WOW, What do you think? LYTRO ILLUM ???

[photoguy99]

Who on earth would want to change ISO from from shot to shot? That's just lack of discipline.

Roll film? But how can I vary development from frame to frame? That's just a stupid idea.

Zoom lenses will never go anywhere, they just haven't got the image quality, and never will. They'll always be a cheapo alternative for retards.

How on earth can you take pictures with a camera where you can't swing the back? That makes no sense.

---

There is so much misinformation in the remarks above (and, I dare say, will be in the remarks below) that I can't be bothered to correct any of it. Go look at the web site it you're interested in the future rather than the past. It's a bit hype-intensive, but you can sort some it out. For further information google "light field camera" it turns out there there are quite a few of these things out there, Lytro just happens to be the only company targeting consumers. More power to 'em.

 

[JerryLove]

In short: the four main advantages I can think of are.
1) You can change focal point after-the-fact (so no chance of missing focus, no need to put auto-focus on the lens, no waiting for AF to get the target, etc).
2) You can change DoF after-the-fact.
3) You can use simpler lenses (since the sensor gets the light ray data rather than point data you can do far more lens correction in post processing)

1-3 are interesting but not all that useful

You may not consider them useful. Other people will and already do consider them very useful.

Some people like 0% missed focus. I would.
Some people like being able to take a shot and then make focus decisions later. You can shoot a band or a crowd and then later make the art.
This would be extra helpful in video shooting, where tracking focus with a narrow DoF is a real challenge.

#3 means less expensive lenses. I'm not sure how anyone considers lower cost , less weight , simpler design, and less distortion "not that useful", but to each their own.

4) You can get 3D off a single lens. Well, you can get a distance map to everything. Actually producing a new 3D image might be a problem due to occlusion.

#4 if you could actually do it (probably through 3rd party app/post processing would be incredible). There are machines that do it now but they run somewhere between 100k-1Mil a pop. If somebody could figure out how to do it for 2K I would buy it in a heart beat.

From a "view in 3D" perspective, the issue would be occlusion. But you do have distance information encoded in the image.

 

[unpopular]

Their process is a solution that doesn't have a problem. LOL!

Oh, I disagree. While the refocussing is nifty and could be useful; aperture not being limited by DOF. Having a depth information also has significant potential.

Imagine being able to do something like adding blue and desaturation to the background precisely, while warming the foreground without ever masking? Just say "everything behind this point apply this color correction". This would be great for landscapes.

For commercial photography, the same concept could be used to isolate the subject without needing to use a chromakey or masking. You might even be able to manipulate spacial compression.

Certainly how Lytro is marketing their cameras is a little bit silly, but I do think there is potential to the technology. Just not in how it's presently being implemented.

 

[snowbear]

I would think this could be very useful in forensics and some research applications (like archaeology).

 

[Solarflare]

I remember when the first one came out and the designer/founder outright refused to talk about resolution. At least now they're putting a number on it; 4 Mp.

Its "40 Megaray".

Which translates to something like 1.25 to 1.5 Megapixel, apparently, depending upon source. :meh:

Its an interesting concept - but is it actually the camera of the future ? The sensor itself has 40 Megapixels, and its only 1".

Imagine, you could get 40 Megapixels instead of just 1.5 !

The price is fair though, I have no complaints about that one. Its a new technology. Of course it will be cheaper in the future - that is, if it sells at all in the first place.

 

[JerryLove]

I remember when the first one came out and the designer/founder outright refused to talk about resolution. At least now they're putting a number on it; 4 Mp.

Its "40 Megaray".

Which translates to something like 1.25 to 1.5 Megapixel, apparently, depending upon source. :meh:

The company is claiming it comes out to 4MP.

But perhaps the best thing is to just look at the output and decide if it's "enough" right now: https://pictures.lytro.com/lytro/albums/149429/embed?token=6cb04136-c43a-11e3-9416-22000a8b14ce

 

[Braineack]

It's a really expensive "3d" gif creator right now.

 

[photoguy99]

I'd like to see your sources, Solarflare.

If we assume 4 megapixels, it's been pointed out by anyone paying attention, and on TPF by Derrel and probably others, that this is plenty of resolution for virtually all consumer needs. I don't pretend to understand the math, but I do know that light field cameras aggregate a bunch of information from a bunch of real pixels to calculate the final image pixels, so it's not an unreasonable speculation that these are 4 very very good quality megapixels. There is, potentially, excellent color information and noise rejection. As we know, surely, good pixels are often better than lots of pixels.

