Light L16 - a hands-on review

Greetings!

 

I received my Light L16 about ten days ago and have written the following review of it for anyone who might be interested in this new type of camera:

 

Light L16 Camera Hands-on Review – a different kind of camera!

 

Enjoy,

 

Tim!

Thanks a lot for writing and sharing this. - I hope that technology will take off! (and admit it is already desirable as is)

In principle it's terrific. In reality, I don't know if it will ever work.

 

Now, I'm the sort of person who welcomes new things if they're better than the old things. Mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs in almost every way. Integrated cameras like the Sony RX10 could replace system cameras for many applications. But digital is not necessarily better than film (this is context dependent though, even for people who prefer film). I think that light field sensors are potentially better than 2D sensors, but they need refinement.

 

It's not clear whether refinement will ever get the L16 to a point where I would want one. Computational imaging sounds great in theory - after all, downsizing an image is 'computational' and it works very well. But what Light is trying to do is the equivalent of creating an upscaling algorithm which has more detail than the original file. This is logically impossible, no matter how good the computer.

 

OTOH, there are aspects about the camera that can indeed be improved. I think you don't need more than four (or even three) sensors to make a camera like this. Actually I am wondering if all this is as much a waste of time as the Tesla Hyperloop. 16 sensors sounds great but the results are inconsistent from pixel to pixel in the same file.

 

Apple has shown that you can simulate selective focus (with some limitations) with just one sensor. That's great, but you'll get better results with light field sensors, although you'll have a larger camera.

 

You would think that the L16 is at least well suited to forensic applications. But even there, I'd take the Lytro Illum instead.

"In principle it's terrific"Karim.

 

In principle humanity is also terrific with its superior intellect'

 

Reality is.......

 

The photos I've looked at seem out of focus sort of like us.

 

Just a thought.;

Interesting concept - darned ugly implementation.

 

Do the lenses/cameras really need to be scattered randomly across the casing? Because the whole thing looks like a hastily knocked together prototype, stuck in an off-the-shelf plastic project box.

 

I would have thought that clustering the cameras closer together would have made the composite stitching easier and smoother too.

Do the lenses/cameras really need to be scattered randomly across the casing?

There is a mathematical reason for that, I'm sure. The problem is that while the maths is smart, the product is not. Maybe they'll surprise us. Follow your dreams, I say. But I still think it's going to be a dud.