chris102: I will buy one. The price means it won't be easy or right away, but the technology is the logical next step for my 3D work. I have been using stereoscopic cameras and a Lytro (do I call it the Lytro v.1 now?) to produce 3D images so far. I have been thinking about newer 3D systems, systems that would increase the depth information as well as the angle of view.
But baby steps. I will enjoy using the increased resolution of the Illum. Resolution is getting there. A few more iterations, and we will have our holo-cameras.
No, actually it is not "faking 3D" from a 2D image. You should read up on plenoptic imaging. It is a real 3D image from 2 different perspectives (one from the right side of the lens, and one from the left, so the baseline is small.)
BJN: Some people love pop-up books or lenticular 3D postcards. The rest of us are charmed for a minute or two and then move on. I suspect that the niche for interactive light-field photos is comparable. The intro images for the Illum were creative and well crafted, but for me they didn't speak to possibilities that I want to explore.
One major limitation on the technology not addressed in this overview that one of the photographic exposure triad controls is lost to this technology. No aperture control means a narrower window of exposure performance. Perhaps the lenses could accommodate a built-in filter or two to help compensate.
The original Lytro camera had a built-in 4 stop ND filter for just that purpose. I suspect the Illum will as well.
HowaboutRAW, what do you mean?
I use the shift image, one to the left, one to the right, and encode that into a 3D image, either anaglyph or side-by-side. Have you used the Lytro 3D software?
The larger lens of the Illum should give a longer 3D baseline.
I will buy one. The price means it won't be easy or right away, but the technology is the logical next step for my 3D work. I have been using stereoscopic cameras and a Lytro (do I call it the Lytro v.1 now?) to produce 3D images so far. I have been thinking about newer 3D systems, systems that would increase the depth information as well as the angle of view.
Lawrencew: I will think about it when it has a 41mp sensor...Then I can refocus, zoom, crop, change perspective, etc, and still retain a decent amount of detail.
In the meantime, brilliant idea though it is, it is just an expensive toy.
3Dreal: "Raytrix.de has the whole palette of plenoptic cameras."
For les than the cost of your house!
@yabokkie: I think your calcs are about right. Lytro's been making hints at a 2nd generation camera. The noika sensor would significantly improve the image quality, and thus usefulness.
yabokkie: don't think this camera is made for consumers from the very beginning. it's designed for waste of resources (and somebody may enjoy doing it).
Depends on one's definition of waste, eh?
stevens37y: It's the future. You can forget PDAF,CDAF,MF. No focusing delay, no focus tracking. The problem is the limited sw environment and the Term of Service/Term of Use. I will definitely buy something like this if it will be open source and will not be bound to any firm. Perhaps Samsung or Google will make once something like this.
Lytro's TOS relates to 'living images' posted through Lytro's online service. You also have the option to use the camera on a local computer and export only anonymous jpg images. Now even in 3D.
backayonder: No but the idea sounds okay if other camera manufacturers could somehow incorporate it into a DSLR etc? No more miss shots due to incorrect focus. The shape of the thing is all wrong it's like shooting with an empty toilet roll
It's a unique camera, and so need not be integrated with a general camera. You won't want to use it for every picture (you won't want every picture to be refocusable by the ve viewer, right? Isn't choice of focus part of your creative control?)
Like any specialized tool however, when you need it, no other tool does it right. A light field camera (with sophisticated software) is essential if you do certain kinds of work. At $400, Lytro is the only affordable option for that.
Laszlo13: These guys are still in business? Anyone using their cameras?
Yeah, I am.
New 3D (use red/cyan glasses):http://101-365.com/3D/nu3D/pages/IMG_2.html
Seemds Klamar had some ideas how to shoot the personalities of the athletes and went for it, even though he did not have the 'proper' equipment. Ever since I saw this set last week, I have found the pictures to be unique and interesting.
In my view, Joe Klamar did "show [the athletes] as interesting, as special people who deserve their fame because they are the best [at] what they do."