Envisioning the Future: The Evolution of Cameras in the Next Decade

If you simply want the answer to the inquiry, scroll down to the second bold line later within the article. However, it is essential to arrive there through some context, so I hope you will read my entire exposition. 

______________________________

“It appears that we are in a timeframe where we have reached the limits of miniaturization! We can’t move to smaller microchips, as the strength of the currents within the chips will cause the electricity to skip across circuits and create issues.” — Internet forum contribution

When you come across something akin to the aforementioned quote online, you’re encountering an ill-informed perspective that is incorrect. I cannot express that more straightforwardly. Regrettably, the Internet has this amplification phenomenon, so once someone shares their anxiety online, it can rapidly escalate into genuine apprehension and ultimately widespread belief. 

In my discussions with semiconductor professionals, they all seem to agree that we have at least a decade’s worth of a reasonable (slower) form of Moore’s Law (miniaturization) ahead of us (and I believe cameras are far from being state-of-the-art, so they have considerable ground to cover). Furthermore, we’ve encountered these “Moore’s Law is coming to an end” allegations previously. The first instance I heard such claims was nearly two decades ago. 

As many of you are aware, I am a technology enthusiast, and I am hopeful that science will continue to lead us on a path of discovery that produces new and improved technologies in the future. Assuming, of course, that we persist in pursuing and considering science, which, regrettably, is not assured. I worry that we currently seem to be heading into the modern equivalent of the Dark Ages.

At the core of declarations like the above are individuals contemplating what lies ahead for “cameras.” I place that term in quotation marks because I believe what we categorize as a camera is likely to evolve in the upcoming decades. You can already observe this in certain forms. For example, “cameras” in Tesla vehicles have been utilized in a variety of settings from legal cases to artistic endeavors. One could argue that, rather than a device held in hand and viewed through, Tesla “photographers” merely drive their cameras to their desired photo locations.

I frequently receive the “what’s next for photography” query. This is partly due to my accurate predictions concerning the shift from film to digital, as well as the transition from DSLR to mirrorless technology. However, most of these inquiries are not genuinely about photography; they revolve around gear, such as “I’m using a Nikon ZX; what will I be utilizing in ten years, and will Nikon still manufacture cameras?” Although I am unable to answer the first part of the question with the level of detail the individual may desire, the response to the latter part is “yes, but perhaps not in the way you are envisioning.”

The fascinating aspect of being at the forefront of the tech industry for an extended period is that one witnesses the future through failures. I’ll provide a straightforward personal instance: back when we initially conceptualized Go and the PenPoint operating system, we quickly discovered the application of tabs in the user interface. Indeed, the entire PenPoint user experience revolved around navigating through tabs to access different information. Do you recognize something within that statement? Does the web browser you are currently using possess tabs for transitioning between data? Go may have faltered, yet many of our ideas have thrived and flourished ;~) 

Concepts that are fundamentally accurate in technology do persist. Here is another one that people have since disregarded but ought not to: Lytro’s light field capture. Similar to Go, Lytro consumed nine figures of investment capital, only to vanish. Nevertheless, I vividly recall the enthusiasm among the Hollywood community when Lytro showcased their Immerge system at NAB in 2016. Initially, I assumed it was the three-dimensional virtual reality that constituted the appeal—witness today’s Apple Vision Pro attempting a similar approach—but that wasn’t the case. During a cab ride with a Disney executive, I discovered the true reason for their interest, which was the volumetric video aspect of the system: since the entire environment in front of the “camera” was fully mapped in 3D, implementing special effects—”replace that cardboard box with a robot”—could be effortlessly executed. Actually, “easily conceivable to execute.”

Volumetric video is still on the horizon. The concepts, research, physics, geometry, and every element associated with the idea is still developing; it simply isn’t completely realized as practical consumer products yet.

Which leads me to my response to the inquiry, “what will cameras resemble in ten years?” Firstly, they will incorporate multiple inputs (sensors). Secondly, they will merge what we comprehend about the world with what the sensors detect (AI). Thirdly, user control interaction will (largely) vanish and will be supplanted by user processing interaction. My marketing tagline? “The world is your camera.” 

This presents a challenging aspect for the Japanese camera manufacturers. I would contend that virtually all the “innovation” in cameras we have observed from Tokyo has built upon discoveries established by others before them. Digital image sensors were not conceived in Japan. More like Bell Labs. However, once outside the labs, the idea of transforming photons into electrons and recording that became a relatively clear target, especially considering the method we had been employing primarily revolved around chemicals originating from Rochester, New York. This allowed the Japanese to revolutionize an entire market. 

Disruption has always been integral to business cycles. The challenge lies in identifying the next technology that facilitates such disruption. 

You may assume that the AI integrated into your camera today—virtually all focus systems utilize one presently—indicates that the Japanese are ahead of the curve. They aren’t. The AI featured in your camera today is mainly based on machine learning derived AI that we were discussing in Silicon Valley ten to twenty years ago. The current AI focus systems have moved past the challenge Netflix faced in 2006 when they were attempting to determine “movie recommendations.” Personally, I can discern what the focus systems were trained on, and what they weren’t. They remain quite limited in their capabilities at this time.

My impression is that the Japanese are falling behind the US and China regarding our current considerations about AI engines and applications. That does not imply that this situation will remain the case, however. It’s a potential point of disruption for the Japanese camera sector, and I would closely monitor DJI and their activities in that area, as that is where the future generation of “cameras” may genuinely emerge from. 

Of course, smartphones are also part of the equation. Too many individuals become preoccupied with the constraints of compact image sensors when they discuss smartphone “cameras.” Smartphones actually stand at the forefront of the #2 and #3 points I articulated a camera would resemble in ten years (five paragraphs prior). 

Thus, my concluding thought is this: the camera industry is bound to experience disruption once more. Perhaps in five years, or maybe in ten years, but undeniably within twenty years. That upheaval will arise from China or the US (as long as current trends continue). Japan is on a timeline. 

—————–

Bonus: Oh, I must express this. My fingers are currently outpacing my thoughts. 21st-century cameras will be communicative. There, I articulated it (again; I first stated that in 2007). This implies that they do not exist in isolation. They will integrate with all of your other technology. Naturally. Conveniently. In real-time. The Japanese aspire to believe that they are creating systems. Nope. Their product is (or ought to be) a component of a larger system that they do not control. 

—————–

Some of you may desire a deeper level of detail than the three points I mentioned. I can actually provide that. However, I still consult with tech firms and startups occasionally, so I will reserve my comprehensive insights for those discussions.