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.
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 !
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)
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.
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.
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.
LOL, no it doesn't, it has a 40 megaray sensor !
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.
HowaboutRAW, Have you actually processed an Illum image to a print file format?Have you actually printed one?Do you work for Lytro?Oh dear.
Agreed Alex, HowaboutRAW seems to be confusing IBM's first Portable Computer with their first Personal Computer.
I'll repeat and be more precise for him:The IBM Personal Computer was immediately useful, accountants everywhere wanted a PC and Lotus 123.
Who wants a Lytro? Who doesn't leave it in the draw once they've played with it for a week?Who doesn't realise that the Illum upscales its 1Mp image to 4Mp to create the illusion of a higher resolution "sensor"?
The original Lytro produces a 540x540 pixel image (0.25Mpixels).It's "2D output (i.e. jpg) is upscaled to give 1080x1080 = 1Mp.
The Illum states a "2D output" of about 4 Mpixels, I'd wager it's upscaled from 1 Mpixel.
And as I said further up, the resolution given is not the recorded resolution, which is low enough for them not to want to state it.My guess would be that it's really about 1 Mpixel, upscaled to 4 Mpixels and with a bit of sharpening.P.S. Original Lytro : 0.25 Mpixel.
panpen: 4MP camera? What is this? 2001?
If they're doing the same trick as with the original Lytro, they would be upscaling by a factor of 2, in which case the "2D output" of 4 Mpixels would be upscaled from a recorded resolution of 1 Mpixel.Ok for web viewing I suppose.
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.
Again, I was referring to the original Lytro's resolution which produced an image of 540x540 pixels. This could be upscaled when viewing to 1080x1080.The specs now only specify a "2D Export Resolution" of 1080x1080 pixels. This is upscaled from the actual recorded resolution.
BTW The Illum also only gives a "2D Export Resolution", which is stated as 2450 x 1634 pixels. I would bet that that is also upscaled, and that the recorded resolution is a quarter of that.
I've been eating computers for breakfast since the late seventies. What is this IBM PC that was released in 74-75? or 76 or 77?
Le Kilt: When it came out the presentation was a joke, trying to convince us that this was enabling us to take great refocusable images, avoiding pointing out that the resolution was peanuts (not even enough for a decent postcard pic) and that the object was not to end up with a JPG but a little interactive image to play with online, hosted on their website. Great to discover and play with one for 5 minutes then you get bored. And asking us to buy in advance before really finding out how limited it was.Lytro and the original article really were taking the micky.
It wasn't understood by many because it was presented with marketing instead of facts.
They'll have to work very very hard to make it usable in video, the amount of data for a few minutes filming will be horrendous :-/
HowaboutRAW : Sorry, I didn't make it obvious, I was referring to the original Lytro.
Don't forget resolution, if I recall correctly, the lytro's resolution is 540 x 540 PIXELS.