Light field cameras: Focusing on the future

By obvious necessity this Lytro design is tied completely to the software, whether Web based or your computer. Therefore, one must consider that computer to be an integral part of the camera. Personally, I think this is why it fails and will continue to do so.

Secondly, I see very little real want or need for refocusing after the image is captured. Any camera can do this prior to the capture and that's the important time. That's when you decide how you want the scene to be imaged. I personally could care less if the next viewer wants to change my composition. Moreover, I doubt few would.

I think the design plays mostly to non-photographer techno minded individuals who are more interested in the unique technology rather than creating compelling imagery. Once they show their friends and get the obligatory ooos and ahhhhs, the game is over. Now you have a dust collector. Next time you upgrade your computer, you probably won't bother to load the required software.

I think I see the story here..the surfer dude only rings once and crashes his motorcycle on the beach at Weston super Mare while the ear-ringed woman gets ready to go surfing with her husband's best friend and the estranged daughter-in-law picks the woodland flowers for the other postman who was so angry at having to deliver 2nd Class post in the rain that he cracked his dentures on the bonnet mascot later that evening. He looked too old for her anyway. I don't think any of them know what a Lytro is, although the guy in the car has been drinking Sterno and that is not helping his driving in the bad weather. I don't know what a Lytro is either and I certainly wouldn't have one in the house until the price came down to £5.

Oh drop it already, that kind of money for a useless boring trick? I would give 50$ for a camera with that trick, maybe.

The more I think about this . . . the more I want one!

I'm thinking it would be cool to be able to 3D pan (like a 3D Ken Burns effect) of a photo and output as a video segment to incorporate into a slide show.

If video . . . being able to play with focus field during playback. Adding that story telling element after the fact.

And just for simple things like taking a group shot with people near & far from the camera in low light no flash allowed and being able to focus stack to get everyone's face in "focus" after the fact?

Who wouldn't want to add these creative bag of tricks to their toy box?

LOL!

:)

Blade Runner photography !!

Deckard is in his apartment examining photographs, he's panning around and zooming in and out and spots a face in a mirror. He zooms and pans and even though the face is originally obscured he somehow sees around the obstruction and the face is there. The same effect is apparent in the junkyard picture as you move the mouse.

So the future is here !

Sounds like it doesn't work, and never will.

I have the original Lytro and it's kinda cool, but the software is super-weak. Crappy UI and this software is where the magic happens for these cameras. This camera has all the features that are missing on the original - flash is huge. But if they don't make a HUGE improvement in their software this camera is a dud.
This could be a very cool camera in the real estate market. I could offer some very cool content for my clients.

Not meant for old fashioned self professed photographers! Must think of NEW WAYS TO OPTIMISE WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY HAS TO OFFER.
For a start STOP thinking in terms of PRINTING the images. Instead interact with them on UHD (4K) 55" plus monitor. Now you are talking!

Can't we add sequential multiple POV and movement to the DOF variations?...Oh, wait...I guess that's cinema!

These departures from "hardcore" photography are quite interesting to play with but, inevitably and self-conflictingly, they tend to deny the essence of photography, not broadening it.

First it was the need to have a computer to show something that used to be passed around, directly, hand-to-hand in a sensible and always usable way. Now, it seems, an electrically-driven device is not enough. We'll have install and run a specific pieces of software to see "photographs" the way they were created for.

Next...?...Sensory deprivation tanks with neural implants so we can fully enjoy those gorgeous 360º, multi-mapped artistic images, I guess.

The silly physical design of the camera betrays the struggle to differentiate it from "normal" cameras.

Consumers do not care HOW the camera arrives at "focus as a afterthought." The way the Lytro does it is unimportant to consumers. Most people use phone cameras, so they will not be a Lytro customers.

The market for such a camera is therefor "true believers" - which does not bode well.

I am shocked at how many people (supposed photo enthusiasts and pros) have absolutely no idea of how Lytro works based on their comments.
You don't have to like it, but if you're going to dismiss it, know what you're dismissing!

Where's the photos?

Amount of processing and data to do something useful = x.

