Everlast66: HowaboutRAW,Correct me if I am wrong, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the article or news above.
Out of the 400 comments in it, 250 are probably yours and every third or so is a personal accusation, attack, insult or ridicule. If you are older than 18 years, start acting more maturely, if less ask your parents for direction and advice.
This is totally getting out of hand.
You insinuated fraud or theft because you didn't know how to use this site fully, I'm still waiting for an apology.
HowaboutRAW: Le Kilt,
It sure looks like fraud, or theft.
Particularly since you don't do any identifying of the pictures as by someone else.
My assumptions could be wrong, but you've offered no good explanation for posting other people's photos in your DPR gallery. There are two with names embedded. Those are different names. So at least one of those images is not yours.
Found the link yet?Seen the albums?
tulku: I'm a little bit over the narrow mindset that appears to be a common thread amongst antagonists of the Lytro or Lightfield technology. I keep reading comments that photographers know what they want in focus and it's just a camera for bad photographers and the resolution is too low.
You cannot really hide things in a lightfield image, so as a photographer you have to be aware of the entire image that is being created. It's not about missing a shot and focusing later, rather, it's about taking time to really compose an image that can be explored by the viewer. I would have thought this factor would be intriguing to many photographers.
As for resolution, maybe it's not up there yet, but then again it's not really an image style for printing. Last time I checked I could not interact with a printed image and change focal points, or move around within the image like I can with a Lytro image.
Anyway just some thoughts.
It seems clicking on the right link is proving too difficult and looking for long words like "Albums" is too, we'll have to report this to DPR so they can simplify it for him.
Now that you've learnt to use the site, an apology would be in order.
Aha, so you can see albums now. One called "Other member's - Adjustments". Guess what's in there!
You say "Why do you think I've never looked at a website? "I don't, but you're struggling with this one then wrongly implying fraud or theft.Shame on you.
Everlast66: I am extremely grateful to its majesty, The Free Market, for sending this product where it belongs - history.It was obvious from the very beginning that it is not going to work - high price, inadequate image quality and questionable benefits.
But the most annoying thing for me was that the manufacturers were not open and honest for what they are selling. They are reluctant to tell their potential customers what the product is actually capturing and how. Many suspect this is because their product is just algorithms applied to regular image data. This would explain why they are unwilling to disclose any technical detail, because if they do they would not have a product to sell.
Yet you don't answer the question.
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.
You keep misusing the word fact, you ought to get an English language dictionary.
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.
You don't know Joseph James? A well known figure here.He specifically asked for help on that photo in the P&P forum.
Now if you made an adjustment to a photo and wanted to repost it, where on earth would you put it? The only practical place is in your gallery. And you could put it in an album called "Other member's - Adjustments" just so things are clear. Peter is a guy I know very well, and he lets me post his photos here.
So no misuse here. No fraud, no theft. An apology from you would be in order now.
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.
Did you get any higher education?
LOL !You have shown nothing again, except your lack of knowledge of the site and lack of checking, even when all the pointers are there.I do check and have done so.You can't see a line right at the top saying the following ? :"Viewing Le Kilt's 49 most recent photos. View more photos in their gallery. "There could be a link hidden there somewhere...
Again, bad faith. There are two photos used in exchanges in the forums here, with the owners participating. Neither of them worried about it. Do you know where to load a photo to include it in a discussion? In an album. This is common practice in sharing in forums. You should try it. You just need to click on the Albums link in my gallery and you find them directly. How hard is that?Maybe you just don't want to.You have made numerous claims about people and facts, and the facts are implied or true when it suits you. You've just done it again. When you get called out, you deviate and poke at something else.You claim a lot and show nothing.Shame on you.
HowaboutBADFAITH would be more appropriate.
Yes, he's a little man hiding behind his screen with nothing to show or share.
Straws, shame on you.
You're running out of steam and grasping at straws.Shame on you.
You seem to see what you want.
Two shot not by me are clearly in the album called "Other member's". They were used in forum discussions with the owner's knowledge.All 74 others are my work, bar one marketing shot that was used in a discussion on lenses. Gosh, how wicked I am.
"Other member's - Adjustments". The album name appears by the photos.You have difficulty understanding that? Of course you don't, you're just looking for muck where there isn't any.
HowaboutRAW, think very carefully before you insinuate fraud or theft, your assumptions are wrong again.
Did you even notice that two of the photos are in an album called "Other member's - adjustments" ? They were linked to in forum discussions with the owners of those pics.
I never claim other's photos as mine, I have all I need and more.
Try sharing a bit more, you might enjoy it.
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)
It is 100% correct English. Sorry if you had trouble understanding that, I'll try to stick to simpler expressions for you.