Talk:Computational photography (artistic)

There has been an allegation that this is original research on Kuro5hin. Anyone care to look at this? See [1]. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As was lamented on Kuro5hin, I am no expert in the field of photography, so I am ill equipped to contest the validity of any information given in this article. It is, however, extremely suspicious that at least three of the links in the article and the External Links section are from wearcam.org, which User:Glogger says on his user page is "an intentionally disorganized dump of my thoughts and ideas". That alone makes me highly doubt that this term is widely accepted. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Article is terribly inaccurate

The article states that "what is expected of computational photography is pixel quantities that are floating point numbers" and continues in the notion that int vs. float is all there is to computational photography. This is ludicrous. There's a huge amount of research going on in this field, including high dynamic range (HDR) images, lightfields, dual photography, multi-perspective images, synthetic aperture photography... the list goes on. And none of them -- besides HDR -- are even remotely concerned with what this article talks about. (See some course websites for more info.) This obsession with "arrays of floating-point numbers" has to be removed and replaced with at least a small overview of the aforementioned real research topics.

Article moved

This discussion has been moved to here, along with the accompanying article text, from its original location on the page Computational photography. See the discussion in that article for the justification for this move. I am a new Wikipedia editor, and I now realize I did not follow proper procedure when performing this move, because I have left the article history behind; I apologize for making this procedural error. The author of the original article (whose text is now here), is encouraged to redistribute his text to more appropriate entries of the Wikipedia, then to delete this page. I have not proposed the article for deletion myself, out of deference to the author (evidently Steve Mann, whose work I admire). In particular, the material in this 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 appropriate entry. The material on Charles Wyckoff's non-digital "computational photography" is interesting, but it is no longer in keeping with modern usage of this phrase and should perhaps be filed under another entry. Finally, the citation of Mann's pioneering paper on high dynamic range imaging has been retained in the rewritten article at computational photography. MarcLevoy 05:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computational photography (artistic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wearcam.org/jlm.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827204747/http://www.merl.com/people/raskar/photo/ to http://www.merl.com/people/raskar/photo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)