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.
Portable would be a personal computer--in 1975, though it sure cost.
And, Alex, I believe it cost $50,000 not $20,000.
Anyhow you, LK, entirely missed the reference to the mid 1970s, and went on about the mid 1980s. And are still doing so, as if that's going to make yout point valid; it aint.
Then why did you post this preposterously ignorant statement:
"'Who doesn't realise that the Illum upscales its 1Mp image to 4Mp to create the illusion of a higher resolution 'sensor'"?
This is completely wrong regarding the Illum, and is why nay-sayers about various technologies don't oft get things so wrong--they start out spouting bad information.
And irony, it can also work the other way where tech boosters claim inaccurate information: "CD's reproduce sound perfectly"; turns out that was known to be a problematic statement for digital audio in the 1970s.
Do you really not know that the Illum has a 40MP sensor in it? Try looking this kind of thing up ahead of time.
HowaboutRAW: More pixels?
Why the push?
16MP is excellent, for Leica too.
Perhaps Fuji, and Leica, should be trying to find an excellent 12MP APSC sensor--say one that has amazing DR and is nearly noise free at ISO 25000.
Maybe Samsung will wake up and realize some of the problems with going for higher pixel counts, then make something for an NX1Hs that Samsung then offers to sell to other parties. Or Sony could do something similar. Or Toshiba.
I'm not following the introduction of the word "vacuum".
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 :-/
About things like computers, I said "predicted", and the point you missed was that though some of the predictions came to be, it took decades longer predicted. (Albeit CDs replaced vinyl very quickly. Took a good while for the sound quality to catch up.)
"But many people here were saying that it would become the new way of shooting for what that's worth." And this has nothing to do with a basic P&S versus a Lytro.
By whom was the prediction made?
Took a while for computers to catch on as every day items despite years of predictions.
Took a while for digital cameras to catch on--and in that case the fact that there were coming into their own was clear.
Took 20 years from the 1970s into the 1990s for digital audio, including CDs, to sound half decent.
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.
There are many assumptions in that "logic".
Boxbrownie: Looks interesting, but just look at the view of the side of the lenses you will get through the viewfinder!
As you say "wait and see".
Jet fuel is a version of kerosene.
I don't think anybody was predicting that a Lytro would replace a basic P&S within a few years time. And you're wrong to imply that's the case.
What, the Dyson or the Shark? The former is two loud, and neither deals with things like fine plaster dust well.
Or were you referring to some other vacuum?
And I have no objection to the point that the original Lytro had poor image quality.
Because "originality" must always be best.
It's not original to get lost in the concept of more mega pixels means better image quality.
I have raws, the total files, that's a huge difference.
I've usually used more than one lens.
Why are you not getting this: I've shot with the cameras, with good lenses. I'm not going to ever treat web comparison tools real seriously, even if don't already have my own samples.
Long term markets mean profits. This is still very very short term.
Lytro dropped a 1990 PC into 1955 without a printer or networks or lots of developed software or coding software, even in 1955 people could have seen something of future promise of a 1990 PC.
Tens of millions of dollars gets wasted as investments all the time. This is far from a waste.
And I've never claimed that Lytro was going to be the party to fully realize this tech. Why do you continually imply that I did so?
I'm going by having actually shot some tests with the Sony A6000, including using the 24mm Sony Zeiss for that system.
Sony has bad colour problems too. The A6000 has a deep buffer and very good AF. But so does the Samsung NX1, the Fuji XT1 has good AF and a decent buffer.
I rarely make claims about a camera without having used it at least a tiny bit.
Also you claims about "realistic" don't have much to do with sensor resolution. A 4MP image can be plenty realistic.
That's a silly use of the word "behind".
Image quality has little to do with pixel count, and those who claim it does really don't know much about digital photography.
Samsung and Fuji both have better image quality that the Sony A6000--hint it's about the lenses available. (Though now yes, Sony has bigger full framed mirrorless lenses that are a good bit better and they can be used on the A6000 too.)
Look into the resolution of the Illum, above, and revisit your claims about print size.
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.
There's been a new Lytro camera, pictured above, since Oct 2104, and you're wrong about its resolution, by a huge factor.
How many people had PCs in 1977? And of those that had them how many used them for "useful" activities?
You've conflated the mid 1980s with the mid 1970s. It looks like you didn't read my post except to skim it and see the term PC. The origins of Lotus 123 start in the late 1970s, but it didn't get wide distribution until the mid 1980s.
Do you actually not know that there were personal computers before 1981?
A processed file from the Illum prints well at say 8"X10", jpg, tiff, etc; that's significant.
Lytro is just as much a gimmick as a PC was in 1976. But the Lytro Illum does what it says it could today, unlike various computers for personal use in the mid 1970s.