heliographe

It's not mentioned in the piece, but for the latter I don't see any technical obstacle to having several of these in different rooms in the house, or a couple in the same room to augment coverage.

One big difference in direction is that Dynamicland + Folk Computer use projector+computer vision as substrate to try and reinvent/rethink the interactive/dynamic medium, and what end-user programming could be (which is very cool).

In that way I am much less ambitious; this exploration is more about how there is an entire class of existing interactions (the ones showed in the piece) that we perform today on screens, that could be much more interesting + collaborative if overlaid in the real world. And I am also terribly uninspired by the eyewear-based computing vision all major companies have pushed lately.

Most of the videos are shot in real life, during summer daylight (only exception are the 2 person around a table ones, which are shot at night in a room with regular ceiling lighting).

And the projector I used is only 1100 ISO lumens; fancier models go way higher.

If you project mostly white content, it's remarkably readable + visible. Outdoors in direct sunlight would be another story, of course.

The main question I tend to get from hacker-types is "what are the tech specs?". The demos run on a Mac with custom software I built for projection mapping/rendering/etc. (the hand tracking uses Apple's built-in framework, which is very good), a small consumer 4k laser projector, and a basic webcam for vision.

But really, this is primarily a research/design prototype - I think it's much more important to figure out what the user experience should ideally feel like, if the interactions are even plausible & desirable in the first place; and then work backwards to the technology.

There's still some amount of denoising/sharpening/etc happening in the ISP, but essentially shooting Bayer RAW gets you the output of just the small first part of the pipeline, rather than the whole pipeline.

[0] Despite the confusingly similar names, Bayer RAW and Apple ProRAW are quite different - I wrote about it on this page because I frequently get emails from confused customers.

https://bayercam.com/understanding-bayer-raw

I think this is a situation where the enthusiasts care more about the telephoto (for intentional photographic compositions), but the mainstream user base uses the Ultrawide more (for inside shots, group photos, etc) - so Apple caters to the latter, to the dismay of the former.

(the clear wide > tele > ultrawide hierarchy of optical/sensor quality doesn't help either)

> Camera quality feels as good as ever, it’s apparently not as good a main sensor as the Pro iPhones but I can’t really tell. It still has that distinctly over-processed look plaguing modern smartphones

Same here - photography-minded users hate the over processed look, but the general population must like them, otherwise there's no way that manufacturers would persist doubling down on it year-after-year.

For a while now I've been working on a Bayer RAW only pro camera app (https://bayercam.app) specifically because I'm a photography nerd and care about full control, but I realize it's a pretty niche thing.

And as you point out, at capture time you can use color filters to affect the image; processing too can lead to fairly different results based on what developer you use.

This is in contrast to color film, which I find to be much more rigid and narrow in how it’s meant to look and be processed; one could argue there’s much less range for interpretation from negative to final image (especially so with slide film, which completely falls apart if it’s ever so slightly over/under exposed).

I find this to be a key insight. I've been working on a black-and-white film app for a while now (it's on my website in profile if you're curious), and in the early stages I spent time poring over academic papers that claim to build an actual physical model of how silver halide emulsions react to light.

I quickly realized this was a dead end because 1) they were horribly inefficient (it's not uncommon for photographers to have 50-100MP photos these days, and I don't want my emulator to take several minutes to preview/export a full image), and 2) the result didn't even look that good/close to actual film in the end (sometimes to the point where I wondered if the authors actually looked at real film, rather than get lost into their own physical/mathematical model of how film "should behave").

Forgetting the physics for a moment, and focusing instead on what things look and feel like, and how that can be closely approximated with real time computer graphics approach, yielded far better results.

Of course the physics can sometimes shed some light on why something is missing from your results, and give you vocabulary for the mechanics of it, but that doesn't mean you should try to emulate it accurately.

I read this interview with spktra/Josh Fagin and how he worked on digitally recreating how light scatters through animation cels, which creates a certain effect that is missing from digital animation - and it was validating to read a similar insight:

"The key isn’t simulating the science perfectly, but training your eye to recognize the character of analog light through film, so you can recreate the feeling of it."

https://animationobsessive.substack.com/p/dangerous-light

https://mastodon.social/@heliographe_studio/1156653713048409...

(taken with BayerCam.app, not Halide, but Halide can capture the same raw Bayer data)

It's not an amazing photo by any means. But it is a photograph of the moon - the seas are all well delineated, Copernicus/Kepler/Aristarchus/Grimaldi are visible/recognizable.

