Apple has a patent on something similar - technology (for a cell phone camera) to correct for subject motion blur and/or camera shake.
Let's recap:
• you no longer have to focus correctly;
• don't have to expose properly;
• don't have to compose nicely;
• don't have to edit. Nikon has technology that will automatically pick the best image from a series of similar photos;
• don't have worry about people blinking. Software will auto-switch heads or other body parts;
• up to 60 fps means you don't have to worry about peak action;
• with a few thousand pictures per card, you don't have to worry about getting it right the first time or even getting it right at all;
• ISO up to 102,000 means you don't have to worry about light;
• in-camera cropping, red-eye correction, perspective straightening, HDR, tilt-shift, B+W conversion, duotones;
• over 20 in-camera scene modes (sports mode, child portrait mode, pet mode, snow mode, beach mode, sunset mode, floral mode, ....). You don't have to think about photography;
• auto white balance, auto exposure, auto ISO, auto flash, auto focus, auto bracketing;
What's left?
The weak link in photography is, of course, the human idiot who has to carry the camera from location to location. As soon as cameras grow legs, the human can be left at home.
Sure, an out-of focus or otherwise mangled picture can be a killer. How often do you get a good picture but it's too soft to use? When this happens, what do you do, other than swear loudly? Hopefully, you learn something for next time and move on. Or you switch to the other brand.
This obsession with making everything idiot-proof and pixel-perfect is a bit wrong headed. Although, it does help sell more product.
Why do people complain when a picture is Photoshopped to perfection (e.g. an advertising picture) but they have no problem altering their own reality?
Why turn photography into a kids' paint-by-numbers toy? An 8-year old gets satisfaction from completing a paint-by-numbers (or colour-by-numbers) picture. But if an adult is doing a paint-by-numbers then a visit to a psychologist might be time better spent.
Instead of trying to fix something that isn't broken, (photography isn't broken), why not concentrate on fixing the loose screw behind the viewfinder?
Rather than adding more idiot-proofing features to its software, with each copy of Photoshop sold, Adobe should include, say, a book of Karsh portraits or a subscription to National Geographic. This will create more inspired camera users who will produce better pictures that will give more satisfaction. And isn't that why people buy cameras in the first place?
Is there an algorithm for inspiration?
(Or I could be wrong about all this.)