September 23, 2014, 12:28:17 PM

Author Topic: UCSD Science FAIL  (Read 3704 times)

KyleSTL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:39:39 PM »
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/marblelike-lens-smartphone-slr,news-17607.html

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.
Canon EOS 5D | Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 | 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
15mm f/2.8 Fisheye | 28mm f/1.8 USM | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 85mm f/1.8 USM | 3x 420EX | ST-E2 | Canon S90 | SD600 w/ WP-DC4

canon rumors FORUM

UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 03:39:39 PM »

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 847
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #1 on: September 26, 2013, 03:41:25 PM »
More information required, surely.

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 04:25:55 PM »
More information required, surely.

Jim

That's for sure. Heh, this isn't a site I'd normally go to for valid scientific reporting. Let me see what the science guys at ArsTechnica can dig up maybe.

EDIT: I ended up finding a bit more info from a USCD release: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/new_miniaturized_wide_angle_lens_captures_images_in_high_definition. Interesting, it looks like they basically used a bundle of fiber optics polished in a certain way to meet the incoming light exactly to funnel the light down to the sensor. So instead of having to use extra lens elements to 'straighten' out the light coming in so it could be focused down onto a square chip they used fiber optics to guide the light.

They also fail to mention the fact that DSLR lenses need to be so much bigger in part because they need to project light onto a much bigger sized sensor chip.

EDIT2: Oh, and the caption on the image shows that the bottom one is taken by a high-magnification microscope with light from a monocentric lens being funneled to it. Not the 5MP sensor with light from the fiber optic bundle. Wow, that OP link really got it wrong.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 04:50:35 PM by Drizzt321 »
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

rs

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 648
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2013, 04:56:28 PM »
The article on that site is pure nonsense. Two camera/lens combos with the same field of view. One is pixelated much more than the other. Neither looks great optically, even though it's meant to be a showcase of lens technology, not sensor technology. But the one which is pixelated is claimed to be a 22MP 5D3, and the one which isn't is claimed to be an 8MP iPhone 5s. Nonsense.
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3209
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2013, 04:56:56 PM »
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/marblelike-lens-smartphone-slr,news-17607.html

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.

Allow me to start... I you look at the "expanded" section of the 5D3 image you can count pixels... that image is about 80 pixels wide, making the "full image" around 600 pixels wide. The image was probably saved as the smallest supported file size and the worst compression possible..... in other words, the 5D3 image was doctored to be as poor as possible.... possible resampled afterwards and saved at an even higher level of compression. They had to work hard to make the image that bad..

So we have a cooked comparison... everything else they say is automatically suspect and must be discarded.
The best camera is the one in your hands

fugu82

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2013, 05:07:50 PM »
Bad Science Meets Bad Journalism. Pretty common these days.....

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8691
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2013, 05:12:51 PM »
You, I read the USC article.  The Toms Hardware writer made subtle modifications and left out relevant facts to make it fit his views.
 
The image had nothing to do with any cell phone.
 
USC Science did not fail, and if the OP had read the USC article first, he should have spotted the alteration of the USC paper.  Its not fair to blame USC for a article written by someone else that is misquoted and omits crucial information.  The blame falls on Toms Hardware and their employment of a incompetent writer who set out to prove a point.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2013, 05:12:51 PM »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2013, 05:16:17 PM »
You, I read the USC article.  The Toms Hardware writer made subtle modifications and left out relevant facts to make it fit his views.
 
The image had nothing to do with any cell phone.
 
USC Science did not fail, and if the OP had read the USC article first, he should have spotted the alteration of the USC paper.  Its not fair to blame USC for a article written by someone else that is misquoted and omits crucial information.  The blame falls on Toms Hardware and their employment of a incompetent writer who set out to prove a point.

Yup, very much. I decided to post a comment declaiming the article and linking to the original. We'll see if it stays up.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

Diko

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2013, 05:35:45 PM »
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/marblelike-lens-smartphone-slr,news-17607.html

I'm not even sure where to begin with this article.  If anyone can find the paper on which this is based, I would love to pick apart their scientific method.

Here is a more info:

http://www.gizmag.com/monocentric-lens-camera/29195/

LSV

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2013, 06:14:30 PM »
You, I read the USC article.  The Toms Hardware writer made subtle modifications and left out relevant facts to make it fit his views.
 
The image had nothing to do with any cell phone.
 
