jtan163: The big problem with Lytro is I don't want to have to rely on their web software.It's a far worse cloud lock in that Adobe CC.
And they Lytro don't appear to understand the photography market.I mean what photographer wants a one button camera?
One button cameras are for people who use phones, and most of them don't understand focus - most people I know who shoot with phones don't tap to focus and therefore shoot blurry pics, unless their subject happens to be in the default depth of field.
In other words Lytros has been bit by the same "phone users don't care if their images are rubbish" bug as the rest of the industry.
HowaboutRAW, Have you actually processed an Illum image to a print file format?Have you actually printed one?Do you work for Lytro?Oh dear.
HowaboutRAW: In 1974, maybe '75, IBM released it's first PC at a cost of something like $50,000, in mid70s dollars. (Irony the PC was at least assembled in Seattle.)
1981, different story.
Look what happened within 20 years to the PC market, and the usefulness of PCs. Every computer development for broad public use that has occured between 1995 and 2015 was well predicted in 1995 by anyone paying attention to computers.
Contrast 1975: Almost none of what came to pass in computers in the next 20 years upto 1995 was being predicted--even by people paying attention to computers. Maybe digital audio. Even into the early 1980s physicists who wanted to demonstrate a new program, software, they'd worked on at a conference would often travel to the conference with the program recorded on punch cards. That's cardboard.
No the Lytro is not likely to be as radical a change to photography as the broad use of a computer, but the nay-sayers here sure sound like many talking about computers in the 1970s.
Agreed Alex, HowaboutRAW seems to be confusing IBM's first Portable Computer with their first Personal Computer.
I'll repeat and be more precise for him:The IBM Personal Computer was immediately useful, accountants everywhere wanted a PC and Lotus 123.
Who wants a Lytro? Who doesn't leave it in the draw once they've played with it for a week?Who doesn't realise that the Illum upscales its 1Mp image to 4Mp to create the illusion of a higher resolution "sensor"?
Scottelly: It seems to me that with micro-SD cards handling 128 GB of data at UHS-II speeds now, the data is not going to be a major issue. Besides, they can just use a compression technology to reduce the amount of data written to the cards, if necessary. As far as processing the data is concerned, they can put two or four processors in the camera, if necessary, where a typical 1080p60 video camera could process the data with a single processor. 4K is coming though, so they really need to concentrate on making their first 4K video camera shortly after they demonstrate a 1080p30 video camera. This equipment will be big and expensive, and few people other than pros are likely to use it, so they will want 4K capability. The software used to process the video will be another issue. Today's computers might not handle it well at all. Of course, tomorrows computers will be twice as fast, and RAM is incredibly cheap now. 16 GB for $100! (DDR3-1600)
The original Lytro produces a 540x540 pixel image (0.25Mpixels).It's "2D output (i.e. jpg) is upscaled to give 1080x1080 = 1Mp.
The Illum states a "2D output" of about 4 Mpixels, I'd wager it's upscaled from 1 Mpixel.
filmrescue: What I've always thought about Lytro cameras for photography...."Well that's really cool but I kind of know what I want in focus when I take the picture - most people do". Hope they have better luck with video...it actually makes a lot more sense. Focus pulling in post would be really useful.
And as I said further up, the resolution given is not the recorded resolution, which is low enough for them not to want to state it.My guess would be that it's really about 1 Mpixel, upscaled to 4 Mpixels and with a bit of sharpening.P.S. Original Lytro : 0.25 Mpixel.
panpen: 4MP camera? What is this? 2001?
If they're doing the same trick as with the original Lytro, they would be upscaling by a factor of 2, in which case the "2D output" of 4 Mpixels would be upscaled from a recorded resolution of 1 Mpixel.Ok for web viewing I suppose.
grasscatcher: I have to wonder, with the improved processing speed of modern cameras (e.g. - 30fps @ 8mpxl), could systems be developed for focus bracketing, much like what is done for exposure bracketing? Thirty pics taken, each with focus pulled in a bit from the previous exposure, then a final processed pic with relatively infinite focus (algorithm could be developed to focus from, say, 30' to 3' based on x focal length, 50' to 5' for a longer focal length, etc. to more accurately capture moving subjects, plus a setting of 1' to infinity for landscape still photos...).
This would be a great boon for those of us who require maximum DoF for certain photographic applications.
Again, I was referring to the original Lytro's resolution which produced an image of 540x540 pixels. This could be upscaled when viewing to 1080x1080.The specs now only specify a "2D Export Resolution" of 1080x1080 pixels. This is upscaled from the actual recorded resolution.
BTW The Illum also only gives a "2D Export Resolution", which is stated as 2450 x 1634 pixels. I would bet that that is also upscaled, and that the recorded resolution is a quarter of that.
I've been eating computers for breakfast since the late seventies. What is this IBM PC that was released in 74-75? or 76 or 77?
Le Kilt: When it came out the presentation was a joke, trying to convince us that this was enabling us to take great refocusable images, avoiding pointing out that the resolution was peanuts (not even enough for a decent postcard pic) and that the object was not to end up with a JPG but a little interactive image to play with online, hosted on their website. Great to discover and play with one for 5 minutes then you get bored. And asking us to buy in advance before really finding out how limited it was.Lytro and the original article really were taking the micky.
It wasn't understood by many because it was presented with marketing instead of facts.
