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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
HowaboutRAW, (Mr DungMan), the more you post, the less you know about video and photography.
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)
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!
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 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.
Yes, it's a curious beast, and the images have something new and unique. The problem at the moment is that there's not a lot of point in trying to compare it to traditional photography if we're looking for a final 'photo'. The resolution and quality just isn't there.So we end up with an interactive image where we can play around with the focusing. It quickly gets boring, and comes across as a gimmick (imho).
More software features to exploit the data could make it more interesting, and Lytro does seem to be working on that.
When it improves and we get higher resolution, it could be useful in a few specific areas, like an alternative to focus stacking.
As it is, it seems to be drowning in marketing hype, so people end up comparing it to traditional photography, where it sucks.
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.
Hi Everlast66, don't you just love it when he talks about an infinite market share, an then says you're not familiar with math!A share of a market is nothing, a fraction or all of it. An infinite share makes no sense, my maths professor would be turning in his grave.Priceless !
Sure, stick to "PC", it will be simpler for you.You never said the one from the mid 1970s was in expensive?Priceless.
Just curious to see if you could or would show any evidence of a decent printable Pic from a Lytro, you know, any 4MP image. That's any 4MP output ready for printing, don't want you getting confused again.
I'm curious, have you used anything other than a G2 before using the Illum?
Strange how you keep side-tracking with odd statements. Here it's the elusive 54 megabyte point. Elsewhere you're confusing IBM's first Portable Computer with its first Personal Computer.
BTW, can you post a link to an Illum pic that you think has decent quality? e.g. one you consider will make a decent print at around 8"x10".I can't see any on the Lytro site.
"You're still confused about screen viewing. It's rare to view full resolution images on screens."Oh dear, resorting to condescending insults.
You don't understand that a jpg has a 2D resolution? That a tiff has a 2D resolution? hat a sreen has a 2D resolution? You must be confusing them with a Lytro...
"(Though technically you can view a 1MP image fullsized on most screens.)"Just like a Lytro image, oh gosh, wake up!
Replace upsample with 'increase the image resolution using software' if that's easier for you to understand, e.g. taking an image that's got a resolution of 540x540 pixels and converting it to one of 1080x1080 pixels. Is that ok for you?
Screen viewing and jpgs/tiff files have a measurable 2D resolution.
"You do understand that people can/will print tiffs or jpgs?" LOL, now you're just being a cheeky little boy.
What we aren't told, is the resolution of any image when it's first extracted from the "RAW" data of the Illum, before any change in resolution... you know, like wot you get from an ordinary camera's RAW file. I'll wager it's about 1megapixel.But hell, if you're happy with an Illum, that's great, enjoy it. I do think the image quality of the pics shown on the Lytro site is good.If you have an Illum, so I can understand you wanting to defend it. No need, it's low resolution but snazzy technology.
P.S. the 'specs' for both Lytros are on the Lytro site.
Don't worry, I understand perfectly well, and as I have stated, I think it's pretty cool technology. What it isn't good at, is producing high resolution images.
What I do stand by, and this was made clear by the Lytro reps, is that the original Lytro produces 540x540 pixel images, and could be "zoomed" in to an equivalent FullHD size, i.e. 1080x1080 pixels. Hence the specification of 2D output of 1 MP.
Are you claiming that that isn't the same technique used for the Illum, because that would make you out as totally ignorant about screen viewing and jpg/tiff resolution.
Find me an official source that says or demonstrates it's 40 megapixels then...How do you explain such a low resolution in the final image?
I'm curious, do you contest that the resolution of the final image is about 1megapixel upscaled to 4MP, just like the original was 0.25Mp upscalable to 1Mp?
The Lytro is pretty cool technology, but it just hasn't got the resolution, and you and they are trying to baffle us with BS.
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.
Equating IBM's Portable Computer with its Personal Computer is a joke. Still, if it makes you feel good...
HowaboutRAW : Do you really think that the Illum has a 40MP sensor in it? Try looking this kind of thing up ahead of time.You'll find out that they call it a 40 megaray sensor. It can only produce an image of 1 megapixel (or a whole load of 1MP images if you prefer), which they upscale to 4MP, so that they can put "2D output = 4MP" in the specs.So ok, you could claim that it "produces a 4MP image", just like I could upscale a 20 Mp image to 100MP and claim that my camera and software produces a 100MP image.