Amount of data and processing to make doing the same thing completely idiot proof = 10,000x.

Using F11 and a small sensor and writing some software to do intelligent blurring would probably be easier and less wasteful.

the first one cost $400 and nobody bought it. I actually want this one but not at that price, maybe at $400. Looks like a slick sony nex.

So $1500 for a point and shoot with terrible aberrations and dynamic range just to save 5 seconds composing and focusing? Gimmick wise its pretty cool (although the "technology" is 106 years old (wikipedia light field camera)and has been brought to market several times over the decades and still never takes off) but I cant imagine trading my D610 for it :)

"And since light field cameras capture 3D data through a single lens, it'd be much easier to shoot 3D films - all of the parallax problems presented by stereoscopic cameras would disappear."
This I don't understand. 3D is 3D BECAUSE of parallax, corresponding to roughly the distance between the eyes.

How can a single lens on a static camera provide two different viewpoints necessary for the brain to reconstruct a 3D experience?

I've never used the actual software, but I've played with their "sample" photos so I'm not sure whether the software will allow you to put almost everything in focus as if the photo was taken at f32. It should be able to.

If so, this has AMAZING potential for macro photography. Imagine being able to focus on an entire flower or bug rather than just the stamen or an eye. Would be better than taking 50 photos and painstakingly patching them together.

I will buy one. The price means it won't be easy or right away, but the technology is the logical next step for my 3D work. I have been using stereoscopic cameras and a Lytro (do I call it the Lytro v.1 now?) to produce 3D images so far. I have been thinking about newer 3D systems, systems that would increase the depth information as well as the angle of view.

But baby steps. I will enjoy using the increased resolution of the Illum. Resolution is getting there. A few more iterations, and we will have our holo-cameras.

Interesting as usual, especially the idea of light field microscopy to compute three dimensional volumes of tiny transparent things, as well as use in video in the future.

iBut beware of the always negative, thoughtless..let's be honest, the stupidly unimaginative, commentary -almost always from people who don't understand the idea of lightfield imaging in the first place.

It wasn't that long ago that a hot shot engineer on dpreview said that based on his calculations sensor based stabilization would never work with larger sensors (APS C or Full frame), or the shortsighted people who thought that adding video to a still camera was a total waste of time and nobody would be much interested in it.

Why is it that if people are not interested in something, or some feature of a new camera, then they think that no one else could possibly be interested?

Perhaps others can add some additional technology that was believed to be just another useless waste of time...

No doubt it has its potential especially on extremely fast moving subjects like capturing a flock of birds etc when autofocus speed/tracking is helpless, and higher image resolution is a must.

Some people love pop-up books or lenticular 3D postcards. The rest of us are charmed for a minute or two and then move on. I suspect that the niche for interactive light-field photos is comparable. The intro images for the Illum were creative and well crafted, but for me they didn't speak to possibilities that I want to explore.

One major limitation on the technology not addressed in this overview that one of the photographic exposure triad controls is lost to this technology. No aperture control means a narrower window of exposure performance. Perhaps the lenses could accommodate a built-in filter or two to help compensate.

Lytro cameras WILL have their user base. Similarly like m43 they will need to prove themselves all over again, and similarly like medium format cameras won't be on every user's neck, but will do wonders in the hands of professionals. Beautiful innovation for enthusiasts offering unique creative opportunities.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

The future is sensors that can 'see' in almost complete darkness, not this gimmick. It's cool, but I don't think consumers care as much.

I like this idea.

Photography is information. The information can be artfully arranged or dry, but it's still just information. This technique potentially gives more information about a scene than does flat field photography.

I'm watching with interest from the sidelines.

Unless it produces something usable in the current imaging infrastructure, nobody will be interested.
What I mean is - it should work everywhere, Facebook, Flickr, Youtube... not just from their own app or website.

As fun as it is playing with pho-focus, trying to fix find the right composition on a picture afterwards because you didn't have a clear concept when you took the picture will never result in anything great.

The future is not this contraption, the future is holographic thick multi-layer sensors. But that would require billions of pixels to get useful image quality. Probably will take another 10 years to get there and another 10 years to make it to video.