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.
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.
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.
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.
P.S. You didn't even see that two pics (not by me) are in an album called "Other members - adjustments" ???
You really are a nasty piece of work.Before you go accusing someone of fraud or theft, get your facts right. Ask if you don't know. Again, you're making assumptions without knowledge. I never claim someone else's work as mine, I have more than enough of my own shots to share, not like you.
I don't describe photos in the gallery, as I only put them there to participate in challenges, or for discussion in forums. EVERY photo there is linked to a forum discussion or a challenge. Any photo that isn't by me is made abundantly clear in the forum it's linked to.
You should try sharing. I hope your photo work amounts to more than those 3 in your gallery, because otherwise you're the real fraud.
Oh dear, you dork!You've been looking for muck and found only your small-mindedness.If I ever post someone else's work it has been to show them how to use a technique, or to show it to someone else, never behind someone's back; or a freeely available marketing shot of a product. I never claim other's work as my own. I share and help others.Go on you idiot, instead of making false assumptions and veiled threats, show me one photo in my gallery that shouldn't be there.
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.
"when you've of demonstrated a misuse of terms"Ha ha ha!
Oh dear you do have problems with English. Where were you born?
Again, you're guessing at what other people mean to say and getting it wrong.Maybe it's not used like that in your neck of the woods, but it most certainly is in Britain.P.S. "native speakers of English" or "a native speaker of English"Try to get it right when you attempt to correct the English Language.
And when you divide one hundred by two dozen, you get your ratio of exaggeration.
HowaboutRAW : You're just not beleivable.
Two dozen or one hundred? Problem with maths again?
LOL, however much I know about digital photography, it's a lot more than you.
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.
Guessing wrong again, poor boy.