Open source camera?

Byker28i

Byker28i

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21,339
Edit My Images
Yes
This is interesting

More here:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august31/levoy-opensource-camera-090109.html

Stanford photo scientists are out to reinvent digital photography with the introduction of an open-source digital camera, which will give programmers around the world the chance to create software that will teach cameras new tricks.

If the technology catches on, camera performance will be no longer be limited by the software that comes pre-installed by the manufacturer. Virtually all the features of the Stanford camera – focus, exposure, shutter speed, flash, etc. – are at the command of software that can be created by inspired programmers anywhere. “The premise of the project is to build a camera that is open source,” said computer science professor Marc Levoy.

Computer science graduate student Andrew Adams, who helped design the prototype of the Stanford camera (dubbed Frankencamera,) imagines a future where consumers download applications to their open-platform cameras the way Apple apps are downloaded to iPhones today. When the camera’s operating software is made available publicly, perhaps a year from now, users will be able to continuously improve it, along the open-source model of the Linux operating system for computers or the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
 
Linux isn't an OS it is a kernel.
 
KayJay said:
Taken from the first paragraph on the official Linux website.
Click to expand...

What do they know? :D

Distros are operating systems built using the Linux kernel.
 
Why does Linux always start an argument about something... dont matter if its geeks or togs.....
 
Sounds like CHDK to me :thinking: It is quite cool being able to play around with things like motion detection easily.
 
bradkb said:
Why does Linux always start an argument about something... dont matter if its geeks or togs.....
Click to expand...

Cos your average Linux user usually has an axe to grind or a point to score. Personally I don't consider it a viable operating system but much prefer it when people refer to it as what it really is.
 
Why isn't it a viable operating system?
 
I'm not a linux geek btw, I just like starting arguments :D
 
So many technologies have benefited from open source development, so why can't the camera? What better way to speed up advancement than this.
 
Forget about what linux is or is not ... this is not the place for that argument.
What we have here is a new concept for a camera system.
and that is great for photography.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Forget about what linux is or is not ... this is not the place for that argument.
What we have here is a new concept for a camera system.
and that is great for photography.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, if they are comparing the development model to that of Linux then you have the see if that development model is going to benefit the development of the camera or not.
 
GNU/Linux is perfectly viable. As a someone who has recently bought a mac (also using a unix based OS) there is very little difference.

If you really want to squabble then may I direct your attention to
HDR in camera said:
The process of high-dynamic-range imaging is to capture pictures of the same scene with different exposures and then to combine them into a composite image in which every pixel is optimally lit. Until now, this trick could be done only with images in computers. Levoy wants cameras to do this right at the scene, on demand. Although the algorithms are very well understood, no commercial cameras do this today. But Frankencamera does.
Click to expand...

So, with everyone and their dog shoving out HDR the real question is - should the in camera routines be tied down to give sensible results or should the world prepare for garish over-saturated zombie pics everywhere?
 
who? said:
GNU/Linux is perfectly viable. As a someone who has recently bought a mac (also using a unix based OS) there is very little difference.

If you really want to squabble then may I direct your attention to


So, with everyone and their dog shoving out HDR the real question is - should the in camera routines be tied down to give sensible results or should the world prepare for garish over-saturated zombie pics everywhere?
Click to expand...

This is the great thing though, you'll be able to create your own algorithms for use, so you could create code that will give you results that are as restrained as you want.
 
KayJay said:
This is the great thing though, you'll be able to create your own algorithms for use, so you could create code that will give you results that are as restrained as you want.
Click to expand...

So maybe some sort of 'taste test' as part of the purchase process?
:D
 
BertRoot said:
Cos your average Linux user usually has an axe to grind or a point to score. Personally I don't consider it a viable operating system but much prefer it when people refer to it as what it really is.
Click to expand...

There's only two people in the world who, when Linux is referred to as an operating system, say "it's a kernel!" and that's Richard Stallman and you. When people say "Linux", it's quite clear what they're referring to. You know that and I know that. Popular culture refers to Linux as an operating system not the kernel.

You may not consider it a viable operating system but without it, you wouldn't be using this forum. Or most websites in the world, being as the majority of websites are hosted on linux servers.

Anyway, this is well off topic.
 
welly said:
You may not consider it a viable operating system but without it, you wouldn't be using this forum. Or most websites in the world, being as the majority of websites are hosted on linux servers.
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have qualified it a little better. That should read desktop operating system. I use AIX and Solaris very regularly and love Unix, in its place.
 
