do on a full-frame sensor, but we'll get there.
|