[HN Gopher] Features that more cameras should have
___________________________________________________________________
Features that more cameras should have
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 65 points
Date : 2021-11-17 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (photographylife.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (photographylife.com)
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > 2. Sensor Dust Protector Curtain
|
| > Currently Found On: Sony A9 II and A1; Nikon Z9; Canon full-
| frame mirrorless cameras other than the EOS RP
|
| That's not really accurate - the Sony and Canon are just using
| one of the shutter curtains for this, while the Z9 doesn't have a
| shutter so gets a dedicated mechanism not nearly as fragile as a
| shutter.
|
| > 6. Bulb Mode Preview
|
| Not sure how this is supposed to work without having a non-
| destructive readout sensor, unless it's just an approximation
| based on a quicker exposure before starting the bulb exposure.
|
| > 8. Native Image Averaging
|
| idk all of those guys are shooting raw anyway, so just stack them
| which you were probably going to anyway?
|
| > 14. Raw Histograms
|
| Yeah.
|
| > 15. 16-Bit Raw
|
| Probably in the next generation of landscape cameras like the
| Z7III
|
| > 18. Base ISO Below 100
|
| Mostly a fight with physics.
| mfranc42 wrote:
| It's all fancy shit. But guess what. My 35mm camera from eighties
| has command back with intervalometer. I can say stuff like in 10
| minutes do an hour long exposure directly on the camera. The fact
| that I cannot do it on modern camera without cables or mobile
| phones is a travesty.
| dylan604 wrote:
| With modern post processing, why would you be interested in a
| single 1 hour exposure vs a stacked image?
|
| One thing that most people comparing a film camera and digtal
| camera by exposure lengths is the fact that a digital cameras
| image decreases the longer the chip is energized. Heat builds
| up, and the image gets more noisy the longer the exposure. One
| rule of thumb for time lapse is to have an interval in between
| shots as long as the exposure being taken to allow time for the
| sensor to cool back down. YMMV
| mfranc42 wrote:
| I have done 30 minutes exposures with digital (5D mark II and
| magic lantern) with very little noise, so I doubt sensor heat
| is the problem. Try to bump ISO and you got so much more
| noise.
|
| I often need it for HDRs at night. I know I can do like
| wayloads of high iso noisy short exposures and average them
| in post, but it's clunky and even harder to set up
| automatically. I would prefer something user friendly. When
| I'm shooting at night, it's often cold and even not so safe.
| Fiddling with apps and cable releases is not something I'd
| like to do.
|
| I know that the hardware is capable of it, but they just have
| to sell you that cable release or what not in order to unlock
| the capability, which is what I'm not happy about.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I use the same body, and shoot lots of long exposure night
| time stuff as well. If your doing hour long exposures,
| you're already fiddling with mounting gear, so small
| external intervelometer is the least of that needed gear. I
| have a custom VR rig that mounts multiple camera bodies
| that all shoot timelapse in sync. Imagine the cabling
| involved there and you can see why a single body with an
| external controller sounds like heaven to me.
|
| You don't have to do high ISO anything. If you're willing
| to shoot 1 hour exposure (which are you really doing that
| on DSLR?), seems like you'd be willing to shoot 30 2-minute
| exposures, or 60 1-minutes. What doesn't motion blur out in
| 1-minute shots other than maybe cars at a red light? Also,
| how many 1 hour exposure shots can you get out of a single
| battery charge (2 batts if using grip). I know doing 45s
| exposures with short intervals will chew up batteries for
| me.
|
| It seems to me that Canon has decided that if you're going
| to do longer than 30s exposure, you're going to be using
| bulb mode and an external controller. I know MagicLantern
| allows setting custom bulb exposures, but I haven't messed
| with that option. Its built in intervelometer isn't
| reliable for short intervals (anything 5s or less is iffy
| regarding consistent shooting frequency). With my wired
| controller, I can do 1s gaps. Anything less, and I start
| getting issues with dumping to card reliably on the old
| body. Using my custom arduino controller for .5s gaps with
| 1s exposure with camera mounted to car for motion blurry
| goodness freaked the mkII out for some reason. newer bodies
| handle it much better.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| My Fuji has this. Another stupid Limitation is the usual 30s
| limit for shutter speed.
| onion2k wrote:
| My Panasonic Lumix FZ82 has a built-in intervalometer, and stop
| motion, slow mo video, WiFi and Bluetooth remote control, and a
| lot more. Plus a 60* optical zoom. All for about $350 these
| days. Its a great daily-driver camera.
