From what I've read, this technology will replace blending multiple exposures with different focus distances to increase depth of field. Some of the on-line samples are pretty amazing.
Posted by Nat Coalson on June 22, 2011 at 10:50 PM
The way this is positioned is misleading, to the point of bordering on a scam. It's using web technology to confuse the viewer. The progress bar gives it away: these demos are just image rotation/slideshow technology; nothing new.
The "camera'? Who knows. Multiple images are multiple images. They try to make it sound like you can just make one capture with infinite possibilities. (I think the readers of this forum know better.)
I'm not saying you won't see some kind of product from these guys, but at this point I'd doubt that this startup is going to revolutionize imaging technology in a way that Nikon or Canon wouldn't see coming.
This reminds me of a software "product" called NakedImage I looked at a few years ago, that was supposed to overturn Lightroom and Aperture. Nothing doing.
Maybe some good ideas, but with no lift under the wings.
After reading the article, I'm not sure if the camera creates multiple images or just more information in a single set of pixels. Maybe someone else understands the technology better?
Nat - at first I thought the same thing - that the picture gallery was just fading multiple focus-stacked images in and out. If that's the case, then they did a really kick-ass job with that. Especially since some of the shots are action shots which seem like they'd be extremely difficult to fake. The loader bar (which I hardly noticed on my connection) could just be loading the flash app that loads the image file. I would assume it's a pretty complicated display application with heaps of code.
Also, after reading Ernie's NYTimes link it seems pretty convincing that it is an entirely different sensor technology. (The whole microlenses thing, and that they're working with $50 million in investment!)
However, it is suspicious that they avoid talking about resolution and don't have any photos of any camera prototypes, nor do they explain in any kind of detail how it the technology works (I didn't watch the dissertation though...)
I have a notion that the sensor technology is something novel, but it's probably very low resolution and not really suitable for anything but the web. This would be supported by the low price range they mentioned, and the way they emphasize web sharing potential, rather than talking about higher end applications like fine prints, movies, etc.
But if it's all true, and high enough quality for print purposes, then that would be a pretty freakin intriguing camera!
Seems like one of the most hyped features on their site is the ability to click anywhere to refocus the picture. If that's their main claim to fame, I can't see it being for anything but web presentation. It's not like you can click on a fine art print and refocus it.
Posted by Jack Brauer on June 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Yeah, but you could focus it how you want it before printing. The point being that you wouldn't have to focus the camera during the shoot!
And you could probably stack and blend different focal points from a single exposure to control overall depth of field. The ease and quality of the blending could be very good. I can imagine a tool where you click the near and far edge of the desired depth of field, and the software does the rest.
I read some more articles, and it seems like Jack is correct about the resolution concerns with the current technology. But if the concept is effective, it is only a matter of time until the resolution catches up. The first digital cameras were less than 1 megapixel, but that certainly wasn't the death of the technology.
Interesting technology in an incredibly simple design.
But, as expected, low resolution and as far as I can tell no option for any jpeg output after processing.
It will be interesting to watch this evolve.
Posted by Tom Stermitz on October 21, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Thom Hogan discusses the lytro from the standpoint of a knowledgeable industry insider, both camera and silicon valley. In short, e says it is rather low-res and targeted at a controlled consumer-cloud environment. Restricted licensing, as in: you have to use the proprietary Lytro reader.
Discussion
11 replieshttp://www.lytro.com/cameras
The "camera'? Who knows. Multiple images are multiple images. They try to make it sound like you can just make one capture with infinite possibilities. (I think the readers of this forum know better.)
I'm not saying you won't see some kind of product from these guys, but at this point I'd doubt that this startup is going to revolutionize imaging technology in a way that Nikon or Canon wouldn't see coming.
This reminds me of a software "product" called NakedImage I looked at a few years ago, that was supposed to overturn Lightroom and Aperture. Nothing doing.
Maybe some good ideas, but with no lift under the wings.
Just my 2 cents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
After reading the article, I'm not sure if the camera creates multiple images or just more information in a single set of pixels. Maybe someone else understands the technology better?
Also, after reading Ernie's NYTimes link it seems pretty convincing that it is an entirely different sensor technology. (The whole microlenses thing, and that they're working with $50 million in investment!)
However, it is suspicious that they avoid talking about resolution and don't have any photos of any camera prototypes, nor do they explain in any kind of detail how it the technology works (I didn't watch the dissertation though...)
I have a notion that the sensor technology is something novel, but it's probably very low resolution and not really suitable for anything but the web. This would be supported by the low price range they mentioned, and the way they emphasize web sharing potential, rather than talking about higher end applications like fine prints, movies, etc.
But if it's all true, and high enough quality for print purposes, then that would be a pretty freakin intriguing camera!
I read some more articles, and it seems like Jack is correct about the resolution concerns with the current technology. But if the concept is effective, it is only a matter of time until the resolution catches up. The first digital cameras were less than 1 megapixel, but that certainly wasn't the death of the technology.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101930lytrocameraannounced.asp
And an interview with the CEO:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7237351494/lytro-light-field-camera-first-look-with-ren-ng
Interesting technology in an incredibly simple design.
But, as expected, low resolution and as far as I can tell no option for any jpeg output after processing.
It will be interesting to watch this evolve.