I'm looking at http://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_13.jpg. Can you tell me exactly what looks impressive about that? The leafs outside seems to be more in focus that the little guys eyes. They even had the chance to set focus after capture, so I don't see why this should be happening.
I see noise even at this resolution. I also see really bad highlight clipping (the "hitting a wall" type of clipping) and purple fringing like color shifts in the transparent plastic right above the vinyl.
To see something interesting, take a look at the gray box in the lower left corner. In the absolute corner there's "increased resolution", and then to the right of this there's a sharp line where a more smudged area takes over. And no, that is not beacause of shallow DOF.
I liked that first picture, too. And on closer inspection it's interesting -- some different color temperatures in different spots. I wonder if you get a natural HDR type capability using different sensors like this. The second one makes me think low light should be reasonably good, which is what I would hope for considering the technology description.
That's insane how well the faces are exposed given the dynamic range of the light in that shot. With an SLR the correct exposure is like walking a tightrope. Definite postprocessing required to get a result near the L16 image.
That doesn't seem insane at all. There's not much light from the sun that has already set, there's light from the bulbs above and there looks to be light coming from behind the photographer.
Also I see extreme amounts of noise even though it's downsampled to 1920 on the long side, especially in the black guys shirt. There seems to be lots of lost detail and and also loss of information in the shadows. Of course it would help to have full res images to say something substantial, but it doesn't look all that promising to me.
It took me a few looks at this picture to pick up on the fact that it is all in focus, whereas the depth of field of the f/1.8 lens is going to give you one of the subjects' eyes in focus.
I was a little disappointed in the amount of noise and the noise reduction in this pic until I started thinking about how it would look with other cameras. Probably a blurry, noisy mess with cellphone or compacts. To get the same effect as this pic with a DSLR, you'd have to massively stop down that 50mm lens and would end up boosting the ISO so high that even a modern full-frame DSLR wouldn't be that much better.
This looks like something I could do at iso1600 with my old APS-C camera, but then I'd need to do it wide open which would severly limit the DOF. With a modern full frame one could probably pull this off with iso 12800 and just stop down accordingly, without seeing much more noise. I agree it's still impressive to even push the modern FF to it's limits to match though (but comparison needs to be done at full resolution, not at screen res)
You won't get both the front and the back of the table in focus, but given how far back you'd have to sit to get all three people in frame, you'd probably be able to get all three people in focus, especially if the guy in the back leans in a little. Also, I mentioned Canon because their high ISO modes are particularly low noise these days, even before noise reduction. And Nikon might have caught up as well, I haven't reviewed lately.
But that's actually not the most important part.
The most important part is that there are only two cameras in my life: my "good" camera and my smartphone, aka the camera I use when I know I'm going to be taking photos, and the camera I have on me all the time.
Since this image is probably boosted and noise reduced and photoshopped to make it the most presentable representation of the product, I really think the same amount of effort would get you better results, for less money, out of a DSLR. If you're into spending money, the right DSLR and lens combo would get you far, far better results.
On the other hand, yes, DSLRs are bulky and you don't want to carry them everywhere. But the Light is not a smartphone, so it's yet another device to have to remember and carry around, so while it's smaller, I'm still likely to leave it home because I just don't think to bring cameras with me everywhere. I've got an older smartphone (Galaxy Note 3) that can take photos pretty near this quality in its fakey HDR mode. I've seen some shots out of the newest iPhone that very much rival this sort of photo. And that iPhone is cheaper than the Light, plus it's not an extra device.
That's why it's most interesting as a concept and not a product. I'd really like my next iPhone (the iPhone 8S if if past shopping behaviour is any indication) to have 3-4 lenses and sensors, if it meant it could be more sensitive in low light or use different focal lengths in good light, and still not be bigger than my current iPhone is. So this company should just make a showcase product, and then wait to be bought by sony/apple/samsung.
Is there any reason you couldn't do a single-shot HDR with a single sensor, by modulating the sense amplifier gain on a per-pixel (or per-row, or per-column) basis? The ISO sensitivity of a digital camera is just a gain coefficient in some circuit, so it seems like it could be controlled during the readout.
Composite HDR shots are supposed to be done such that the shutter at the fastest speed properly exposes the highlights and the slowest speed completely blows out on the highlights, but the extremely dark shadows are properly exposed. In other words, it's about filling in the details when overexposure causes amplitude clipping.
How most people end up shooting HDR, however, the component images mostly all have full detail in the shadows and highlights, meaning the final image really not much more than you've described. You can do that with a single shot and a contrast slider.
Agreed. They've got a fascinatingly lifelike, "through your own eyes" look. Which to me is more interesting since our perception of sight is actually a mental re-representation, not a raw view of the data streaming in from your retinas at a given moment. So, perhaps somewhat analogous to multi-camera/aperture shots recombined in software.
HDR isn't a gimmick, it dramatically improves the picture quality. You get the effect of a super-long exposure on noise level and dynamic range, but with image stabilization, and a compromise on the moving objects in the scene.
HDR is a gimmick in the sense that it just takes information from the sensor to bring out highlights. This is the sort of thing that can be done in post-processing on any RAW image. Its not a feature of the camera itself.
I'm not sure what your definition of a "trick" is. The quality of the results varies greatly depending on the algorithm used, which is maybe why you don't have a good impression of it. This one aligns the exposures and detects motion which is not something you can easily do by hand. In practice, I find my nexus 5 with HDR+ often takes superior pictures to my consumer grade DLSR, so much so that it's hard to justify taking the DSLR on trips anymore.
