|
|
|
kikashi
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2012, 01:07:45 PM » |
 Reply
|
Fascinating. I expect if I were cleverer, I'd understand how it does what it does as well as merely what it does! Jeremy |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
opgr
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2012, 01:23:58 PM » |
Reply
|
Old news, but as usual, fully distorted by the moronification of modern day journalism:
It only does this for 1 frequency of light and therefore very useful for fibre-optics type of communication, but not at all relevant to photography in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cybis
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2012, 01:27:27 PM » |
Reply
|
These lenses have to be tuned to a specific wavelength. It’s perfect for communication or optical application lit by laser. I wonder if this new technology could handle the visible spectrum all at once.
Fascinating nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2012, 01:53:41 PM » |
Reply
|
Old news, but as usual, fully distorted...
How is it "old news" and how is it "fully distorted"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rob C
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2012, 01:55:24 PM » |
Reply
|
Old news, but as usual, fully distorted by the moronification of modern day journalism:It only does this for 1 frequency of light and therefore very useful for fibre-optics type of communication, but not at all relevant to photography in any way, shape, or form.
What did you expect? They are probaby the same journalists who, as civilians, pull their cellphones out in galleries and museums. ;-) Rob C |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ellis Vener
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2012, 03:18:16 PM » |
Reply
|
not at all relevant to photography in any way, shape, or form.
Who said that it was? At least not immediately. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 03:26:16 PM » |
Reply
|
... not at all relevant to photography in any way, shape, or form.
Of course... just like the first, room-sized computers are irrelevant for today ones. Or the first CCD in 1969 is irrelevant for today's digital cameras. Sheesh! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fips
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2012, 07:06:30 AM » |
Reply
|
Like Slobodan, I too fail to see what's "old news" and what's "distorted". Actually, for an article aimed at a lay reader it is well written and technically correct. Also, Nano Letters isn't a journal notorious for publishing "old news"...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Reeder
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2012, 04:45:35 AM » |
Reply
|
Indeed. It's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Fresnel lens technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2012, 12:55:02 PM » |
Reply
|
Maybe because the concept of Fresnel lenses is already known?...
Using the same logic, the 20th-century helicopter concept was "old, fully distorted news," because Leonardo thought of it in the 15th century, or Chinese kids had a toy like that 400 years BC? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fips
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2012, 01:20:38 PM » |
Reply
|
No, this has nothing to do with a Fresnel lens. Not even remotely. The fact that this device is only about 1/10 of the wavelength in thickness tells you that you won't get very far with geometrical optics. It's thickness is practically only limited by the substrate which by the way does not affect the optical properties.
And regarding the newness: The authors clearly state (in the actual letter!) that planar focusing decives in the optical spectrum have been demonstrated before but they were either much more difficult to manufacture and/or didn't allow complete phase control.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Reeder
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2012, 01:45:27 AM » |
Reply
|
I don't just think it has nothing to do with Fresnel lens technology, I know it has nothing to do with it.
Just because it has an effect superficially similar to a Fresnel lens, that doesn't mean that the technology is remotely related to it
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
|
|
|
|
hjulenissen
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2012, 02:05:29 AM » |
Reply
|
Using a microphone or antenna array, you can "focus" your "image" by appropriately delaying and scaling the contribution from each array element. No lense needed.
I think it would be interesting if something similar was possible with photography sensors. A bare naked image sensor, sampling amplitude/phase in time for each sensel (I guess nothing that can be practically done right now), then a huge delay/gain/sum kernel to focus the thing.
Would have been really interesting to have freedom to shape the focus region freely, not limited by physical optics.
-h
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
allegretto
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2012, 06:04:43 PM » |
Reply
|
^^^ this
Physics tells us that information is always present and cannot be destroyed. So everything the sensor "sees" could conceivably be recovered. Imagine a credit card sized camera with perfect resolution of the finest details
may not be as far away as some think...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
