Whatever happened to the Lytro ?

<p>The Lytro <a href="https://www.lytro.com/camera">https://www.lytro.com/camera</a> was supposed to revolutionize our lives, the way we take pictures and the way we do business. It sounded like a good concept to me when it first came out until I looked at the price ! The problem I think is that no matter which way you cut it the final output is going to be a 2 dimensional image. Or maybe I just don't know any better since I'm not an owner. Does anybody have any experience with this camera ?</p>

<p>nevermind.</p>

<p>Funny that you bring this up. I had not heard of the Lytro until a few days ago (I don't know how the initial news in 2011 slipped past me). The idea of the camera is "living images" - that is, images of which viewers can constantly change the focus. Obviously, you can't do that on a printed photo, so the power of the camera is in web/electronic images. That notion is furthered by the fact that the images have an equivalent resolution of something like 1-2Mp - too low for prints larger than 4x6. Further limiting the camera as a serious artistic tool is the lack of controls over aperture and focal length. With a fixed f/2 aperture and fixed "8x" focal length you have no control over depth of field. I'll admit, when I first learned of this concept I was super excited. But as I researched it I see it needs more development (at least 12Mp equivalent and aperture control) to be taken seriously.</p>

<p>If I had a dime for every time someone promised me a new invention would revolutionize some aspect of my life, I could be drinking better tea, you know, those $200/kilo first flush Darjeeling teas...<br>

<br /> The final output of a Lytro is not 2D. The 2D you can extract from it is pretty much too lowresolution to do anything with. It's not up to printing even 4x6 prints or using on "year 2013" web pages. The final output of a Lytro is an "experience", an image that contains a depth stack, so their embedded viewer will let you refocus it, change the DOF, and even wiggle the perspective slightly. The problem is that the experience is only entertaining for a very brief time. People get tired of it easily.<br>

<br /> That's what's ultimately going to kill the product. It's a "solution" looking for a "problem". The Lytro folk though "If we build it, they will come". But very few came.</p>

<p>Give it a few years. I see it being used as a layering device.</p>

<p>Hi James. It appears you and I were typing at the same time.</p>

<p>Lytros do have control over focal length. The current camera has a big zoom. If memory serves, 34-350mm (10:1) equivalent.</p>

<p>They excel at control of the aperture. It just takes a little getting used to what they're doing. Lytro works by subsampling the wide open aperture. So, the f2.8 lens is chopped up into a bunch of f11 "beams", which are then combined back in a number of ways. You can have an f2.8 or f5.6 DOF from anywhere within the DOF of the f11 beams, allowing for a limited "refocusing" that you see in the promos.</p>

<p>You can also have an f11 beam from the left side of the f2.8 aperture, and another from the right side, allowing you to shift perspective about half the width of the f2.8 aperture, or around 14mm. So, you can make the image perspective "jiggle" a bit. Not enough for decent 3D, but enough for a "gee whiz, look at what we can do" demo.</p>

<p>You can also have a square aperture for weird bokeh, a vertical "slit pupil" aperture for "cat vision" DOF, although I don't think Lytro currently offers either of these capabilities.</p>

<p>What you'll never have is "at least 12Mp equivalent". The Lytro decimates what you have at the sensor. The original prototype carved the aperture into 169 beams, reducing a 14mp sensor to 0.085mp. It had a lot more ability to do tricks with focus and perspective than the production camera. That only went down to 16 beams, sacrificing much of their ballyhooed refocusing ability, in order to get nearly 1mp out of a small 16mp P&S sensor.</p>

<p>Even if they took the highest res sensors you can get today in an inexpensive camera (that 40mp Nokia had made for one of their phones), you can't have more than 2.2mp at 16 beams. You need a cheap 200mp sensor to get 12mp out of a Lytro. And that's a Lytro with the compromised 16 beams.</p>

<p>Hi James. It appears you and I were typing at the same time.</p>

<p>Lytros do have control over focal length. The current camera has a big zoom. If memory serves, 34-350mm (10:1) equivalent.</p>

<p>They excel at control of the aperture. It just takes a little getting used to what they're doing. Lytro works by subsampling the wide open aperture. So, the f2.8 lens is chopped up into a bunch of f11 "beams", which are then combined back in a number of ways. You can have an f2.8 or f5.6 DOF from anywhere within the DOF of the f11 beams, allowing for a limited "refocusing" that you see in the promos.</p>

<p>You can also have an f11 beam from the left side of the f2.8 aperture, and another from the right side, allowing you to shift perspective about half the width of the f2.8 aperture, or around 14mm. So, you can make the image perspective "jiggle" a bit. Not enough for decent 3D, but enough for a "gee whiz, look at what we can do" demo.</p>

<p>You can also have a square aperture for weird bokeh, a vertical "slit pupil" aperture for "cat vision" DOF, although I don't think Lytro currently offers either of these capabilities.</p>