| mfranc42 wrote:
| I have Lumix S1. It has gazillion of features, but, for
| example, the exposure duration is limited to 1 minute. :-(
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| These limitations are just stupid. Thank God Fuji jumped
| from 30s to 15min a while ago.
| dboreham wrote:
| Agree on: the trend to get GPS data from a smartphone is
| particularly irritating (either drains power on the phone, or you
| forget to enable it). I miss the 6D/6Dii built-in GPS.
|
| I hadn't thought of sensor shift star tracking. That'd be useful,
| assuming it would work with, say, the R6.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I wonder how much space a GPS needs. It can't be much
| considering that I have a 50g watch with GPS that can run the
| GPS for 30 hours.
| ben7799 wrote:
| Some of these seem like they are workarounds that aren't going to
| be required in future camera designs.
|
| Others fall well into the amateur photography traps of "I must
| have this techno gadget in the camera to get better", whereas
| Pros have been getting that shot for decades without said gadget.
|
| I have a pretty fancy system (but have been gradually losing
| interest the last 5 years or so) but I feel like it's all
| becoming irrelevant over time and the camera companies are going
| to be left with a very small pro market (that's much more
| pragmatic about upgrades) and the hard core amateur market that
| just buys everything to show off.
|
| The biggest things that would keep camera systems relevant would
| be much better connectivity options to your phone or other
| device. Make it really easy and seamless, and wireless. Or put
| LTE right in the camera.
| barbegal wrote:
| I've wondered about a lot of these features and how they would be
| ubiquitous if only every brand of camera has a standard way of
| loading applications and interfacing with the sensor and lens.
|
| Sadly such an interface doesn't even exist on Android.
| matonias wrote:
| Tapping into this conversation... which brand has good software
| to play around with?
|
| Canon has https://magiclantern.fm/
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| One more feature I would like to see, I've never heard of a
| camera supporting it but there has been aftermarket support on
| some Canons:
|
| Automatic shooting of HDR exposures. Stacking them requires some
| human intervention and shouldn't be done on the camera, I'm
| simply thinking of the shooting. You put your camera on a tripod,
| select HDR and push the button. It shoots a frame and checks the
| histogram--are pixels falling off either end? If so, adjust only
| the shutter speed and shoot again. Keep doing so until the
| slowest shot has nothing falling off the dark end and the fastest
| shot has nothing falling off the bright end.
| mgdlbp wrote:
| I've seen several Fujifilm bridge cameras with in-camera
| stacking; not sure about the rest of their line.
| sainotbot wrote:
| Pretty sure you can choose DR100, DR200 or DR400 since the
| X-T1. My X-T4 definitely has it.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| That's not really HDR though.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Why does stacking them require human intervention? For a
| completely static scene I would have thought the algorithm is
| fairly simple and unambiguous.
| jl6 wrote:
| Whatever happened to love for Live Photos?
|
| I think they're great - absolutely perfect for situations with
| young kids who are constantly moving, or just to capture little
| vignettes of movement that bring a photo to life for a moment.
|
| But support for them is virtually non-existent outside the iOS
| Photos app.
|
| You can extract them as a pair of HEIC and MOV files, but I know
| of no Free photo management software that is capable of
| associating them and displaying them together (and yes, there are
| internal IDs in both files that make it possible to link them, so
| they aren't quite as fragile as most sidecar files, although they
| are still fragile because Apple for some insane reason decided
| not to make use of the HEIF container format's native ability to
| store both in the same file).
|
| I'm unsure if Android has an equivalent feature or how it's
| implemented, but I'm pretty sure no DSLRs have anything like it.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure no DSLRs have anything like it.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean - pretty much all of these can
| capture 4K video where each frame is about as good as a still
| from a phone camera.
| jl6 wrote:
| The equivalent would be a DSLR that can take 24MP stills and
| 4K (8MP) video simultaneously.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Some do.
| jl6 wrote:
| Help me out and let me know which ones?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| All of the current high-end cameras are pretty similar
| here and do around 30 fps stills shooting at full
| resolution or alternatively 8K (33 MP) video. Just 8K
| video alone is pretty much the same, as far as resolution
| is concerned, as yesteryears dedicated high-res bodies.
