Metalenses are a relatively fringe optical technology — at least, they were. Until now, it has been largely pursued by startups and scientists but that is changing as Canon has jumped into the fray and not only makes them but also produces the equipment necessary to manufacture them.

  • JehovahJoe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    1 year ago

    The goal of a metalens would be to, eventually, wholly eliminate the smartphone camera bump.

    They’ll do anything to avoid giving us a slightly thicker battery…

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Reviewers then write “it’s got great battery life, but it’s so bulky” and take a star off. It’s possible nobody actually cares, or that most people think extra battery life is worth the bulkiness. But that’s what reviewers will write, and it will affect sales.

        See also: laptop bezels. Reviewers say you’re supposed to want the thinnest one possible. Problem is, web cams tend to be better if they can be bigger, and there isn’t enough room in those thin bezels for a good one. Thus, your laptop web cam looks substantially worse than your smartphone.

        Reviewers need to think harder about what they emphasize.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s so weird what reviewers will focus on. The tiny bezel thing is terrible, for phones and laptops.

          I need to be able to hold my phone - without bezels I’m constantly touching the wrong part of the screen.

          And you already covered the laptop webcam. OK, fine, make the side and bottom bezels smaller, but leave the top one for… Wifi antennas and webcam?

      • pahlimur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        My previous phone was a motoG power and though it was bulky and a bit laggy the battery life was amazing. It’s I think 3 years old now and I still use it in airplane mode for reasons. The battery lasts 3 weeks when I don’t touch it. Compare that the s22 I’m typing this on which barely lasts 1 day in standby with batter saver enabled. I hate this phone after having that sweet multi day battery life.

        • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep, battery size and life was increasing nicely… Once it got to 1 day for the “average” user (i.e. People who barely use them) manufacturers said “good enough”.

          I charge 2-3 times a day… Though I don’t let it get below 30%, mostly in case I need to suddenly walk out the door.

          And I can’t even buy an external battery phone case these days, like I used to.

          • pahlimur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I’m old enough to have started with candy bar phones. Battery life has been creeping back below 1 day for a while. That motoG power would play music on Bluetooth all day if I started at 10% battery. It could also sit at 1% battery for hours if I didn’t touch it. Getting this new flagship phone is making me realize I value battery life way more than I realized.

            Biggest issue with the older motoG was the camera sucked. I think the new version fixed that so I’ll probably go back to it.

        • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok, to be honest, Samsung software was crap and is still crap. They only fixed the lagginess with more cpu/gpu power, leading to shorter battery life.

    • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck smartphones, I wanna finally have glasses that are thin, light, and without distortions, reflections, or chromatic aberration

  • kevinBLT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, used to get these in the bottom of a packet of chips with a pokemon on em.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Oddly, Canon declined to provide PetaPixel with detailed information about its metalens technology and also chose not to provide any photos of its tech” Oddly a megatech corporation elected to keep a tight grip on its early IP? 🤔

    • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those are beautiful. A couple years ago I went on a hunt trying to find one to hang up as wall art. They are pricey.

  • TryingToEscapeTarkov@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder when companies are going to shift from making stupid stuff we don’t need like this and start working on things to clean up the environment they destroyed making things for the last 40 years.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why would they?

      I’m not being trite, I’m being serious. If they’re not given a reason to do so, companies don’t do things.

    • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you really think that is a viable business then you should be shifting towards creating said business that makes money working on things to clean up the environment.

      • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He didnt ask when companies will shift to making money. He asked when will companies shift to making things we need.

        Money is a useful tool, but it is not life sustaining by itself. Our species existed without money for longer than we’ve had money.

        What humans really need is a habitable planet where we can feed ourselves, have shelter and cultivate culture with others.

        Unfortunately the desire for money has disincentivised taking care of the ecosystem that provides food, protects us from solar radiation and keeps us and our crops from baking or freezing to death.

        • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s wishful thinking to hope that companies will change their goals and prioritize whatever someone else says. Ultimately companies are trying to create profit by providing value. If we want them to change we need to understand what motivates a company. If someone “disagrees” and thinks reality should be something else, then no one is stopping them from forming a company and run it under those principles.

          • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed! I think your first paragraph was the commentor’s point, though I dunno

            It’s pretty sad that actually doing things to help our ecosystem is for the most part very unprofitable.

            • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think we need to address the problem by preventing companies from externalizing their costs. If they had to pay exactly as much as it cost to clean up the pollution they emit then they will actually internalize that cost and have financial incentives to decrease pollution. I am obviously oversimplifyng since the cost is not constant and this would create a financial incentive to create companies that remove/ filter pollutants more effectively and efficiently.

              It’s complicated because it requires international agreements but it’s a more realistic approach than thinking companies should do it because we need them to.

              • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hell yeah!

                Great point. The WTO has been effective at enforcing international trade agreements.

                Most of their enforcement has been things like forcing countries to import tuna caught with dolphin- killing nets and other messed up stuff… … but they could totally enforce a carbon & pollution fee system for internationally traded goods.

                Being that they are essentially run by international conglomerates, I doubt they will, but they are positioned to.

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      But you gotta admit that this is fucking cool. And its relatively innocent compared to some other inventions.

  • Kazumara@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if they have any application in optical networking, like making wavelength selective switches (WSS) cheaper, more reliable, or smaller.