<p>What you'll never have is "at least 12Mp equivalent". The Lytro decimates what you have at the sensor. The original prototype carved the aperture into 169 beams, reducing a 14mp sensor to 0.085mp. It had a lot more ability to do tricks with focus and perspective than the production camera. That only went down to 16 beams, sacrificing much of their ballyhooed refocusing ability, in order to get nearly 1mp out of a small 16mp P&S sensor.</p>

<p>Even if they took the highest res sensors you can get today in an inexpensive camera (that 40mp Nokia had made for one of their phones), you can't have more than 2.2mp at 16 beams. You need a cheap 200mp sensor to get 12mp out of a Lytro. And that's a Lytro with the compromised 16 beams.</p>

<p>Wow Joseph, you obviously have done a much better job researching the Lytro cameras than I have. Thanks for the great explanation!</p>

<p>I wonder how much money they spent on Research and Development before this camera came out. Probably in the Millions...</p>

<p>Harry, the inference you are making by the above statement is extremely short-sighted. </p>

<p>If the same logic was applied to the BILLIONS in R&D funding it has taken to get semiconductor processing to its current state, you wouldn't have any of the electronics, cameras, etc. that we currently take for granted.</p>

<p>Even if some of the basic research for the Lytro was funded by the gov't, there are tens of thousands of federal R&D grants and contracts awarded every year that produce much less than an entirely new concept in imaging, let alone take what they developed to the market. </p>

<p>Personally, I'm not going to buy one right now, but I applaud their effort. I suspect there are many laboratory and other uses for the more capable (and currently much more costly) versions that haven't yet even been conceived. I'm willing to wait 5 or 10 years to see what the hobbyist / consumer version looks like.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>Well, marrying that woman years ago in San Francisco certainly revolutionized my life. I'm not sure I want to be revolutionized any more after that.</p>

<p>That camera was such a total ad hype. I never understood the concept, and as the op said, it would still be 2-D.</p>

<p>Months later, an update.<br>

<br /> I read about the Lytro in 2011, but pulled back from pre-ordering. 2012 got away from me and I forgot about it. Now, I've had my Lytro for a couple of weeks and am just starting to grasp its potential.<br>

<br /> This is not just hype. You have missed the point. This camera captures visual data in a way that is different from the film paradigm. If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to the first 640x480 digital cameras. Or the first 1.4 megapixel digital cameras. All other digital cameras take their paradigm from film - capturing light information from the world onto a flat surface. The big struggle has been an increase in the resolution of information captured.<br>

<br /> The Lytro captures light field data and stores it in a way that allows for future refinement of the software algorithm that converts it into picture information. Today this allows images that can be refocused as you view them, or that display a slight perspective shift. The latter is about as much as you generally see in "3D pictures" that are based on visual parallax. This is sufficiently magical today. No it is not the same as a three-dimensional experience, but neither is a traditional 3-D image, whether captured with a "3D camera" or in "3D holography".<br>

<br /> In future iterations, the same images you shoot now with a Lytro could explore other aspects of the captured data. The iterations are software based and can be updated over time. As the software improves, so will the images.<br /> See the gallery on the Lytro web site for examples of what this camera can deliver today.<br>

<br /> Yes, there are limitations. The fixed aperature is f2. That lets a lot of light in and limits the ultimate depth of field. That said, the depth of field on the Lytro far exceeds what you will get from any other flat-field digital camera with a lens set at f2.<br /> You can't swap lenses. But the lens in the Lytro is very very good. It has an 8x zoom and can focus on items that are any where from 1/2" away to infinity in the same image. Do that with any other lens in your arsenal at f2.<br>

<br /> Image viewing requires the Lytro viewer (Flash-based). You can't open raw Lytro files in Photoshop or Lightroom (yet). You need to sign up with the Lytro web site (email address and password you create) to take full advantage of the format at this point. But that is not a big deal.<br>

<br /> There is a limit to the gamut of light captured - but this may have more to do with the interpreting software for now. Time will tell. Every other camera I've ever worked with has the same problem. There is a wider range of light intensity in the world than any camera can handle.<br>

<br /> Lytro cameras offer control over "ISO" and shutter speed. I haven't found much use for this yet. Digital ND filters can also be used to cut back bright sunlight.<br>

<br /> No, it's not perfect. It's pretty good though. At $399 for a camera with 8GB of storage or $499 for one with 16GB of storage, I would call it a bargain.<br>

<br /> The Lytro also has built-in wifi that allows you to wirelessly download images to your iPhone and share them with the world. You can also download your images to a computer with Lytro's software. BTW, that software is in the camera, so all you have to do is connect your camera to a computer with a USB cable, download the software and you are good to go. I assume the USB port will be used to update firmware, software and other things in the future. This is just like every other device I have that interfaces with computers.<br>

<br /> In the past, I've taken $3,000 chances with cameras from Olympus and Nikon at 1.4megapixel resolution. I consider a $400 chance on a new camera from Lytro a no-brainer.<br>

<br /> If you do sign up with Lytro, you can watch my Lytro Gallery at https://pictures.lytro.com/mekrohne and watch as I experiment with what this camera can do. Of course, I will not post my total failures. ; )</p>