|
| At the levels below that you'll have to settle for full-
| res stills at somewhere between 14 and 20 fps or
| 4K30p/4K60p, for now.
| gengkev wrote:
| Pixel phones can take "Motion Photos" -- it seems like this is
| basically just an mp4 file stuffed into a jpg somehow (but
| without sound). The Google Photos app lets you export it as an
| mp4 or gif file, or pick a specific timestamp to export a still
| image.
|
| It looks like the Samsung Camera has something similar, but I'm
| not sure if it's compatible...
| mrandish wrote:
| One feature that wasn't mentioned is the option to capture and
| save as embedded metadata the camera's motion sensor info used
| for video stabilization. Some Sony cameras currently do this and
| the data can be used to increase stabilization quality by doing
| post processing in Sony's desktop app.
| spekcular wrote:
| A lot of these features are nice to have but definitely not
| essential, especially for general amateur photography.
|
| But here's one important feature the list misses: the ability to
| shoot uncompressed, or losslessly compressed, RAW images. The
| last time I checked, the introductory Sony cameras (the A6500 and
| its cousins) do not permit this. The customer can only access
| lossy compressed data. The same is true for lower-end Nikon
| DSLRs.
|
| Most of the time, this is not a problem - though in some
| situations with heavy postprocessing or harsh lighting, you will
| certainly see compression artifacts. I just find it amazing that
| they're asking customers to pay almost a thousand dollars for a
| camera+lens kit that doesn't support lossless compression, or let
| me access the true "raw" data.
|
| It's 2021! This is well-known technical knowledge taught in
| undergraduate CS classes.
| matja wrote:
| How did you determine that the RAW images are lossy-compressed?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Menu -> Format -> Lossless 2:1, Lossless 4:1 etc
|
| It's not a hidden feature by any stretch. Different vendors
| allow for different types. Some only allow a smaller frame
| size while still RAW. Some allow a compression to be applied.
|
| Shorter answer, read the specs or RTFM.
| mastazi wrote:
| > A lot of these features are nice to have but definitely not
| essential, especially for general amateur photography.
|
| While I agree with you, I feel like on a mirrorless, the Sensor
| Dust Protector Curtain is essential if you want to be able to
| change lenses while out in the field.
|
| Many years ago I used to work for a small local paper, they
| gave me a DSLR so I had the luxury of the sensor being at least
| partially protected by the mirror. (I wish they gave me two
| bodies so I didn't have to swap lenses, but it was a small
| newspaper and they didn't have a lot of money).
|
| Now I own a mirrorless (that I don't use professionally) and I
| would never attempt to change the lens unless I'm in an indoor,
| non-dusty room, without fans or a/c operating. Just looking at
| the naked sensor staring back at me makes me nervous ;-)
|
| I can't imagine swapping lenses on the mirrorless while on
| assignments, I think I would have to resort to buying a couple
| of bodies just to avoid lens swapping.
|
| The curtain protection would solve that problem.
| ryanianian wrote:
| > The customer can only access lossy compressed data
|
| Honest question - is this a tech or a biz decision? I.e., is it
| more expensive to include output to raw? More i/o requirements
| or totally different chipsets or the like? Or is "raw" just
| deemed a "pro" feature that they feel they can upcharge for?
| (e.g. paying to flip a bit to unlock more battery life in an
| EV)
| spekcular wrote:
| I think compression is done by default because it speeds up
| picture taking immensely. My understanding is that there's a
| buffer that holds recently shot pics while they're being
| written to the SD card. Clearly, if you use compression, you
| can fit more pics in the buffer, allowing more consecutive
| snaps before the camera locks up for a bit.
|
| Why it's lossy instead of lossless, I do not know. My guess
| is that lossy compression allows them to get more
| compression, and hence improve their effective buffer size
| for advertising purposes. I think 90% of the time this is a
| good trade-off. You can view some example artifacts here:
| https://stephenbayphotography.com/blog/sony-raw-
| compression-....
|
| [Note that the author mentions being able to access
| uncompressed raw on his Sony after 2015, but it's a pro-level
| model. For the amateur models I believe there's no such
| option.]
|
| Obviously, if you're trying to make them happen, you can do
| it, but for pics of your kids/pets/plants/etc. in normal
| daylight situations it shouldn't be a problem.
