[HN Gopher] Flipped an element in an old lens and got 'magic' bo... ___________________________________________________________________ Flipped an element in an old lens and got 'magic' bokeh (2018) Author : colinprince Score : 136 points Date : 2021-05-04 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (petapixel.com) (TXT) w3m dump (petapixel.com) | supernova87a wrote: | I would love to know from someone knowledgeable -- | | How is a new lens design made nowadays, and is there much | innovation still in lens design? I mean, seems like aside from | zoom lenses, the designs were done (by hand! and slide rule) 100 | to 50 years ago. | | What do you do now? Have a ray tracing linear solver with | constraints about refractive index, desired weight, number of | elements, distortions, etc. (and cost!) factor all these things | in and see what multiple lens stack it comes out with? Or is it | just small variations on known proven designs now? | wingspar wrote: | (2018) | echelon wrote: | At some point all of these effects would probably be better to | produce computationally. | | Lens hacks result in lost signal. You're sending fewer photons to | less surface area, and you're losing readings. | | The cameras of the future might look a lot less like the ones we | have today: stereo and light field capture, explosion of sensors, | and design that incorporates both advances in optics as well as | ML-assisted optimization. | | edit: -3 :( I've got unpopular opinions as always, I suppose. | We'll see how it pans out in ten years. I predict we're in for a | sea of changes. Photogrammetry is going to be huge. | postalrat wrote: | Most information is lost when light hits the sensor. You | mentioned a few ways we might be able to capture more of that. | But until we get all that we can play with that information | through lenses. | IgorPartola wrote: | As an amateur photographer... can someone smarter/more educated | than me explain to me why practically I would prefer this over a | computational solution? This looks really cool, but there are | dozens of apps and filters out there that do stuff like this, no? | | That's not to take away from how cool this is, just asking as a | practical thing why someone else beside the person in question | would buy another lease and do this vs use a digital solution to | get a similar effect. | 0-_-0 wrote: | Because no digital solution can recognize depth correctly from | a single image, which would be needed for this effect. | [deleted] | IgorPartola wrote: | Granted, but also haven't we done this: | https://corephotonics.com/products/digital-bokeh/ | tokai wrote: | It's not from a single image. | 0-_-0 wrote: | That's from multiple images, and if you look closely it | looks _really_ bad. Just look at her hand in the "far | focus" image. A digital method needs to fill out | information that's just not present in the image. | thesuitonym wrote: | Why climb a mountain when you can just send a drone to the top? | Some things are worth doing just because they are. | geocrasher wrote: | This. It's easy to get into the mindset that "It's all been | done" or "somebody already did it better, so why bother?" | | Sometimes it's good to just do things for the experience and | nothing more. This is especially true for many hobbies such | as Amateur Radio. Guys can armchair quarterback antennas, | coax, baluns/ununs, whatever, all day long, arguing about | which is right. Then a guy goes out and just tries it, does | it all wrong according to the "in" crowd, and has tons of | fun. <--- this is me. Doing it because I can and it's fun not | because it's "better" | DanBC wrote: | > As an amateur photographer... can someone smarter/more | educated than me explain to me why practically I would prefer | this over a computational solution? This looks really cool | | People like to play. People like to place artificial | constraints upon their work, and then see what they can make | within those constraints. | | People get very used to a particular camera and lens, and | sometimes they get a bit stuck in a rut and want to break away | from that. | | People sometimes like unpredictability, and it can lead them | onto different ways of working or different ways to present a | result. | gopalv wrote: | > can someone smarter/more educated than me explain to me why | practically I would prefer this over a computational solution? | | Practical effects always feel better over computational ones - | in terms of feedback. | | Which is weird to say because it only really happened for me | after digital cameras gave instant previews with zoom & I could | tweak/click while getting to know some new hardware. | | I did some digital tilt-shifts and then played around with a | manual shifted lens once - seeing what you click is so | "tactile" (& the bar for it will shift was more computation can | be done in preview). | | The thing is that the digital thing is still guessing depth | with some gradient map, particularly at such a long focal | length. | | The reason a lot of the in-app portrait modes have improved | massively is because there are secondary depth