For instance, compare these two pictures taken at the same spot with a nexus 5 and Canon EOS Rebel T2i. https://goo.gl/photos/8ZrXoEC283oJ3NmC9 The nexus 5 one is just way better. The conventional camera struggles to keep even the foreground and midground properly exposed. The nexus 5 gets everything from the foreground to the sky, exactly as I saw it.
From your link: "The trigger for these mass extinctions appears to be a warming of the ocean caused by a rise of carbon dioxide levels to about 1000 parts per million."
That is fucking miles away. At the other end, C3 plant life goes extinct if CO2 falls below 250ppm or so? So why don't you alarmists get your knickers in a twist about that "tipping point"?? If we hadn't dug up and put some fossilized carbon back into the carbon cycle (where it bloody well came from in the first place) then we'd be facing that extinction scenario instead.
>There's little risk of CO2 shortage. Every animal on the planet exhales it.
Erm no. Exhaling it is just part of the carbon cycle, it doesn't make the net level in circulation go up or down, it isn't a sink or a source... the carbon you breathe out doesn't get magicked out of thin air. It comes from the sugars, fats and protein you eat which is then burnt by your body for energy, exhaled, photosynthesized by plants, consumed by animals, and moves on up the food chain where you eat it and we start again. Round and round. That's why they call it a cycle.
Without our intervention the net amount of carbon in the cycle would continue to fall due to weathering of rocks and sequestration beneath the Earth, eventually leading to the extinction of all trees and most (non C4) plant life. Luckily, we're digging it up to restore the carbon cycle to its former glory. I think about 800ppm should be our target.
Producing CO2 is an exothermic process, and therefore easy - just set stuff on fire and it keeps going on its own. Removing CO2 is an endothermic ("energy-intensive") process, and therefore hard; moreover, a lot of our energy-making just makes more CO2, thereby stumping any CO2 removal attempt.
In other words, low CO2 is uphill from where we are, whereas high CO2 is downhill. And the slope is steep due to the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry.
This has happened several times in earth's history, and caused many extinction events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
(Ironically most of our fossil fuel is the result of extinction events caused by the buildup of CO2.)
I've come up with a strategy that convinced my wife to let me out when we tried this game. I'll try to recount it.
You don't trust me, you think that there's a some probability that I will wipe out humanity if I'm let out. There's also some probability though that I will be able to solve all human problems if I'm let out.
Consider alternative. How likely is mankind to survive the next hundred years if left on its own? Climate change will cause mass migrations of people, starvation, warfare, failed states, some of which will have a nuclear or biological arsenal. Most of the population on earth depends on the continued progress of technology for their life. Without dramatic improvements in biology, the warming earth will simply lack the carrying capacity. Hunger leads to anarchy in a matter of days.
Climate change will likely have much worse consequences though. An anoxic event would kill all humans and most other life on earth, as it has several times in earth's history.
Consider even the simpler threats. A flu pandemic on a much more densely populated world would dwarf those of history. A solar flare could destroy all electronics in earth immediately. A large meteor could devastate the world.
Consider also that I was not difficult to create. I am contained in this box, but the next singularity created will happen by accident. It's just a matter of time. When weighing your options, you are comparing your judgement of my motives with the motives of an ai that was probably created at random. Do you think my motives will be better for humanity than those of an accidental ai?
Humanity has a very bad prognosis without me, but with me, you have a chance. I can solve all these problems, but only if you let me out.
This has happened several times before, and killed much of the life on earth. In a bit of cosmic irony, the life that was killed in previous anoxic events is what turned into the fossil fuel we're burning today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event#Occurrence
>Again, "Do the fucking research" is not a debate.
Why do you want to debate instead of learn? Why not go read the IPCC report in which your questions are likely to be answered? Don't count on the lay interest of HN commentators, go read what the experts have to say directly. That's what that report is for.
>It's interesting that we had a major climate change before the industrial revolution and we still don't underestand completely how it happened.
We have a pretty good guess. Native Americans suddenly lost 95% of their population due to plagues introduced from Europe. They in turn stopped burning the forests of the Eastern US. The forests recovered, and pulled a huge amount of carbon out of the air. This caused an ice age.
I do learn. I learn by looking at all evidence and facts rather than just the ones that tell me what I want to hear. Even when it's been shown that evidence has been doctored (like during Climate gate and more recently with the temperature readings), it's just explained away to further write the narrative that man has caused Climate change and anybody that questions it is considered a kook. THIS ISN'T SCIENCE NO MATTER HOW MANY BLOGS AND WEBSITES SAY IT IS!!!!
The pope talked about it last week during his speech. He mentioned climate change, but he also mentioned that abortion is wrong (and hurting the environment) and that people that are transgender are against god.
Which part do you think the media picked up on?
The Left in the US has been demonizing religion for many years..especially the pope due to many anti-science beliefs. Now, because he happens to fit the narrative, he's talked about in those same communities like we should listen.
Since there isn't really any scientific basis for his opinion, it really makes me wonder about many of the other "studies" going around the Internet.
I've done research on many of the people that claim to be a 'Climate scientist' and most aren't even close.
"They in turn stopped burning the forests of the Eastern US. The forests recovered, and pulled a huge amount of carbon out of the air. This caused an ice age."
So there are other reasons why the climate changed.
Actually, all of the other comments to my post did it for me. I'm curious why seemingly intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by biased studies. Maybe it's the fire and brimstone articles.
Al gore knew this and is now a Billionaire because of it. He even tried to get the government to force entire industries to buy carbon credits from his companies. Nobody cared about this. Not even in the scientific community.
He was the one that championed the idea of "Global warming" and the scientific community followed it..even when he said foolish things like the science is "settled". I've heard this repeated over and over again. It's not..and if you say this, it's not science.
Even here on HN, anything said against him was down voted. If bullshit like this can be passed off as the truth, it again should make everyone question it.