|
| Still, as a technically minded person, it's infuriating to me
| that I can't access the original data.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The lossy compression schemes used to be pretty simple, so
| they're a fast and easy way to reduce file size quickly, as
| older low-end cameras didn't have a ton of memory (costs
| money, y'know, and a modern camera has a few GB of RAM
| nowadays) or sometimes didn't support the newest/fastest card
| standards. In terms of IQ there is rarely a difference.
|
| Most cameras offer lossless compressed raw these days, some
| (e.g. the low-end Nikon Zs, and also the flagship Z9) don't
| even have uncompressed raw anymore, only lossless compressed
| or a choice of lossy options. Much to the chagrin of some
| people, a particular Youtuber especially, who make a huge
| deal out of using uncompressed raw. The person in question
| doesn't understand what the word "lossless" means and claims
| there's a difference between losslessy compressed raws and
| "true uncompressed" raws.
| threeseed wrote:
| It's more a product segmentation decision.
|
| Casual photographers are fine with just using OOC JPEGs and
| apps like Apple or Google Photos. They aren't paying for
| Lightroom or Camera One and worrying about the sensor's
| dynamic range or ISO performance.
|
| Also using RAW especially on higher megapixel sensors
| requires your entire stack to be more expensive. Computer
| needs to be fast with lots of hard drive space. You need a
| UHS-2 card reader as well as 300Mbps cards etc.
| notJim wrote:
| I agree with a lot of this stuff. I would really love to be able
| to do more processing in-camera. For example, if I'm doing focus
| or exposure bracketing, I am going to composite that in lightroom
| 100% of the time. Why can't the camera do this for me? I would at
| least love if I could tag those photos as being a pair, so that
| Lightroom could automatically detect this. I'm kind of surprised
| by how conservative camera manufacturers have been with adding
| new features. Some cameras don't even have intervalometers built
| in!
| pvg wrote:
| _so that Lightroom could automatically detect this_
|
| Lightroom's autostacking works pretty well for this if the
| bracketed shots are close together in time as they are if the
| camera is automating the bracketing. The lightroom feature
| augments the typical camera feature in this case.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| I don't think the camera has the horsepower to do the
| processing, but I would like to see them tagged.
| argomo wrote:
| It boggles me how the big camera makers seem content to cede
| marketshare to smartphones. Obviously, they can't compete on
| pocketablity or ubiquity, but computational photography is
| their home turf. I shouldn't have to reach for my phone to take
| panoramas, photo spheres, and "live photos", and I'm not
| interested in spending hours compositing stuff later on the PC.
|
| The big camera makers do throw in a bunch of "modes" on their
| prosumer lines (which they toss out the window on their
| professional models) to pander to the consumer. Lame stuff,
| mostly. Give me some real stuff like auto-masking foreground
| subjects or out-of-camera photogrammetrly created 3D models.
|
| I get that prosumers are a dwindling niche and pros are where
| the money come from, but you need a source for more pros in the
| future, right? How does the camera compete if--as an artifact--
| it's inspirational value is outclassed by the mundane
| cellphone?
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Agreed. They should go all in on computation. They would
| probably need different processors and more batteries but a
| "pro" camera should be better than a phone in absolutely
| every aspect. I just got an iPhone 13 and it's interesting
| how it handles night shots better than my Fuji X-T3 with its
| much bigger sensor.
| terramex wrote:
| I'll add one idea to the list: tracking moving objects using
| IBIS.
|
| Like when you shoot moving car or flying bird - use existing
| autofocus to detect the object and then track it over exposure
| time to keep it free from motion blur but get nice, blurred
| background. Pentax have simple version of that for tracking stars
| mentioned in the article but I hope some company figures out how
| to do it for arbitrary, fast moving objects in real-time.
|
| Sony a9 series already got rid of blackout during shooting so it
| is technically possible to get image data in realtime, have
| continuous autofocus and save full size RAW files at the same
| time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZXFI-eIXk8
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I don't think IBIS systems have enough travel to do something
| like that, especially for the longer focal lengths where this
| would be useful. In the meantime optical stabilizers and IBIS
| systems already smooth your pans on the micro-level pretty
| well.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| I don't think they can move the sensor fast enough. It would
| also only work for objects whose parts don't move. Airplanes
| may work but with birds the wings move in different directions.
|
| But I think with much faster sensor readouts you will be able
| to compute sharp images sometime in the future.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"...
|
| Bulb Mode Preview
|
| Vibration Detection Shutter Firing
|
| Native Image Averaging "
|
| Pretty much vote for those. Not that the other are unimportant.