sensors which | fill in the data that is needed to compute a good looking depth | map. | | > why someone else beside the person in question would buy | another lease | | I can't think of a single reason except to mess with things | till you get the photo you want :) | | I wasted a bunch of time with a very cheap (but great) Nikkor | 50mm f/1.8D for different bokehs during a party shoot, which | turned out to be a fun project "makeable" for a tutorial I was | doing later. | | And eventually turned to a lensbaby bokeh punchable + a lot of | vinyl clips of random shapes (mostly Om/AUM shapes for temple | pictures). | | I'm sure I could get a digital solution for that, but it | involved a lot less work to punch a pattern and go nuts with | it. | | [1] - https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3rmin4t0r/4362410419/ | jedimastert wrote: | Why take pictures at all? Photorealistic renders are at our | fingertips with things like Blender and Cycles. Just take a | look at /r/rendered. | | It's fun to fiddle and tinker. As much as someone _could_ make | the image in a render (I actually seriously doubt the picture | could be recreated with post-processing alone unless there was | a light field camera involved or something) who would think to | do so? This didn 't come about because someone was looking for | the effect, but because someone was exploring and found it. | cpach wrote: | Different strokes for different folks. | | I've been using computers and digital graphics applications for | about thirty years now. | | If I were to get myself a new hobby I wouldn't necessarily want | to have one that made me spend more time in front of a | computer. That's one reason people might want to do things the | analog way. | | I'm currently reading a book written in 2017 by an author who | still uses a typewriter. A good book, and it might help him to | avoid distractions when writing. | marcan_42 wrote: | A lens shapes a light field onto a sensor. Once light hits the | sensor, it is flattened into a 2D image, quantized, and | saturated based on the limitations of the sensor. | | You cannot do with software what you can do with a lens. The | information is lost by the time it's in a raw file. Not just | depth, but also brightness. Any white highlights are also lost | information; a lens can shape a highlight to look different in | a way which cannot be done in software without using HDR (i.e. | multiple exposures). | BlueTemplar wrote: | Damn, I wanted to link Lytro's website but they shut down ? | :( | jacobolus wrote: | Making up new bokeh shapes, depth-based special effects, | etc. are the type of thing Lytro _should_ have done with | their cameras, instead of just <<focus after capture | time>>, which is mathematically interesting but doesn't | enable fundamentally new art. | taeric wrote: | Same reason folks generally like kaleidoscopes, but I don't see | as many of those in screen savers anymore. That is, I don't | think there is an objective answer. A lot of the fun in this is | the unexpected and unrepeatable nature of the results. | udev wrote: | An extreme version of your question: Why even bother taking | pictures? Just ray-trace or otherwise render your images. | LASR wrote: | It's same reason you've already outlined. It's cool. | | With computational capabilities these days, you can really get | whatever look like purely through software. | mschaef wrote: | > why practically I would prefer this over a computational | solution? | | The camera lens has a bunch more information to work with in | terms of depth. Along the same lines, an iPhone can fake bokeh | by applying a filter masked by depth information, but it's not | really in the same league as the real optical effect you get | from a real lens in the field. (In terms of responsiveness and | the quality of detail that's captured.) | | OTOH, as much as I think legitimate optical effects can be | useful/special at capture time, I have limited use for | computational effects at capture time. As long as the 'digital | negative' has all the information, I'd much rather be able to | apply the computational effect later. (This is an advantage of | digital techniques - you can adjust them later.) | dv_dt wrote: | Serendipity in the real world can produce effects that you may | not think to work to create digitally. On the flip side, | digital processing can do things that would be a pain to do | with a physical pipeline. Imho more possibilities from all | avenues makes for a richer world. | dylan604 wrote: | Why would anybody do anything in camera vs digital? Because | somethings just aren't the same when done in post. Is this one | of them? Maybe the person doing something physically isn't a | software person to make something that doesn't exist now, but | they have old lenses laying around and are not afraid to | tinker. Much faster results. The "bokeh" from these smart phone | cameras are still annoyingly not right, so there's that aspect | as well. | imwillofficial wrote: | This is cool in two ways. | | 1) He is using physical elements to get the interesting shot. | There is something that is difficult