Talk:Computational photography

Major rewrite of article

In keeping with modern usage of the term "Computational photography", the previous, disputed text of this article has been moved to Computational photography (artistic) and replaced with a complete rewrite. I now realize I did not follow proper procedure when performing this move, because I have left the disputed article's history behind here; I apologize for making this procedural error. In deference to the author of the original article (evidently Steve Mann, whose work I admire), his pioneering paper on high dynamic range imaging has been cited in the rewritten article. The material (in his disputed article) on PDM and PLM should probably be merged into the entries on high dynamic range imaging, and the material on wearable computing should be merged into the wearable computing entry. The material on Charles Wyckoff's non-digital "computational photography" is interesting, but it is not in keeping with modern usage of this phrase and should perhaps be filed under another entry. MarcLevoy 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

The section (of the rewritten article) on computational sensors (chips that compute as they capture images) needs more work by an expert in that area. Also needed is a companion article on computational imaging. That article should include links to tomography, 3D deconvolution, diaphanography, inverse scattering problems, and related imaging techniques used in the sciences, engineering, and medicine. MarcLevoy 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some opinions

To classify researches based on optically coded/non-optically coded may not be the best way. Many works in computational illumination utilize coded optics as well, and it's arguable to put coded-shutter camera in current category. Matte extraction is an old (kinda mature) research topic, and there are too many approaches. Since the original Matte page is still a stub, we should find a person to complete it, and simply leave a link here. Chia-Kai Liang 7 Sept. 2006

Someone inserted text between the definitions of computational imaging and computational photography, in order to talk about digital imaging. This insertion was confusing, partly because they said that digital imaging doesn't involve sensors, but the Wikipedia page on digital imaging says that it *does* involve sensors. The insertion also included links to several minor conferences on computational imaging. This appeared self-serving. I have removed this text. Those conferences can be cited, but later on the page. As well, the discussion of digital imaging can be re-inserted, but should be done carefully with respect to the role of sensing, and probably later, as part of the discussion of other related topics that do or do not fall under computational photography. MarcLevoy —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of major extensions

Many papers in SIGGRAPH 2007 are related and should be included.

Merger Proposal

I would suggest that anything usable from the old article, Computational photography (artistic), be merged in here, and that that page be deleted at long last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primal400 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

The new article below seems like it should be merged into this page, that page should then remain as a redirect I feel Phil (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the misplaced merge tags as the merge has been completed. Operator873^CONNECT 04:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page it came from is now at Computational photography/Computational imaging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completed and added redirect. Klbrain (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on Photography section

The statement "Photos taken using computational photography can sometimes look better than those taken by professionals using significantly more expensive equipment." is not backed up by the source provided (https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237705-the-edge-of-computational-photography/fulltext) or has bene misinterpreted from it. The nearest sentiment presented is "These features allow amateur photographers to produce pictures that can, at times, rival photographs taken by professionals using significantly more expensive equipment."

The article explicitly states "Still, the best computational techniques are not yet able to outperform top professional photographers using professional-level digital single-lens reflex cameras (DSLRs, which feature larger lenses and better sensors that still yield better large-format images than consumer cameras or smartphone cameras, due to their ability to capture more light)."

I'm going to edit the current page to reflect this. --14.137.217.206 (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

history, usage and push by smartphone constraints

Smartphones constraints are today (or maybe ever) major factor for computational photography evolution. It was that industry that was the driving force behind development. Also space agencies use it because they can't get the best details for scientific and visual purposes using a film or conventional camera. [1]

Also history section, how it started, DSLR cameras, space imaging... MIT Computational Photography

Computational photography was first used as a phrase by Canadian inventor and engineer Steve Mann in 1995 [2] 95.178.184.165 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally wrong terminologies

All digital photography is computational photography. What this article is describing is in camera destructive post processing. Please fix this, as a computer engineer and photographer of 30 years, i am tired of hearing people use totally incorrect descriptors for this. Please check the definition on computation on wikipedia and ensure the english language is being used consistently. You are misinforming people and it is spreading. 88.247.135.158 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make specific suggestions. SPECIFICO talk 12:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]