| "Native Image Averaging" - with the live preview please and the
| ability to zoom into that preview.
| shrx wrote:
| As a Canon camera owner it's sad to see it missing from the
| supported cameras lists under nearly all of the features
| mentioned. Mine does have a GPS unit, though.
| threeseed wrote:
| I want to see smaller form factors e.g. Sony RX1, Sigma fp. The
| whole point of mirrorless was to move away from DSLR sized kits
| and yet years later we are back there again.
|
| Also would be nice to see more options for manual focusing. Pixii
| is interesting being a digital rangefinder but there isn't much
| innovation here.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > The whole point of mirrorless was to move away from DSLR
| sized kits
|
| That's a wrong assumption, it was certainly never "the whole
| point", just one of the factors.
| nomel wrote:
| Besides mirror slap/vibrations, what's the other benefit?
| Size, and therefore cost, of glass is why all of my
| professional friends moved over. You can get better lenses
| for cheaper. And, the cameras themselves are much simpler, so
| can be cheaper/higher quality.
|
| Many of the "live viewfinder" benefits already existing in
| DSLRs that had live viewfinder modes, with the rest being
| excluded for cost or differentiation (focus pixels, live
| histograms, etc). I saw it as an more of an eventuality of
| the live viewfinder being made more featureful than the lens
| view, so removing the mirror just made sense. The only people
| I know that are still using DSLR are those that "need" the
| classic viewfinder, but there's no reason the features of a
| mirrorless camera couldn't be put behind a sometimes-flopping
| mirror. The only problem with that would be vibration and the
| increase in size of the camera and lens.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| What I would like cameras to have is apps. Sony started some time
| ago to allow apps on their cameras under the name PlayMemories
| but for some reasons, they back off.
| novok wrote:
| I want cameras that have apple airdrop, messaging apps, popular
| social media apps and file sync apps along with a full
| cellphone , wifi , bt, gps chip using android. It would be a
| dream to have my camera actually start syncing my photo shoot
| automatically when I plug it in the charger at home and have it
| not be a shit experience.
|
| OR wifi sync and phone sharing that doesn't suck. But no camera
| manufacturer has shown the ability to do that, so an android
| app mode is the next best thing so they can offload the
| software writing to much bigger tech companies instead.
|
| Top 1 annoyance with non smartphone cameras is sharing the
| photos I just took with other people at the event. I'm not
| fucking around with the frankly awful wifi experience on most
| cameras and I'm not going to bring a cable or sd card dongle to
| do so either.
|
| # 2 is the lack of built in GPS. It's 2021, adding GPS is
| extremely cheap, especially if you've already done wifi anyway.
|
| #3 is qi charging. After a shoot put the camera on the wireless
| dock and everything is syncing well with the local desktop
| computer.
| matonias wrote:
| Its either camera-brands making apps or Apple that start
| making high-end camera's... which one will come first.
|
| My bet is Apple
| threeseed wrote:
| Neither is going to happen. The photography market has
| split into three camps.
|
| Casual users who care about apps will just use their phones
| and the quality will be on par with Micro-4/3 and likely
| APS-C with computational photography advances.
|
| Prosumers will stick with smaller full frame optimised for
| style and old school usability e.g. Leica. Professionals
| will either use full frame for speed or move towards medium
| format which Fuji is leading the charge towards.
| robohoe wrote:
| I bet we'll see even better cameras in mobile phone sooner
| or later. iPhone 13 max pro already has a fantastic camera.
| notJim wrote:
| I completely agree. Can you imagine have smartphone-level
| ability to add new functionality to high-end cameras? The
| things you could do would be amazing. Although I suspect and IO
| and processing power may be limiting factors, given that even a
| full-on PC can take a while to perform many operations.
| kuschku wrote:
| You can actually mod them and write your own apps. There are
| even FTP or SMB apps for the sony alpha cameras:
| https://github.com/ma1co/OpenMemories-Framework/
| nomel wrote:
| From what I can tell, many of the needs of all of this whole
| comment section would be achieved with a "thin client" camera.
| Some large, dumb, image sensor, with an IMU, that uses a
| smartphone for everything other than recording a raw
| image/video stream.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Fully disagree.