to describe, but innately | alluring about "real" or physical aspects of our increasingly | digital world. The bending of light, the crystals in film, the | feeling of the pages of a real book. There is something about | the medium itself carrying meaning, even if the actual | communicated value is the same. Perhaps it speaks to a | timelessness, or durability of good ideas, beautiful pictures, | and powerful words that can last thousands of years. Where as | in the digital realm, my worlds sometimes only last as long as | the hard drive they live on. I think it is deeper than that. | Physicality is something we can relate to, touch, smell, taste, | we experience it far deeper than an abstract concept | represented by pixels on a screen. | | E.g. Why is a book better than a PDF? I have no good answer. | | 2) Although being in photography for decades, I was unaware of | this specific effect when manipulating the elements inside a | lens. I had no idea this effect was possible. The tinkering, | the curiosity followed down a path few would bother with, isn't | that what hackers are all about? I am inspired by His diving | deep on topics of interest. | IgorPartola wrote: | That makes a lot of sense. I am looking at it from the point | of view of the finished product, the photograph, rather than | the process of creating it. I personally tend to do things | "the hard way" at times because I feel like I, for the lack | of a better term, put my soul into the thing that way. But as | a practical matter, people viewing a photograph generally | don't know how it was produced and as such is this particular | effect unique and/or hard to reproduce? | platz wrote: | You wouldn't be able to recreate the exact effect | digitally. | | You could try to approximate a crappier version of it but | there would be noticeable differences, and sometimes nuance | in art matters. | imwillofficial wrote: | Even if it was an exact replica, there is, as the french | say, a je ne sais quoi about an object crafted lovingly | in a manual fashion. | | Definition of je ne sais quoi : something (such as an | appealing quality) that cannot be adequately described or | expressed. | | This sounds like fluff driven by emotion and not reason, | but I encourage readers to embrace the lack of reason for | some elements of human experience. | | We are anything but perfectly rational beings, this is | one powerful aspect where efficiency and logic are | sacrificed on the alter of subjective experience. | imwillofficial wrote: | Maybe they don't know, but there is an unspoken energy to | things that are real, that have a history all their own. | Sometimes, for some people, the object itself is part of | the message, the way it was crafted part of its value. | Explain sentimentality and you explain this hahahah. | tomc1985 wrote: | I'm so tired of this arrogant attitude. "Why should I do | something in the real world when I can simulate it with a good- | enough-but-ultimately-inferior digital process?" | sigg3 wrote: | How is it arrogant? He's honestly asking. There might be good | reason for using a digital solution, such as keeping valuable | equipment intact.. | | We can have both. The world is not boolean. | tomc1985 wrote: | It's arrogant when seen in a larger trend of technologists | constantly trying to substitute everything with technology. | "When all you have is a hammer, everything seems like a | nail" | | I too am an amateur/prosumer photographer who uses an | entirely digital process. But tech has its weaknesses, | especially in photography -- digital tech still can't | replicate a lot of what analog can do, and its important to | embrace that. | | That $4000 mirrorless still can't replicate the dynamic | range of 35mm film. Photoshop still can't replicate the | contrasty reds of Velvia film. And so on... | cpach wrote: | Your last sentence there made me think of an old Welle: | Erdball song... | | _"Es gibt kein Kompromiss / Es zahlt nur ja und nein / Wir | sehn wies wirklich ist / Wir denken digital"_ | vecter wrote: | I don't think the OP is arrogant. I think it's a genuine | question. I didn't think of the question itself, but after it | was posed, I didn't know the answer (because I have no | background in photography or image processing). A few other | folks have responded with a technical answer, which is that | rendering this would require depth information which | obviously isn't available in a 2D image. | Dig1t wrote: | I think the many qualifications in OP's question make it | clear that the intention was not to be arrogant, but simply | to ask a question and maybe learn something about | photography. I had the same question, not because I'm looking | down on people who do this but because I genuinely don't know | very much about the photography world and think that it might | be possible that there are some unknown advantages to one | method over the other. | dang wrote: | " _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation | of what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to | criticize. Assume good faith._" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | IgorPartola