This has the potential to really change the furure of digital photography.
If it ever gets off the ground and into the mainstream, theres a fair chance people like Nikon/Canon etc may follow suit, then we'll have cameras we can really customise to our own needs.
Imagine wedding togs being able to easily capture the full range of tones without having to worry about blowing the dress out. Landscape togs never needing a neutral density filter again, or being able to set 5 iso for that flowing water effect. Sports togs having 1/50,000 of a second at 25.000 iso with no noise.
Who knows where this could go, personally I'm all for it.
 
I wholly agree with this. It will make photography as varied as we want it to be and will help all to produce the results they need. There are many open source crews out there who will be able to get to grips with this and produce some stunning packages. Imagine being able to install an HD movie package into the box when you need it, and get even exposure across a frame or not depending on your choice, be able to increase highlights where you like in the frame to produce creative effects. Adobe will have a field day with in camera options I would think as this could help to render post processing a lot less tedious task if you can nail the things you want to do up front.
 
I've seen some great Open Source developments - I'm a keen scuba diver and there are at least two very advanced dive computers that have been developed with open source structures... it's really interesting to see the advances that can happen when it's not tied to a retail tiered upgrade model and the developers just want to get things as good as possible.

For me, this gives the suggestion of more easily upgradable firmware -
Don't like the built-in noise reduction? install the new Noise Ninja plugin direct to your camera!
Want to embed GPS locations into metadata as you shoot? install an upgrade that interfaces to a GPS receiver via the usb port!
Don't like shooting in raw? install the DNG codec instead!

Once developers have proper access to the firmware there's all sorts of things that can be done! It sounds great!

I'm not sure Canon and Nikon would ever follow suit since they're pretty proud and protective of their own algorithms but they'll certainly be watching with interest and will be quick to adopt anything that's popular.

I wonder if it'll be possible to allow the camera to interpret and control lenses from different manufacturers? I'm imagining a small adaptor that passes the electrical contacts through to the camera - you'd install the codec that suited the lens you wanted to use and the camera could utilise it as though it was native. That way you could choose to shoot with a Canon lens one day and a Nikon the next!
 
Fantastic. You can download apps to a camera and make it take photos, or err, take photos. :D

:coat:
 
It will open a whole new market for plugins. for those of us who are not computer geeks.
 
As long as it plays Counterstrike that's all I care about. pwning n00bs!
 
One CF card for the photo's, one for the plugins?

Menu option 2 - engage HDR mode?

I think it's an interesting idea, I mean there's enough people sell plugins for lightroom/photoshop etc that people just click and use, so why not get more functionality into the camera.

We al try to get it right first time in the camera, but sometimes it's not possible, but perhaps with this development it would cut right down on processing time.
 
swanseamale47 said:
This has the potential to really change the furure of digital photography.
If it ever gets off the ground and into the mainstream, theres a fair chance people like Nikon/Canon etc may follow suit, then we'll have cameras we can really customise to our own needs.
Imagine wedding togs being able to easily capture the full range of tones without having to worry about blowing the dress out. Landscape togs never needing a neutral density filter again, or being able to set 5 iso for that flowing water effect. Sports togs having 1/50,000 of a second at 25.000 iso with no noise.
Who knows where this could go, personally I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
Some thought provoking stuff here.

At first I was going to say that I think you've picked some bad examples, because they're hardware issues, not software. For example shooting at 1/50,000th requires a faster shutter mechanism. Shooting at 5 ISO requires some way of preventing the photosites on the sensor from filling up with photons during the slow exposure. Both of these are hardware issues.

Or are they? On second thoughts I don't feel quite so certain. Who knows what's possible if you have total control over what happens inside the camera? It could be very interesting indeed.
 
StewartR said:
Some thought provoking stuff here.

At first I was going to say that I think you've picked some bad examples, because they're hardware issues, not software. For example shooting at 1/50,000th requires a faster shutter mechanism. Shooting at 5 ISO requires some way of preventing the photosites on the sensor from filling up with photons during the slow exposure. Both of these are hardware issues.

Or are they? On second thoughts I don't feel quite so certain. Who knows what's possible if you have total control over what happens inside the camera? It could be very interesting indeed.
Click to expand...

No they are not necessarily hardware issues, they already have materials that can become opaque or clear depending on the current passed through, so theoretically theres your shutter, or by varying the current a neutral densitiy filter maybe, this technology already exists (I have seen it working) so in 5 or 10 years down the line who know how far it will have developed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top