A test that smartphones did not pass a few years ago.

I see it a lot in photography, to show before/after processing - but what you want to be able to quickly compare are the same part of an image with and without the processing applied.

One of the photography tools I make is a LUT viewer/converter - and while I didn't have the slider at first, I guess it's standard enough at this point that people asked for it and I added it.

But I made two additions to it that make it more useful IMO:

- have labels on the left/right top corners, so it's immediately clear which version of the image you're looking at

- click and hold on the image to preview the full unprocessed version; release to revert to the view. That makes it easy to quickly compare the two versions of the same spot of a photo. (similar to what you suggest, but non-latching)

I have a video of it in action here:

https://lutlab.com/#viewer-photo

I publish all my posts on Threads/X/Bluesky/Mastodon because I have to meet my customers where they are, but Mastodon is the preferred platform that I point everyone to for open standards reasons.

(if a moderator doesn't mind updating the link, that'd be great)

There's lots of interesting discussions to be had around what makes a great icon (but social media platforms aren't the places to have those deep conversations). For example the original Mac HIG says that an app icon should:

- clearly represent the document the application creates

- use graphics that convey meaning about what your application does

(https://www.threads.com/@heliographe.studio/post/DTehlciE3wY)

The first point might be a little outdated, as we tend to live in a "post-document" world, especially on mobile. The second is broad enough that it holds up, and under that lens it doesn't seem that an image of a pen/stylus is most appropriate for a word processor app.

By that metric, the Mavericks/Catalina (5th and 6th on the linked image) seem like the strongest icons. The Big Sur (4th) one isn't too bad given the "must fit in a squircle constraints" that came with it, but it starts to feel less like a word processor app icon - it could as easily be an icon for TextEdit/Notes.

The most recent 3 are very hard to defend - the main thing they have going for them is that because they are simpler and monochromatic, they fit more easily within a broader design system/icon family. Even then, the simpler shape doesn't make them more legible - a number of people have told me they thought it was a bandaid at first, or maybe something terminal-related for the orange on black one. The "line" under the pencil (or is it a shadow?) on the most recent one is almost as thick as the pencil itself, and blends with it because gestalt theory.

I agree that the 7th one (original ink bottle) has a few issues that don't necessarily make it the best choice for an icon - but dang, the level of craft that goes into it makes it an instant classic for me. And it does retain a fairly distinct, legible shape that still makes it a solid icon even if the detail gets lost at smaller sizes.

Icons need to be quickly recognizable, but at the same time an icon is not a glyph - and illustrational approach do have their place. Especially on devices with larger screens where they are going to appear quite large in most contexts.

The big elephant in the room with all this is that icons 5/6/7 clearly take more craft skill to execute than icons 1/2/3, and Apple used to be the absolute reference - no debate possible - when it came to these matters. As a long time software designer (and former Apple designer myself through the 2010s, although I was on the hardware interaction design side, and not making icons), it is sad that this is no longer true.

https://heliographe.studio

The goal is lightweight, composable tools with clean interfaces that respect user agency and privacy, provide technical clarity, and make you a better photographer by encouraging mastery over your tools and offering new ways to approach picture making. Also broadly honoring the (almost) 2 century old history of the craft and drawing inspiration from pre-digital processes and approaches.

Got a number of updates to existing apps and new ones in the works, I’m excited for the full long term vision I have that I plan to sum up in an essay at some point.

Currently Apple platforms only but the plan is also to break out of that down the line.

(color is IMO less interesting - more finicky, less creative latitude)

It’s a minimal investment of time & money (even simpler if you have a community darkroom near you - there are more than you might think!), and it’s both more creatively rewarding as a process than what you get working digitally, and for IMO a better result (you need a really high quality printer to match what standard b&w printing gives you).

Prints also make for great gifts - people just aren’t used to seeing 8x10 printed portraits anymore, and I’ve had friends/family members moved to tears when presented with a framed print of their family.

Oh and there’s also always large format ;)

But I still use it on a weekly basis myself so I just can't stop refining it. I've been obsessed with the trichromatic process for 10+ years, ever since I discovered the work of Prokudin Gorsky (even built a website about the process and history: https://trichromy.com, due for a refresh some time). Such a clever approach to color photography that results in such a unique aesthetic.