| elischleifer wrote:
| I disagree. Apps necessitate an app store, maintenance,
| updates, reasonable SDKs. For something like a camera apps as
| an expansion joint is a bridge-too-far. That's not to say that
| these cameras shouldn't provide an SDK for access to core
| functionality. I mostly would like Sony and others to open
| source there camera software so bugs/features can be addressed
| by the community.
| sp332 wrote:
| What is a flash commander?
| gridspy wrote:
| Isn't that the gizmo that triggers external (studio / photo-
| shoot) lights to flash? It sends a radio or IR signal on
| shutter press rather than flashing on the camera.
|
| An alternative are studio lights which are set up to trigger
| when the camera flash itself goes off.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Commander mode uses the flash to send the commands. It's
| actually bananas what the protocol can do. A Nikon commander
| can signal three different groups of speed lights to test-
| fire, figure out the power the photo requires from each
| group, signal them all to dial in the exposure, then signal
| them all to fire. It does this all with 1960s technology.
| dmead wrote:
| ahh wouldn't the star tracker require pretty specialized or
| higher powered hardware? seems a bit much to cram into a camera
| no? unless you want the cost to increase by the cost of 1 cell
| phone?
| KMnO4 wrote:
| The hardware is already there. You don't need to move much to
| counteract the movement of the stars. Many cameras have in body
| stabilization, which can move the sensor around.
|
| Pentax had had this for a while (as early as 2011).
|
| https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/explore/astro/
| azalemeth wrote:
| I have a Pentax camera (it's great -- they're undervalued by
| the market). The astrotracer uses GPS lookups and needs either
| a K-1 or a (very overpriced) GPS dongle that plugs in via the
| flash hotshoe.
|
| It gets an accurate lock and moves the sensor about its 5 axes
| of magnetohydrodynamically-controlled freedom in order to
| emulate, to some degree, an equatorial mount. No image-domain
| tracking required -- purely physics. The things people get are
| insanely good (c.f. [1])
|
| [1] https://www.flickr.com/groups/2598208@N22/
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Mechanically there's only three degrees of freedom
| (translation in the plane and rotation about the optical
| axis), the cameras just calculate an approximately correct
| translation for pitch/yaw movements. Pitching or yawing the
| sensor itself would take it immediately out of the depth of
| focus (the image side equivalent of depth of field) and the
| image would be a blurry mess.
| gridspy wrote:
| Sounds like it's a pretty simple loop of
|
| 1. Find bright spots in last second of exposure (which is then
| added to a sum for the final picture)
|
| 2. Compare their locations to bright spots in the previous
| second
|
| 3. Move the sensor slightly so the bright spots remain "in the
| same place" on the sensor.
|
| Note that cameras with integral anti-vibration do that by
| moving the sensor, so they already have the hardware for (3).
|
| For star tracking there would be a max speed of stars based on
| Earth's rotation multiplied by focal length you could use to
| set a reasonable cap on movement. You could also expect similar
| movement for each second to the seconds before.
|
| The camera could have a data structure per star being tracked,
| capping the number used to say 32 or 64 "stars" for accuracy.
| Each "Star" would "vote" how much movement has occurred. You'd
| gain faith in various stars as analysis frames go by if they
| keep giving valid results, a black-list of "not stars" would
| also be useful.
|
| Some would be stationary, like lights on the ground. Some would
| be bogus, such as navigation lights on aircraft. Actual stars
| should expect similar movement and "agree" though if the zoom
| was low it might change across the image.
| user_7832 wrote:
| I doubt you need that much hardware/costs, given that even an
| Arduino can do it [1]. From an outsider's perspective though,
| camera companies are probably hesitant to shake up what's
| already there which is probably they don't add such features.
|
| 1. https://blog.arduino.cc/2020/02/26/openastrotracker-is-a-
| tra...
| sh-run wrote:
| I have an Oly EM1.3. Pro-capture on a rental EM1.2 is what
| originally sold me the camera, but Live ND (image averaging) is
| probably my most used feature outside of standard aperture
| priority shooting.
|
| It's pretty fun what you can do with it. Here's an example from a
| backpacking trip last year:
|
| without Live ND: https://i.imgur.com/kJjEDmt.jpg
|
| with Live ND: https://i.imgur.com/IhHzo4T.jpg
|
| Both taken (handheld at 100mm) on my Panasonic 100-300/F4.0-5.6.
| I tend to carry it and my Oly 12-40mm f2.8 when backpacking.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| A built in ND should be standard.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-17 23:01 UTC)