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

[Derrel]

Seems like a few people "get it". It's kind of like the ages old saying, "From little acorns, mighty oaks do grow."

The Wright Brothers flew an utterly POS, homebuilt, wood-and-canvas aeroplane at Kitty Hawk...they stayed aloft about 12 seconds and flew around 120 feet. Huh. What a useless invention. Modern aviation.

 

[Solarflare]

Except - this is nothing new per se, though.

You can emulate its function in principle with any camera - just have a still scene and then shoot a series of photographs, moving the focus slowly forward or backward in each shot.

You can also simply STOP DOWN in order to get everything in focus. Except of course then you'll need more light, or slower shutter speeds, or higher ISO.

The new thing is that you can do the same now in one shot. Or much of the same. You wont be able to manage the full range with the Illum and will have to shoot multiple photographs with the Illum for doing the full range on that camera as well.

In my opinion, this is still more of a toy. Just like many other possible improvements of cameras, for the time being I see this as another thing that would be great to have, but not succeeding because most people will rather want ultimate image quality.

 

[photoguy99]

Saying that 'most people' are substantially interested in image quality shows a wild disconnect with reality.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Saying that 'most people' are substantially interested in image quality shows a wild disconnect with reality.

I agree. I didn't even noticed iq until I started shooting, and even then, I can't discern much difference in iq between a full frame and a crop, so I could care less. People who are technicians of their art/trade tend to be disconnected with reality. No on really cares about the nuances found to be important by the pros. It's not just photography, it's most anything creative. Musicians arguing over which guitar has the best sound. Graphic designers arguing about type face. Sommeliers arguing about the flare of Pinot glasses.

 

[Solarflare]

Saying that 'most people' are substantially interested in image quality shows a wild disconnect with reality.

Okay: most people who would give you 1600$ for a new camera do so because they want the image quality you get for that price. Better ?

 

[Patriot]

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.

Indeed it does have a future. It's sad that most people don't see it and or too afraid to give it a chance.

Here are 30 fail technology predictions about future advances based on the current times.

1. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

2. “We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates

3. “Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.

4. “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States.” — T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

5. “To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth – all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926

6. “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.

7. “Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

8. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

9. “There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

10. “Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.

11. “This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy during World War II, advising President Truman on the atomic bomb, 1945.[6] Leahy admitted the error five years later in his memoirs

12. “The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” — Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

13. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

14. “The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage.” -– Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916

15. “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

16. “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.

17. “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” — A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).

18. “The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959.

19. “I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” — HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.

20. “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

21. “The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.

22. “How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” — Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton’s steamboat, 1800s.

23. “Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

24. “Home Taping Is Killing Music” — A 1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry.

25. “Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.” — Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948.

26. “[Television] won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” — Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.

27. “When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson

28. “Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as ‘railroads’ … As you may well know, Mr. President, ‘railroad’ carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by ‘engines’ which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed.” — Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1830(?).

29. “Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

30. “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.

 

[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.

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.

Are you certain that the DoF can actually be changed? I know you can change the focus point from foreground to middle to background, but not so sure that you can actually make more or less of the shot in focus.

The camera still needs to focus on something, you won't just be able to take a shot and then focus on whatever you want later on. I don't think the shooting experience is that much different from a traditional contrast focus camera.

But I could be wrong. I guess time will tell

 

[unpopular]

Except - this is nothing new per se, though.

I do not think that anyone is arguing the current commercial implementation of lightfield photography is more of a curiosity. But to conclude that it's "nothing new" is inherently incorrect and represents the first major change in how images are recorded since the sensitive medium. It is different and new if by any other reason than it is computational rather than direct.

It's really impossible to say how the technology will be implemented. Certainly the ability to refocus and slightly shift the image isn't anything remarkable. But the technology behind Lytro nonetheless is, and this new DSLR-shaped camera is very disappointing as it has added absolutely nothing that I know of to the usability of the technology as anything more than than the parlor trick of it's predecessor.

 

[unpopular]

Yes, you can (or at least you should). But I do not think that DOF can be changed (well, it should be able to, but I am not sure if this has been implemented). This may give the impression of a limited range.

 

[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.

Are you certain that the DoF can actually be changed? I know you can change the focus point from foreground to middle to background, but not so sure that you can actually make more or less of the shot in focus.

The camera still needs to focus on something, you won't just be able to take a shot and then focus on whatever you want later on. I don't think the shooting experience is that much different from a traditional contrast focus camera.

But I could be wrong. I guess time will tell

I'm certain that there is sufficient data to change the DoF. I do not know if that's something they currently offer in their software.