Depends what you mean by “commercially viable”. I’ve been making high quality products as an independent software developer in the photography space for a bit over 2 years now, and while I’m nowhere near my former big tech company salary, I still make more than needed to pay for life every month (not living an extravagant lifestyle somewhere with ridiculous cost of living does help).

And I still feel like I’m far from having reached full potential in my addressable market and the kind of products I want to build - I have indie developer friends who are pretty close to their former big tech salary, after 5+ years.

So, despair not :)

The photography world is mired in proprietary software/ formats, and locked down hardware; and while it has always been true that a digital camera is “just” a computer, now more than ever it is painful just how limited and archaic on-board camera software is when compared to what we’ve grown accustomed to in the mobile phone era.

If I compare photography to another creative discipline I am somewhat familiar with, music production - the latter has way more open software/hardware initiatives, and freedom of not having to tether yourself to large, slow, user-abusing companies when choosing gear to work with.

Long live Magic Lantern!

My most recent release is a camera app dedicated to RAW photography, which focuses on being fast & lightweight & technically precise - I wrote the website to be both a user’s manual and a crash course in photography concepts: https://bayercam.app

I’m working on my next app release, which I’m pretty excited about!

I’ve been making iOS software independently for almost 2 years now (https://heliographe.studio) and am about ramen profitable.

A few notes in case OP (or anyone interested in making some money in the App Store) is reading:

- you have to make the app free to download, and quickly demonstrate value then show a paywall if you want any purchases. Paid upfront just does not work unless you’re an already recognized product.

I had some apps that were paid upfront, and would mostly get $0 days. Switching to free to download immediately brought me to a slow but steady trickle of daily downloads, and from there you just have to work on your conversion rate.

- but that's still going to be pretty low, if you want any meaningful user acquisition, you're going to have to go look for the kind of people who might be interested in your product. The broader your potential audience is, the harder that's going to be (but that's why TikTok ads can work so well). In my case, choosing to focus on a somewhat niche area (tools for photography) is helpful; there's a strong photography community going on Threads and regularly posting on there yields good results (for now...)

- $2.99 is dramatically underselling yourself, especially if you offer a quality product that you put time to craft to your standards and has no tracking, no subscription, no ads, etc. You should play with pricing to see what the sweet spot in terms of conversion is, but in my experience it's always worth it to start at least at $4.99/$7.99 for these sort of utility apps. Of course, the design of your funnel/paywall will make a huge difference (ie you'll likely sell more of an app marked as $4.99 at 50% off, than just $4.99)

- learn about what makes for good App Store screenshots, descriptions, how keywords work, etc. Ariel from App Figures has some good videos on YouTube about what they see and what seems to work based on their data.

The days where you could make a little app, chuck it on the App Store for $.99, and have it just blow up are well over. If you want to make any money on the App Store (even if to just pay back for your Apple Developer membership), you have to put as much effort, if not more, in the marketing and promotion of your product than you put in the design & development of it. It's a grind for sure — and don't count on Apple to help you in any way (by and large they seemed more interested to promote games and dating apps with $49.99/mo subscriptions than small indies doing interesting things).

Good luck! Eager to try your app :)

My previous comment was about the default Photo mode.

If you have a recent iPhone (iPhone 15 or above iirc) try it yourself - taking a photo of a regular object in the standard Photo mode won’t yield a depth map, but one of a person or pet will. Any photo taken from the Portrait mode will yield a depth map.

You can find out more about this feature by googling “iPhone auto portrait mode”.

Apple’s documentation is less helpful with the terminology; they call it “Apply the portrait effect to photos taken in Photo mode”

https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/edit-portrait-mode-ph...

Yes, they will capture them from the main photo mode if there’s a subject (human or pet) in the scene.

> I made an app that used the depth maps and portrait effects mattes from Portraits for some creative filters. It was pretty fun, but it's no longer available

What was your app called? Is there any video of it available anywhere? Would be curious to see it!

I also made a little tool, Matte Viewer, as part of my photo tool series - but it’s just for viewing/exporting them, no effects bundled:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/matte-viewer/id6476831058

As another commenter pointed out, they used to be captured only in Portrait mode, but on recent iPhones they get captured automatically pretty much whenever a subject (human or pet) is detected in the scene.

I make photography apps & tools (https://heliographe.net), and one of the tools I built, Matte Viewer, is specifically for viewing & exporting them: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/matte-viewer/id6476831058