Lytro unlocks Wi-Fi with firmware update, introduces iOS app

Yeah, like no one *ever* makes any modifications, adjustments, edits or crops to their images *after* they've taken the shot! Right. As far as I'm concerned, controlling focus after taking the shot is merely another post-processing option. Yes, it's another option for "post", which is something you do to an image *after* taking a picture. Focus, crop, straighten, de-keystone, adjust saturation, adjust contrast, clone out stuff...all just examples of things one might do to a image "later" after taking a picture. You might call it "vomiting", but the rest of us just call it post-processing or image editing.

Go back to your cave you old curmudgeon

Technically, Pellican and Heptagon are synthetic aperture systems, a lot different than a "light field" (not "wide field") camera.

Pelican is very clever in that it applies a "spatial multiplicity" technique to the "cheapest of the cheap" cameras, the under a buck "dot" cameras built for $39 "disposable" phones, front cameras in $59 "no child left behind" tablets, and $9 webcams.

Lytro is the total opposite, their concept requires expensive, large high-mp sensors, and large, expensive lenses. At a time when camera phones are decimating teh p&s market, they're pushing a technology that is unfriendly to embedding in a phone.

> "Trying to create a silly analogy to Hollywood just goes to show how people abuse the concept of an analogy."

You're right, I should not have used an analogy -- it's just too complicated a concept for some... OK, I'll use something simpler this time: an example. Even two: autofocus and autoexposure. These two features had been mocked as unnecessary gimmicks for a "real" camera, and look at where we are today... <sigh>

(One more time: I am *not* saying post-focus is there to stay; I just find it hilarious how... err, over-confidently some people attack new technologies. On the other hand, it's such a fun to read their comments... So keep'em coming ;-)

@Guidenet

As a corporate photographer, you might not see any applications for this technology. But do you seriously think there might not be a whole raft of applications outside of professional and hobby photography where this would be useful? Scientific uses come to mind. How about forensics or surveillance. I can begin to see some real-world uses for plenoptics.

Oddly enough, as someone who used to design scientific and industrial cameras, "forensics" and "surveillance" don't come to mind, at all. Surveillance is all about covertness, resolution, low light capabilities, and dynamic range. Lytro is larger, lower resolution, and poorer in dynamic range than anything else in its price class. Forensics is hyperspectral, multispectral, macro, and high resolution techniques, and again, the lightfield design is a hindrance, not a help.

So, yes, I "seriously think there might not be a whole raft of applications".

Off-the-shelf processors don't normally have WiFi transceivers. Those are complex: a mix of RF power devices and signal processing. Not to mention the filter networks and antenna that don't live on the chipset itself, and the need to design and test all that, as well as the need to get it EMC certified to the requirements of multiple agencies like the FCC.

The parts were expensive, and designing them in was expensive. They wouldn't have spent all that money if there were not plans in place from day one to have the firmware and iOS apps, so what you're seeing is simply Lytro totally blowing the schedule. Being a year late with something they obviously intended to support from day one is "what's not to like".

I suspect they built this around some standard tablet chipset that included WiFi because it made sense for other reasons. They likely didn't have time to write the firmware to make the WiFi work before the camera release. I don't think they intentionally left it out for any nefarious reasons. They were under pressure to ship the camera, and that was a feature they could defer.

"I suspect they built this around some standard tablet chipset that included WiFi"

WiFi is in a separate, relatively expensive chipset, and requires a lot of engineering for things like the antenna. Nobody just tosses in a transceiver and neglects it. You're looking at a simple case of someone totally blowing one of the R&D budgets (money, time, or manageability) for the firmware, apps, or EMC certification.

>Marek<
I completely agree, but no one forced the customer to buy the camera at the price the company asked.
They could just buy something else or keep their money if no equivalent suit them.
If given the specs sheets and the price displayed, the consumers still bought it, then maybe that consumer found the camera useful and worth the price asked (for him).

Still, if a company decides the upgrade or unlock features after the product is sold then why not? “If” I had a 7D: I would be glad with the increased raw buffers it got (no matter why they limited it at first). After all, when I bought it for 1500 usd asked by Canon, I knew the 7D had 'only' 15 frames buffers but I bought anyway. It means to me the 7D was worth the price tag, even with 15 frames buffer.

If Lytro sell their device and the consumers thinks it is over expensive (because it has no wifi, or only 6mpx or whatever) then let Lytro fails.

Well that is how I see things, and I apologize for misspelling, grammar,...)