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)
You'd better go and look up cheapskate again, and tell us what you think it means.
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.
The only thing confusing me is your aptitude to mix fact and BS. Did you get past grade school?
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.
LOL, funny from someone who doesn't understand the concept of infinity.
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.
Printing your own 3 metre prints needs some investment, and a fair amount of work, but then turns out cheaper than having it done, and is a way of ensuring perfect prints.
I'd be curious to know what nationality you are, your lack of understanding of the English language is worrying.Now you're resorting to claiming a misuse of words when you don't understand the sentences or more likely dislike their meaning.
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.
Obviously you have problems reading and understanding English.
Did you actually go to school somewhere?
What rubbish, you need to go back to studying."All of" certainly doesn't mean infinity, ask any mathematician.
With your stupid technique of measuring market share, if two companies hold 1/3 and 2/3 of a market, the larger one holds 2/3 divided by 1/3, so has 200% of the market. Wow!You're the one suffering from a lack of education, a pity you don't realise it.
I have studied Maths, and obviously a lot more than you have.
Put your marketing hat back on, with that on you're allowed to BS.
"If I had to guess, you're a web poster and not really a printer.""I'll bet some other party is doing it the printing for you."See, wrong again, I do all my own printing even up to 3 metres wide.I present my work, you don't.
Maybe English isn't your mother tongue, that would explain a lot.
Still afraid of showing anything... do you go cluck-cluck-cluck when walking around?
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 : Oh, so you don't judge a camera by its output?Ouch, you really are getting confused. Maybe judging it by it's colour is enough for you. You must have loved the first little Lytros when they came out.So all those other cameras you claim to have tried, in fact you just like the colours, that explains a lot. You must be the floor sweeper in a camera shop.
You've presented no evidence you've ever used a Lytro.
I didn't misuse anything, you're just confused again.
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.
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!!!!!
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.
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.