wrote: | I in no way meant that as arrogant. I think it's really cool | that that person figured it out. What I am wondering is in | what way the effect is different when produced digitally and | does it matter? | | A good deal do photo filters are based on real world optics. | Sometimes optics that are outdated (Polaroid mode), sometimes | because the physical setup is really expensive. What I am | asking is whether this particular effect is hard to | replicate. I feel like I've seen it before in digital art but | don't know if it's the same or not and whether the physical | effect is actually somehow magical or not. | martyvis wrote: | I guess in simple terms, if you apply a digital filter to a | regular image after capture, you can only manipulate | elements there or maybe introduce artificial effects. | Special filters or lens adjustments done before capture | however can manipulate received light before it is normally | discarded to take that regular photograph | abraae wrote: | Chill, it didn't come across as arrogant at all to me. I had | the same question. | | If there is an equivalent way to achieve the effect | digitally, for many people that is good information and they | can do that, and don't need to go to the lengths this guy | did. | adolph wrote: | Software is typically immature hardware. To the extent that you | can do something in hardware the results are more often | superior, if less flexible. | ska wrote: | > This looks really cool, but there are dozens of apps and | filters out there that do stuff like this, no? | | Such filters live in 2D, optics in 3D - part of why most filter | for things like "bokeh" don't work particularly well is that | without an accurate depth map you are guessing or ignoring that | 3rd dimension. | | On the flip side - this stuff is aesthetic, so there isn't one | "proper" way to do it. | rileyphone wrote: | Depth information is lost once light hits the sensor. Software | can attempt to account for this (portrait mode) but it's | imperfect. | mmastrac wrote: | Better title might be 'A "Magic Bokeh" Lens Modification' - from | the original YouTube video. | rozab wrote: | It seems like this type of lens has been available since the | 1920s, and there would have been nothing stopping, say, the | German Expressionists from using this sort of technique? I love | seeing this sort of thing, it's part of why I find modern | demoscene so fascinating. | towergratis wrote: | Magic bokeh? No offense, but it's horrible and nothing magic | about it. | [deleted] | JohnMalkovite wrote: | How could I recreate this effect with an app/website ? | vipa123 wrote: | 1. Buy two of those lenses, modify one to cause this effect. 2. | Take tens of thousands (possibly orders of magnitude more, | possibly less) of photographs of the exact same scene with near | identical lighting conditions. 3. Use both sets to train a deep | learning algorithm to take input photographs and produce the | same output. 4. Grow dataset until reached desired look for | general input photograph. | imwillofficial wrote: | Seriously cool. I love creative accidents like this. True hacker | culture. | dylan604 wrote: | I'd love to see video recorded this way. Looks like it has lots | of potential for those "characters take psychedelics" parts of | the script. | imwillofficial wrote: | I love where your head is at. That instantly reminded me of | this clip. I adore this song because of it. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNHP5Z7RZcA | mrwh wrote: | Reminds me of realising years and years ago that one can make a | macro lens by reversing a normal prime. (Which I know! Everyone | knows that, you can even get proper adapters for it, but it was a | genuine discovery for me at the time.) Doing things in camera, | rather than later in software, just is more enjoyable for a lot | of photographers. I know I find it more fun. | Scene_Cast2 wrote: | So most lens design software I've seen is optimized for a | "scientific instrument" workflow - optimizing for sharpness | across spectrum and angle. | | Is there software that helps with artistic lens design? | Sharlin wrote: | The Zeiss, like the huge majority of ~50mm lenses in existence, | is a so-called Double-Gauss design [1] (yes, _that_ Gauss [2]). | The role of the interior doublet is mostly to reduce aberrations, | so reversing it basically has the opposite effect (at least | spherical and chromatic aberration appear to go crazy). Would be | interesting to see some raytrace diagrams of the modified lens. