10-17-2015, 05:21 PM
There are two parts to this. The sensor is designed to read out as best it can, then you have to decide what to do with that output. Spying may be one application, if you need to cover a large field of view in one at high resolution.
Adaptive optics is something that is used for astro, but we might be waiting a long time for it to come to a consumer application. Generally it needs to have a correction signal to know how to adapt. Fine if you have a nearby target to what you are imaging to look at in parallel. Not so great in a busy day scene. As for costs going down, there is an affordable "adaptive optics" add on you can buy today. It isn't using mirror deformation, but deflection like lens IS systems. The difference is that instead of correcting for human rates of movement, it is tuned to work on much faster fluctuations.
I don't think a video turbulence correction need be that computationally intensive. For example, look at existing digital stabilisation systems for video. This crops the image a bit and aligns the scene globally. The difference for correcting turbulence would be alter the algorithms to work on small areas. More work, but I don't think it would be disproportionately more computationally costly to implement.
Adaptive optics is something that is used for astro, but we might be waiting a long time for it to come to a consumer application. Generally it needs to have a correction signal to know how to adapt. Fine if you have a nearby target to what you are imaging to look at in parallel. Not so great in a busy day scene. As for costs going down, there is an affordable "adaptive optics" add on you can buy today. It isn't using mirror deformation, but deflection like lens IS systems. The difference is that instead of correcting for human rates of movement, it is tuned to work on much faster fluctuations.
I don't think a video turbulence correction need be that computationally intensive. For example, look at existing digital stabilisation systems for video. This crops the image a bit and aligns the scene globally. The difference for correcting turbulence would be alter the algorithms to work on small areas. More work, but I don't think it would be disproportionately more computationally costly to implement.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.