They'll have to work very very hard to make it usable in video, the amount of data for a few minutes filming will be horrendous :-/
HowaboutRAW : Sorry, I didn't make it obvious, I was referring to the original Lytro.
Don't forget resolution, if I recall correctly, the lytro's resolution is 540 x 540 PIXELS.
The PC was immediately useful, accountants everywhere wanted a PC and Lotus 123.The Lytro is still a gimmick that they tried to get people to buy without realising its limitations (resolution, web hosting on their site, very small JPG if you really want one)
When it came out the presentation was a joke, trying to convince us that this was enabling us to take great refocusable images, avoiding pointing out that the resolution was peanuts (not even enough for a decent postcard pic) and that the object was not to end up with a JPG but a little interactive image to play with online, hosted on their website. Great to discover and play with one for 5 minutes then you get bored. And asking us to buy in advance before really finding out how limited it was.Lytro and the original article really were taking the micky.
martindpr: Somebody mentioned the use of bracketing regarding the supposed equal DR as the original Mk3. So, in order to increase the DR, you'll have to make several shots, which raises a few problems: 1) How will those affect the resolution, bearing in mind that tiny vibrations shift the sensor plane and blur the image, let alone physical changes in the environment which change it (wind, rain, light, etc...) Than, lenses... Will you end up with 50MP image? Second, and most important, why do we need a 50MP camera? Moire isn't an issue, at least not for large prints with my D7100 which only has 24MPix. But, of course, detail, lot of people may suggest, but this doesn't hold either. Make a poster (say, size A0), and have a look at it from 3-4 feet distance. Will you notice any difference between anything produced by a 12MP camera (say D300, 5D1, D2X, 1Ds1, D3, etc...) and 5DMk3, D600, D7100, or even D800/E/810?? Out of experience - no, there isn't any difference in resolution, other than DOF,DR,etc
When you've taken pics with the 1D-X and 5D3 with some of the best Canon L lense like a 500mm F4 L II, you know how good resolution can get, and more Mpx are welcome.It will take some care to coax the maximum out of the new sensor, and it will be important to watch mirror shake, but for those with the knack and the lenses, the results will be great, and you'll see sharper hairs and whiskers on your lion's face :-).Hell, people criticised the D810 for that, and it's now accepted as one of the best sensors in quality terms.When you've done a bit of FullHD video editing, 50Mpix files are no problem to deal with.The reason the 1D-X is 18Mpx is the internal bandwidth of the camera at 12-14fps, nothing to do with computers.Trolling? Feels like you don't like it that Canon have brought out a 50MPx camera and so you're looking for reasons why people shouldn't get one.Be positive, look for reasons why people will get one :-)
cinemascope: Canikon are probably very well aware their days of silly pricing are numbered, and it seems they are both trying to milk the upper 3k price bracket as much as they can, while they can... Nikon also removed the "pro" features from the D750, so they can artificially justify keeping the D810 above the magical 3k a little longer... At least Nikon does spend on R&D. Maybe Canon thinks they're the new (L)eica?
Canon probably did spend a teeny-weeny amount on producing the first 50MP sensor.Canon have announced it now to get plenty of press coverage before releasing the 5D MK IV, which will have 36MP, improved fps and DR, and 4K video.
LOL, you're presuming a lot about what I like to do!
So there's no point in having high resolution because the atmospheric conditions never allow sharp pics, and we can only shoot with UWA lenses anyway???
The naming is interesting, the return of the "S" for studio (i.e. high resolution) does make us wonder if there will be a faster model with lower rez coming...
Could there be a model with the 1D-X shutter, that allows higher frame rates when using MRaw and SRaw crop modes (if bandwith is one of the limiting factor)?That would be sort of like merging the 5DS and the 7DII...Are we going to see a 1D-X mark II with maybe 24 MP? Or 36 MP?
So will the next release be a 5D mark IV or a 1D-X mark II?(or both)Oh, this is so exciting :-)
If you don't know why you need 50 mp, then you don't need it. Others need it or would simply like it to get more detail. If you don't understand the advantage of more detail, then you don't need it.If you really think you on't see the difference between 12 and 50 MP, don't worry about it, keep shooting happily, that's the most important part :-)
AbrasiveReducer: Just for fun. Original Canon 5D (12.8 megapixels) described as "first affordable full frame digital SLR" introduced 2005, cost $3000. In 2014 dollars, $3000 = $3636.50. Adjusted for inflation they're giving you an extra 37 megapixels for just $65. That's assuming the price doesn't come down after the early adopters.
Can I have just a 37 megapixel version for $65?
princecody: Canon just released this Amazing 5DS R & no rotating screen? Have they lost their mind?
ps: The sensor is made by Sony. Sony also makes the sensor in the Nikon D810 :)
Strangely, if this horrible camera has better DR than the 1D-X at low ISOs and 50Mpx, it sounds good to me...
En Trance: I can't stop commenting. Please excuse me. Why on earth would Canon design another Mirror Mechanism? TMT or Mirrorless unless Canon has another motionless solution, the mold is already cast! Get a life already.
Don't worry, you'll get over it :-)
But more seriously, for tripod work when you want absolute stability, the new mirror system sounds great. For some handheld stuff too, maybe...
En Trance: So does the soaring eagle also wait until the mirror stops shaking? I just do not understand their total lack of respect for reality and the foolish Canon Purchaser. They will sell you guys/goons anything.
Simple, you use a fast enough shutter speed or a different camera :-)