Taking accurate focus out of the equation is *huge* for amateurs. I find it hilarious that TPF, the forum where it seems that 50% of "critique" is "missed focus" should somehow miss the fact that this thing takes focus out of the equation, and denigrate that as a gimmick.

Being able to shoot wide open all the time (you don't have a choice) with great depth of field seems pretty useful to me.

 

[Derrel]

Their process is a solution that doesn't have a problem. LOL!

That is exactly what dPreview's website said of the first Olympus d-slr that had the useless as teats on a boar feature called "Live View". The geniuses at dPreview called Live View "A solution in search of a problem."

Lytro's technology and concept might some day be more well accepted. Like other useless new inventions, like the self-propelled carriage and the telephone.

 

[rexbobcat]

I'd like to see your sources, Solarflare. If we assume 4 megapixels, it's been pointed out by anyone paying attention, and on TPF by Derrel and probably others, that this is plenty of resolution for virtually all consumer needs. I don't pretend to understand the math, but I do know that light field cameras aggregate a bunch of information from a bunch of real pixels to calculate the final image pixels, so it's not an unreasonable speculation that these are 4 very very good quality megapixels. There is, potentially, excellent color information and noise rejection. As we know, surely, good pixels are often better than lots of pixels. Taking accurate focus out of the equation is *huge* for amateurs. I find it hilarious that TPF, the forum where it seems that 50% of "critique" is "missed focus" should somehow miss the fact that this thing takes focus out of the equation, and denigrate that as a gimmick. Being able to shoot wide open all the time (you don't have a choice) with great depth of field seems pretty useful to me.

My issue with 4MP is that it limits how much I can crop and still have a decent size image.

And the sensor is rather small as well so I'm not sure how good the noise performance would really be.

It's promising technology but this first (second?) attempt at breaking into the consumer market is kinda "Meh."

 

[JerryLove]

My issue with 4MP is that it limits how much I can crop and still have a decent size image.

And the sensor is rather small as well so I'm not sure how good the noise performance would really be.

It's promising technology but this first (second?) attempt at breaking into the consumer market is kinda "Meh."

I think these are very valid reasons for someone to not run out and grab this version.

I have need of more than 4MP for the image size I print to.
I have need of more than 4MP for the cropping I do.
The low-light performance is less than I need.
I need specialized lenses for my work which are unavailable at present for this camera.

There's a large number of reasons why this camera may not be right for you; but it's a far cry between that and saying that this is not a generally useful or good technology.

My favorite part is the added speed of not waiting for AF combines with the knowledge that focus will be exactly where I want it every single shot.

 

[Patriot]

Although not many people will but it, I still believe it's still great innovation. At least someone somewhere is changing things and moving forward. Who know maybe 10-20 in the future as tech gets better we might see this in more cameras.

 

[unpopular]

Their process is a solution that doesn't have a problem. LOL!

That is exactly what dPreview's website said of the first Olympus d-slr that had the useless as teats on a boar feature called "Live View". The geniuses at dPreview called Live View "A solution in search of a problem."

No kidding. I remember when Sony first introduced the articulating screen (a350?), and people were all like "that's just something to impress point and shooters" (again, dpreview); when I first read that I immediately thought back to shooting over a crowed with a 35mm FSLR and hoping that something useable would come out of it. I was like 'are you kidding? you seriously can't see this as an advantage??!!'

I think that Lytro is way ahead of it's time, probably by about 30 years even. But I think the technology does have a future.

 

[RonaRight]

The Lytro light field cameras are pretty cool as far as technology goes, but the market is very niche. I don't think this is a good all around camera and is really only good if you have a foreground, midground, and background. It really serves no purpose with 2D images of typical things such as typical family and vacation shots. it's really designed more for the creative shots.

 

[JerryLove]

The Lytro light field cameras are pretty cool as far as technology goes, but the market is very niche. I don't think this is a good all around camera and is really only good if you have a foreground, midground, and background. It really serves no purpose with 2D images of typical things such as typical family and vacation shots. it's really designed more for the creative shots.

Except that people miss focus all the time on their family vacation shots. Problem solved.

The AF on most family contrast focus cameras can take some time too... problem solved.

Also: DoF may not be what they would have preferred. Problem solved.

I'd think it would be *more* useful for typical shooters than for enthusiasts right now.