USC Science did not fail, and if the OP had read the USC article first, he should have spotted the alteration of the USC paper.  Its not fair to blame USC for a article written by someone else that is misquoted and omits crucial information.  The blame falls on Toms Hardware and their employment of a incompetent writer who set out to prove a point.
I'd like to point out that UCSD is the public University of California-San Diego while USC is the private University of Southern California located in Los Angeles.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1084
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2013, 06:16:51 PM »
You, I read the USC article.  The Toms Hardware writer made subtle modifications and left out relevant facts to make it fit his views.
 
The image had nothing to do with any cell phone.
 
USC Science did not fail, and if the OP had read the USC article first, he should have spotted the alteration of the USC paper.  Its not fair to blame USC for a article written by someone else that is misquoted and omits crucial information.  The blame falls on Toms Hardware and their employment of a incompetent writer who set out to prove a point.

USC is University of Southern California, a private university in Los Angeles.

The article is about work from UCSD, the University of California San Diego, a part of the the Californian state university system.

Edit - these two mails were posted simultaneously.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14469
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2013, 06:39:13 PM »
The article is about work from UCSD, the University of California San Diego, a part of the the Californian state university system.

Technically, UCSD is part of the University of California (UC) system; the California State University (CSU) system is a separate system although both are public university systems supported by the State of California.  Generally speaking, the UC's are the highest tier of the public university in the state, with the CSU's being the next tier down.  When you see a city name after the UC designation (e.g. UCSD) it's referring to that campus, while "the University of California" refers to UC Berkeley (aka Cal), which was the first campus in the system (and the genesis of others - their medical school became UC San Francisco, their university farm became UC Davis).

Probably TMI, but then, I went to UC Berkeley (and as we said at UCLA games, "There's only one Cal, and it's in Berkeley.  Get your own colors, get your own fight song, get a real bear!").
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

KyleSTL

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:24 PM »
OK, maybe the science isn't quite as horrible as Tom's lead me to believe.  I read through the link posted by Drizzt321 and still think the images provided have a very skewed control.  We could rename the paper:

"UCSD Discovers Using Higher Pixel Density Results in Pictures with Greater Detail"

Read through it, what I took away from it is that they created a 12mm lens (what is the effective image circle?) much smaller than the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye - definitely an impressive feat.  However the article talks about 5MP sensors (what size are said sensors?) with an unknown pixel pitch being used with this lens.  The graphic and caption read:



Quote
Advantages of a monocentric lens. Top: This image was captured with a conventional wide-angle lens, a Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR with a 12mm focal length. Middle: An inset of the image above. A close-up (right) of the man holding the board shows that this picture, taken with a conventional wide-angle camera with 12mm focal length, does not have very high resolution. Bottom: An image taken with a monocentric lens relayed onto a high-magnification digital microscope. This system did not include the fiber coupling developed by the researchers for their prototype camera, but the clarity of the detail shows the potential of using monocentric lenses to take images with both high resolution and a wide field of view.

So why is there no level playing field, say, each lens tested with the same sensor (or at least of the same pixel pitch), like shown in the test bench?:



I'm not knocking the fact that they have created a pretty impressive lens, especially considering its size (and also the apparent lack of chromatic aberation), but the picture shown, I feel, is extremely misleading and implies that the absolute most the 8-15mm can resolve is 22 MP (which I don't believe for a second).
Canon EOS 5D | Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 | 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
15mm f/2.8 Fisheye | 28mm f/1.8 USM | 50mm f/1.4 USM | 85mm f/1.8 USM | 3x 420EX | ST-E2 | Canon S90 | SD600 w/ WP-DC4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:24 PM »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2013, 07:12:21 PM »
@KyleSTL

That second image isn't even of the 5 MP sensor, at least not the way I'm reading it. It's from a high resolution microscope.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

thgmuffin

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2013, 11:03:33 PM »
The article is about work from UCSD, the University of California San Diego, a part of the the Californian state university system.

Technically, UCSD is part of the University of California (UC) system; the California State University (CSU) system is a separate system although both are public university systems supported by the State of California.  Generally speaking, the UC's are the highest tier of the public university in the state, with the CSU's being the next tier down.  When you see a city name after the UC designation (e.g. UCSD) it's referring to that campus, while "the University of California" refers to UC Berkeley (aka Cal), which was the first campus in the system (and the genesis of others - their medical school became UC San Francisco, their university farm became UC Davis).

Probably TMI, but then, I went to UC Berkeley (and as we said at UCLA games, "There's only one Cal, and it's in Berkeley.  Get your own colors, get your own fight song, get a real bear!").
I hope to get into Cal in 2 years!  8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2013, 11:03:33 PM »