|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|It is requested that an optical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.
Adobe light field camera
I merged the article adobe light field camera with this article. However i am unable to find any resource that is mentioning the term adobe light filed camera at all. I think the thing that is meant here is the focused plenoptic camera or pleonptic camera 2.0. As the article talks about a prototype and todor georgiev from adboe is publishing a lot of papers on plenoptic 2.0 cameras i think that the article adobe light field camera is about the prototype he is using. Can anyone help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(be kind, it's my first time putting a page on wikipedia. I was surprised there was nothing on this topic yet.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2005 November 18
- It looks ok. :) I went and beefed it up a bit. --Scott McNay 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The unprocessed images look roughly like unprojected holographic pictures; how closely are they related?
- John Y. A. Wang says that the microlens looks like the compound eyes of insects; do insect eyes work in a similar manner, even though there is no focusing lens?
- There are plenty of pictures available; someone wanna link several to demonstrate?
--Scott McNay 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why does "Plenoptic Camera" redirect here?
There is another page called "Plenoptic Camera" with a capital C that redirects to this page, titled "Plenoptic camera" with a lowercase c. Is there any need for this?
126.96.36.199 23:23, 19 May 2007
- It's standard procedure to redirect from nonstandard spellings and capitalizations to the standard one. Dicklyon 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Advertisement like language
The title of this article is misleading, it appears to be more about the companies producing the products than about the technology behind them. If there are to be articles about the companies, then they should be separate from the article about the technology. Overall this article appears more like an advertisement for emerging companies than an overview of the technology like the title indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Scam of refocusing
Why can't I simply get a normal picture that is focused at all points in it? Why should I have to limit my focus to one point at a time, wasting time shifting from one point to another? What a gimmick and a scam. Any such commercial product that does not have a feature of spatial focus stacking built-in as a core feature should be deleted from the article! It's not a camera if it doesn't take a real picture. --IO Device (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Art --184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's one thing to have focus-point selection available as an optional feature. It's a whole other (extreme) thing to make it the primary feature, while not providing the more practical feature of focus stacking! The primary purpose of most photographs is not art; it is to convey information. Art shouldn't be at the expense of needless and massive information loss. I won't even get into the subjective notion of what is better art. --IO Device (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Requested move #2
I may be stirring up an old argument, which is not my idea of fun, but I just removed the hyphens from "light-field" in the body of the article and hereby request that the article's name be similarly de-hyphenated. I belatedly noticed the argument for the hyphen by @Dicklyon: above, which is well-taken, but my understanding is that we must follow common usage and not attempt to dictate it. If that is not the case, then I would gladly accept volunteers for a war against the term "lenticular lens", which I consider abominably redundant and which confusingly reuses a longstanding optometrists' term, but it has come into common use now and I am resigned to living with it. Not using the hyphen does not appear to conflict with any absolute requirement in the MOS, but perhaps I am overlooking something there. AVarchaeologist (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Including the hyphen seems to help clarify the meaning by use of a compound adjective, per MOS:HYPHEN. This is about a camera for capturing light fields, not about a lightweight field camera. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- The hyphen may disambiguate, but without exception it does not appear anywhere in the list of references or in the few online sources I have checked. "Lightfield" turns up in file names and would make a nice unambiguous neologism, but, again, my understanding is that we have to hew to real-world current usage, which is spaced and hyphenless. AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)