[Klaus]

https://www.lytro.com/

 

To me it seems to be a solution without a problem. Am I wrong ?

So what do you think about it ?

 

[popo]

I guess the problem it is solving is focus accuracy, and even giving you the possibility of choosing the focus/depth of field after the shot. Of course, there are other significant limits which means it is far from a universal replacement to traditional photography. Give it 5 or 10 years and it might start becoming really interesting.

 

Who knows, at some point in the future when processing and storage costs come down by some orders of magnitude, you may even be able to take continuous high-speed, high resolution video and use that to choose your shutter time after the shot also.

[Klaus]

Lytro doesn't really market this camera for solving focus issues.

 

I am wondering about the application really.  There's no value-add for prints for instance.

When thinking about an interactive approach you may achieve the very same focus effect via existing movie capabilities - just keep your scene static while focusing from infinity to macro. During the interaction with your scene just move to the chosen movie frame.

Thus what is left then ? You still have to think about the composition of your scene and the effect in any case thus you can't even argue with a simplification of the photo taking process.

[Brightcolours]

Lytro doesn't really market this camera for solving focus issues.

Indeed, it is not designed to solve issues, just designed to pursue a novel idea: making images where one can "look into" with a 3D effect (on a computer, of course). Nice idea, just with limitations at the moment (low resolution, lens quality).

I am wondering about the application really.  There's no value-add for prints for instance.

When thinking about an interactive approach you may achieve the very same focus effect via existing movie capabilities - just keep your scene static while focusing from infinity to macro. During the interaction with your scene just move to the chosen movie frame.

Then you have to make software which enables the user/viewer to go through the whole range like the Lytro (web) software does. And you will not get the limited 3D capabilities. 

Thus what is left then ? You still have to think about the composition of your scene and the effect in any case thus you can't even argue with a simplification of the photo taking process.

What is left is the user experience in looking into the image with a slight 3D space. That is the only thing it does.

[Klaus]

Indeed, it is not designed to solve issues, just designed to pursue a novel idea: making images where one can "look into" with a 3D effect (on a computer, of course). Nice idea, just with limitations at the moment (low resolution, lens quality).

Then you have to make software which enables the user/viewer to go through the whole range like the Lytro (web) software does. And you will not get the limited 3D capabilities. 

What is left is the user experience in looking into the image with a slight 3D space. That is the only thing it does.

 

That's all a bit slim as a use case, isn't it ?

Of course, my first reaction was "Oh, how cool", the 2nd one was "Now what ?".

[davidmanze]

The real point to me is the price, at $1500 for a technology in it's infancy is expensive, in five to ten years time the system will probably be much nearer to DSLRs performance, as it is now one has to realize that this will be just for those fascinated by the latest gadget. The technology is great and when refined I can see it having many advantages over current systems, I've no doubt that ephotozine will  soon be reviewing it, so we will see how much better it is over the original model.

[popo]

They're not saying it will fix your focus problems as that sounds evolutionary. To say it is a new type of camera that does new things is revolutionary. But at the end of the day, that is still the possible benefit it gives you over what is more common today.

 

Actually, I have to wonder how far a similar effect could be achieved with variations of more conventional technology? For example, if you had stereoscopic images like that from the Panasonic 3D lens, or isn't there a mobile phone with two sensors now? If that has a sufficient depth of field plus depth information, you could apply a variable selective software blur to simulate the effect could you not?

[Guest]

One can achieve some 3D with more conventional technology; here is my first attempt at doing it using a single lens (not a stereo-pair):

http://www.lazyconv.com/galleries/Root/T...index.html

 

You need red-cyan glasses to see 3D.

(Please watch full-size images on dark background to have reasonable quality.)