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.
I'm not blind.
Why don't you make some effort to find Illum files? Instead of wasting time, and effort, commenting on things you really don't know about?
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.
Rendering video is outputting the final edit to a file. That means changes to sound, colour and exposure for every frame and then there are things like special effects.
Yes, there's also 3D rendering, but that's a somewhat different process and isn't what balios was posting about. If you don't know about video editing, which you clearly don't, I can see how you'd confuse the two, since they do sort of overlap.
Rendering video is a very hardware intense process.
The more you post, the less you know about computers.
John Swenson: It seems obvious that Nikon kept the tilt-screen off the D7200 to further differentiate it from the D750 and encourage people to buy the more-expensive D750. That's lame. Any $1,200 camera released in 2015 should have a tilt-screen -- better yet, a fully articulating touchscreen like the D5500. The D7200 is too little, too late.
That wifi example would need an independent power source.
Try commenting on existing flip/tilt screens instead of making up hypotheticals that need another battery.
cxsparc: PS is a powerful SW. But similar to MS Office, in the last years I didn't notice substantial improvement. CS5 in. 32 bit never worked reliably. The SW is quite slow even in 64 bit version. Editing tools are really few in the sense of adding text. If you compare capabilities of LR or C1, those have made substantial progress instead, even adding editing layers in case of C1.If Adobe doesn't make an innovative breakthrough, there will be a time in the future where even free or much cheaper SW is up to the task.
Right with a Sony you get a free C1 for that Sony.
Does that 27 Euro get you the full C1 for any raw file type? (Well except Sigma and Pentax 645 DNGS.)
Selective Colour is not simply a normal color editor feature. It may indeed by in C1, but may very well not. It is really uncommon.
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)
I don't have to own the camera (the Illum here) to have shot hundreds of samples with it, and downloaded the processing software from Lytro and processed some of the Lytro's files.
You do understand that the Illum has an SD card slot, or is that something else you didn't know about the Illum?
There you go again making up explanations to suit your ends:
"'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."
I suggest that you figure out the meaning of what I wrote, before commenting next time.
Yet again there is no upsampling, why do you insist there is if you can't cite any evidence?
Read the Ng PhD--a least a glance at it.
Not, how the Lytro works:
"But once you pick a specific distance, its likely the nearest two 1Mp images are picked to produce the final 4Mp result, "
The more you post the less you appear to know about this tech.
Why are you commenting on the focus spread tech without the original files and just what DPR posted, do you not know how ignorant that is?
Yep, in some conditions the focus spread tech works just like Lytro says. Try it.
You do apprehend that DPR didn't share the file?
Jorginho: As a stills cam without PDAF I think it is not a good actionshooting cam either...If so...it loses out there to many of its brethern too. 86% for such a cam with such restricted use eems on the high side.Also I note that the "performance" of the Gh4 is slightly higher than the A7s. I think with 7,5 fps with AF-c 9that works really well) that difference might be a lot bigger.
No, it's not an action camera. But the GH4 isn't a high ISO camera.
Osvaldo Cristo: Cool ideas but weak implementation IMHO. It is an infant technology, perhaps it need more investments to be practically interesting.
The Illum works well enough as a stills camera--so strong implementation there. Though expensive.
HowaboutRAW: "Unless you fall into a very small niche of users that absolutely require a fully electronic shutter, silent shooting mode (which does have some noise implications,"
That's an understatement.
The noise different is big.
With the electronic shutter the A7S is akin to the 6D or perhaps the D750. With the mechanical shutter the A7S performs at nearly the same level as the Nikon Df, though there are still Sony color problems. (raws all)
Follow the link to the forum example--albeit it's low ISO.
"Unless you fall into a very small niche of users that absolutely require a fully electronic shutter, silent shooting mode (which does have some noise implications,"
Of course the KS2 has more seals, it has significant body penetrations that the K3 doesn't.
Right, Pentax seals many cameras very well, and I'm sure that's the case with the KS2. The Sony A77II is also well sealed, for a camera with a tilt screen.
Another thing about tilt screens, and I'm sure a consideration for Nikon, they break.
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.
Yes, I've processed Lytro Illum files to 2D formats--usually tiff.
I've seen them printed at 8" x 10", didn't waste my own ink and paper though on uninteresting photos.
From my significant knowledge of printing files, I'm quite certain a good Lytro Illum capture, which are easy to achieve, could indeed easily print at 8" by 10"--just like an image from a conventional 4MP camera.
Nope, don't work for Lytro.
Oh dear, I've answered all those questions with clear and honest responses.
Why do you insist on thinking that I've not used this gear or ever thought to try the Lytro software? Are you in fact projecting you're own hardware inadeq...?
Then: Because someone says something positive about a company's product it does NOT follow that the same someone works for that company.
No, editing 4K conventional video is not a "breeze", well maybe if you have $12,000 work station. And indeed you may own such a machine, but that's far from normal hardware.
(Here, see balios' comment about normal HD video.)
No one was proposing a 4K Lytro, here at least.
slippedcurve623: Umm so is anyone actually intrested in this camera over the d610? Perhaps its not my place to say (canon user) but it ain't no 7dii/d400 and you can get full frame for 300$ more, except for bird shooters perhaps...
It may be better than the D7000's AF, but the D610 has nothing on the D750 or even the D5500.
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.
I’ve basically explained here, and elsewhere at the DPR website, why I don’t share photos anymore.
And your bad behavior is a wonderful example of why I don’t further share photos.
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.
nerd2: Wow. So no tilt/flip LCD, no faster continuous shooting, nothing really new or noticeable and they charge $1200 for this? One can spend whooping $100 more and get D610 instead.
The D610's AF leaves a lot to be desired.
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.
Having absolutely all of anything in every respect is an infinite share of that thing.
All and infinite share of a limited thing can indeed be the same.
Wavehog Films: The move to video is known as a "pivot." In other words, a realization that: your product is "sheit"; you as CEO, are about to get canned; and, to avoid giving money back to investors, liquidating and hanging your head in shame, you need another cocked-up venture to keep the pyramid scheme alive : )
"Personally, I think they are just trying to stay afloat long enough to sell off the technology to a deep pockets company, such as say... Apple or Microsoft."
So ironical that in 1997 people were saying that about Apple.
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.
Yes, I've used the D3S and the D4 and the D700, and some Samsung NX cameras and a Panasonic LX5 and a Canon G7.
Then tried out for say a 100 shots (raws) each:
The Olympus EM1, the Nikon Df, Nikon D750, the Nikon D810, the Nikon D800, the Canon 7DII, the Canon 1DX, the Sony A7, the Sony A7S, the Sony, A7II, the Leica M240, the Panasnonic LX100, the Pentax K5, the Pentax K3--and that's just the last say 18 months.
Your "challenges" to me are tiresome and don't actually seek information.
You can't seem to get the idea into you're head, when I speak of a camera, I've almost always tried it--and that goes for the Lytro Illum.
The Canon 7D doesn't have a tilt screen.
The Olympus EM1 does.
The Pentax K3 doesn't.
The 70D and the KS2 aren't what Nikon is marking this body against. And the Pentax and the Canon are less sealed that the K3 and 7D, not entirely without weather sealing.