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss | formerly_proven wrote: | Even the most modern "ultra high performance" 50 mm lenses | still have a Double Gauss lens at their core. | | For example, here's the Nikon Z 50/1.8S: | https://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_50mmf1... | | Doesn't take much guessing where the aperture is in this lens. | nsxwolf wrote: | I'm not seeing any photos on that article. Server load issue? | gerikson wrote: | Here's hoping the swirly/crazy bokeh phase is soon over. | Eric_WVGG wrote: | Funny... just thirty minutes ago I was giving a sort of guest | lecture to some UX students, one of my key talking points was | that old "should designers learn to code?" chestnut. (If you're | not familiar, and want to see dozens or hundreds of people | instantly start arguing on Twitter, go ahead and ask.) | | I come down firmly on the side of "yes," and started my | explanation of why with the photographic work of Salvador Dali. | The guy was an absolute darkroom master. He wasn't just a person | who had a vivid imagination and could paint, he had an engineer's | understanding of optics, physics and the chemistry of | photography. This led into a sort of point about programming not | being an end to itself, but that programming is a part of of the | toolbelt of a modern digital designer. | | ANYWAY. This guy, not just busting out a camera and photoshop, | but actually taking apart and rebuilding lenses, more of this. | Get dirty with your tools. | paulmd wrote: | I think coders should learn to shoot and develop film, and | ideally learn to wet print. not that it's something that you'll | need at your day job, but it's just such a fun hobby for an | engineering type person. The basic process is simple and yet | infinitely modifiable, and there's numerous deep rabbit holes | you can go down once you master the basics. It's definitely one | of those "a moment to learn, a lifetime to master" type | hobbies. And it's really enjoyable for someone who stares at a | screen all day to work with your hands and do something that is | completely analog. | | I've been meaning to put together a personal blog with Jekyll | to learn the tool, maybe that would be an interesting subject | for some posts. | shahar2k wrote: | 100% correct, I am an artist working in realtime visual effects | (previsualization) and it's surprising how often knowledge of | how realtime 3d works on the hardware and software end enhances | what I can do with my art! (and how little fellow artists want | anything to do with anything technical) there's so much you can | do if you realize how textures are mapped or what gets affected | by polygon sorting order... | dukeofdoom wrote: | This is actually probably more useful for video. Many story lines | contain a dream outer world sequence. Or just a romantic | interlude of a flower. Lots of applications, this could be use to | create a certain feelings and emotions. | techrat wrote: | My first thought when I saw the images... | | Drug sequences in Dredd. Very similar soft and slightly | haunting quality. | dusted wrote: | that's interesting, especially interesting that nobody has done | it before, considering the amount of money there are in specialty | lenses.. | | This is somewhat an example of "if that was a dollar, someone | would have picked it up already" | Arainach wrote: | The money in lenses goes towards more predictability - sharper, | wider aperture, faster to focus, smooth bokeh for portraits - | or technical achievements like ultratelephoto lenses. The | people who can pay are looking for those features, not random | effects. | | The value here is in novelty - it doesn't look like anything | else. If it was mass produced, demand for the effect would | likely go down, not up. And it's certainly not without | compromise - sharpness across the entire frame in those example | shots is worse than your average plastic 18-55mm kit zoom. | wlesieutre wrote: | There are lenses made for unusual effects rather than optical | quality, but it's more of a niche market | | https://microsites.lomography.com/petzval-58-bokeh- | control-l... | | https://lensbaby.com/products/composer-pro-ii-with- | sweet-50-... | Sebb767 wrote: | From the sample photos it seems like the lens is rather useless | this way. While some bokeh is awesome, this looks more like | someone applied an LSD-filter and called it a day; nothing that | you could use for a portrait. It also seems the pictures are | not too sharp. Therefore, there's probably not too much money | to be made. | | If this could be a bit smoother in the background, on the other | hand ... | Applejinx wrote: | I dunno. I'd buy a micro 4/3 one like a shot. I'm already | using lenses from SLR magic that aren't THE sharpest possible | things, but have really good bokeh and pleasing departure | from perfect focus outside perfect focal distance. | dylan604 wrote: | I'd be surprised if this is truly the first time. I'm guessing | that there is someone that was assembling a lens and did this | by mistake. After seeing the results, saw it wasn't right, and | then went back in to see what needed to be corrected. | bdamm wrote: | Kinda neat. Many of these remind me of observing a solar eclipse, | where trees cast shadows with zillions of little crescents. Fun | to experience in person, but distracting to see in an image | because I get the distinct "something is not right here" feeling. | | Now to really make it art, figure out how to say something with | the effect. A portrait would have been a nice addition to the | collection. How would it change the feeling of looking at a face? | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-04 23:00 UTC)