How well I remember the 200 MPG carburetor.
User ID wrote:
How well I remember the 200 MPG carburetor.
Right?
And Depth of Focus is not Depth of Field - the latter (as most on this forum know) has to do with the band of acceptable sharpness in front of the lens; the former is the depth of sharpness behind the lens at the focus plane (where the film or digital imaging chip lays).
But perhaps with the upcoming cold fusion power plants we will see the light.
f8lee wrote:
Right?
And Depth of Focus is not Depth of Field - the latter (as most on this forum know) has to do with the band of acceptable sharpness in front of the lens; the former is the depth of sharpness behind the lens at the focus plane (where the film or digital imaging chip lays).
But perhaps with the upcoming cold fusion power plants we will see the light.
The wide
overall abuse of tech terms in the "report" kinda shreds any possibility of cred.
User ID wrote:
How well I remember the 200 MPG carburetor.
What?? You don't believe in magic??
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
"it can maintain focus for objects that are about 6 meters apart from each other"
"This new lens could have many interesting applications outside photography such as creating highly efficient illumination for LIDAR that is critical for many autonomous systems, including self-driving cars"
"The researchers demonstrated the new lens using infrared light and relatively low numerical aperture"
The article is really unclear. Probably by design since a flat lens would probably be the subject of a patent application.
So it 'maintains focus' for objects about 6 meters apart from each other? How far from the lens?
Many interesting applications outside photography? LIDAR doesn't always deal with images.
Demonstrated with IR and 'low numerical aperture'? rather non-specific. What is 'low'? f/2? f/16?
Sounds like a great concept, but the biggest omission is the lack of an image showing what the 'lens' can do. And most of us are interested in visible wavelengths.
The only time the word "image" is used in the article is describing "traditional cameras such as the ones in most smartphones".
If you notice, their claims are mostly "Thinner, Lighter, Cheaper"
Their certainly may be something to those claims, and they may find applications, especially where computing power is part of the imaging system.
Our current camera sensors and lenses use some of those techniques.
Remember the LYTRO camera just a few years ago that claimed to be able to adjust focus AFTER the image was taken?
They could actually do a bit of it, but it just was not 'ready for prime time'.
I applaud the effort and the research, wish them well, but my money stays in my pocket until there is a product that is More useful than what I use now
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.