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.
HowaboutRAW : So the images on Lytro's site are not worthy of commenting on? You mean even they can't showcase decent results? What a joker you are!
Osvaldo Cristo: Cool ideas but weak implementation IMHO. It is an infant technology, perhaps it need more investments to be practically interesting.
Oh, I'm sorry, you mean to produce a low resolution low quality still photograph that you wouldn't even show to your mother. OK.
Works well enough as a stills camera? ROFLMAO!!!
P.S. HowaboutRAW said : "That's not the file, that's DPR work to get something for this website. "Oh dear, DPReview can't get something good out of Lytro, how could others ever manage to?
Yes guys, HowaboutRAW (Mr DungMan) is a Lytro Illum fan who will convince you that it's the bee's knees. Try not to laugh too loud.
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.
HowaboutRAW:Your maths education may need a little extra attention.All of a market is a finite portion. Infinite is a term best used to describe your imbecility.
Still too chicken to post an image?
I never said I skipped something.Oh dear, that's your technique.
Oh dear, you mostly don't comment on web images. Yet you feel entitled to comment on Lytro output? HA HA HA ! ROFLMAO!!!!!
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.
The problem is that you're the one making up crap and getting called out.Your extensive printing experience? Unbelievable. Show me one pic that you've printed at least postcard size... I post what I take, which you've probably seen.I print up to 3 metres wide. and sell.So again, you guess wrong.It's Bla-Bla from you, and no courage to show a single pic.Yep, Mr DungMan, bla-blas again, make up crap and you'll get called out.
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)
If you were capable of that, it might worry me.Why were you trying to make a cheapskate point about the SD card? Are you 14 years old?You're guessing wrong, as usual. You should stop making assumptions about people you don't know well, you're not good at it.Anger? LOL, poor Mr DungMan.
AlexisH: I wonder what they'll try after video? Sounds like no one wants the current tech for stills. And then I expect that video will not provide the resolution for professional use and that the amateurs won't have the time and interest to select focus themselves.
It increases my understanding of 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.
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 constantly belittle people by responding with something completely out of context.
When you speak of a camera, You've almost always tried it. And me, I can't get that idea into my head. What BS.
You've used some of the best cameras around, and you still claim the Illum produces pics that are far far from rubbish?
If you say so. Proof of the pudding, go on, show one shot...!In fact show any one shot that is better than your G2 stuff. from any camera you've used.Can you show a single pic to show you know anything about photography? I give you my word I will comment it with honesty.
Good for you, pat yourself on the back. Now, you didn't "waste your own ink and paper on uninteresting photos" - ouch, they don't sound good.
"From my significant knowledge of printing files" Sorry, that just sounds like BS. Oh, maybe you've printed a few post-card prints.
I certainly don't "insist on thinking" you've not used this gear, there you go again making things up Mr DungMan. You don't work for Lytro? Fine, I only asked a question, don't be so defensive Mr DungMan.
Gosh, what a joker, why don't you post a link to just one of your Illum files, if you're not too ashamed of them? Maybe it's BS, you have never even used an Illum. LOL!If you have a few hundred, there must be one of acceptable quality, no?BTW, when anyone has requested an example shot from one of my cameras or camera/lenses combination, I have always been happy to do so. You? Bla bla bla...
HowaboutRAW, (Mr DungMan), the more you post, the less you know about video and photography.
Oh, gosh, the Illum has an SD card slot ??? Really ???ROFLMAO!!!What has that to do with anything discussed here? Are you going to point out that the Illum can be safely taken to the third floor of a building in an elevator without risk?At least you are becoming very amusing, keep it up!
HowaboutRAW: Oh dear, you're getting confused again DungMan, you should say "Well no, clearly..."Or are you getting things back to front?Oh dear, you mostly don't comment on web images. Yet you feel entitled to comment on Lytro output? HA HA HA ! ROFLMAO!!!!!
I would love to try one, but I'm certainly not going to buy one, so unless I find an idiot who has, it's unlikely.Have you really looked closely at a 2450x1634 Lytro pic? I take it you have reasonable eyesight, you're not blind of anything are you?
HowaboutRAW:"No, I’m not the only one who can toss insults here, but you played really stupid on this subject, and posted very silling things about screen viewing, and made up things, so got called out on it."What a load of BS, silling things about screen viewing? Really? find one. What a dork you are.
"I’ve basically explained here, and elsewhere at the DPR website, why I don’t share photos anymore."Excuse because you can't take a decent shot.
"And your bad behavior is a wonderful example of why I don’t further share photos."And your bad behaviour gets you the name of DungMan! I'm sure you'll remember why.
"Still not getting this: I don't own a Lytro Illum. I've shot a couple of hundred tests with a few examples of an Illum."Again some DungMan BS, I saw the first time you said you didn't own one, but I also saw you said you had used one, so you are just scared of showing your poor results, oh dear DungMan, grow up.
So sorry, I forgot you're the only one you consider is allowed to insult, yeah!You don't share images from your Lytro pics because you're embarrassed with the quality.
I never said the Lytro is a failure.I never said I don't want one.See, i can do some pointless "I never said" too, yeah!Yet it is others that are confused and befuddled, yeah!
I think you must have a really crap 4MP camera.You chicken out of showing us any 2D output you think is acceptable, such a shame. Basic courage again missed by you.