Quote:
Originally Posted by frolinmod
I could be wrong, but if I am, I'll be dead before it happens, so I won't ever know I was wrong, so I am right.  |
Can't argue with that logic!
Seriously though, if you're still interested, have a look at the CEO's
thesis (from 2006). They started off with a bog standard DSLR and modified (added) it with a microlens sheet. That's basically all it is from a hardware point of view.
They put the excess in megapixels of modern CCDs to good use and trade 'intensity' resolution for 'intensity+vector' resolution. Yes, you get lower resolution images, but that's not what us astronomers are concerned with (remember a lot of planetary imagers still happily use their 0.3MP webcams).
While the hardware is nothing too revolutionary, the clever bit is in the algorithms, which, up until recently were too computationally expensive for any sort of compact on-board electronics. Again, this is something us astronomers are not concerned with, as we like to process our stacks of images off-device anyway.
Developments in software and computer algorithms happen at a lightning pace. I would've given you a blank stare if you would've talked to me about 'stacking subs' 15 years ago. I totally expect you'll be stacking light fields in another 15 from now and I definitely hope you'll still be around on IIS just so I can say 'told you so!'
