New Lytro product

<p>Aimed at pros...<br>

http://news.yahoo.com/lytro-unveils-more-sophisticated-light-field-camera-214858557--sector.html<br>

<Chas> <br>

<br /><br /></p>

There are only two problems with this

camera:

 

- DR is apparently not as wide as with

conventional cameras

 

- Images are soft

 

However, this paradigm is far superior

to the current one, where the

photographer is required to select the

focus point. The execution leaves

much to be desired, though. I won't buy

this camera.

 

If it works, digital magazines will

definitely benefit from this. Just as

mirrorless cameras escape the

limitations of DSLRs (which are

basically film cameras with a sensor

where the film is supposed to be), light

field images will, where appropriate,

escape the limitations of 2D images

(which are merely digital versions of

paper photos).

 

But, just as some people don't like

mirrorless cameras replacing DSLRs

(oh, heaven forbid), some people won't

like light field sensors replacing 2D

sensors.

 

A footnote: some people who can't let a

photo be seen unless it goes through

Photoshop will not like the Lytro. It

makes a lot of post processing

redundant. We'll probably hear

complaints about Lytro taking away the

'human' element of applying software

filters by hand (IOW, ruining photos

with sincerity). History repeats. Bet on

it.

<p>Well, if history repeats itself, this technology could be every bit as revolutionary as stereophotography!</p>

<p>I am very interested in Lytro, not because I am going to be a customer any time soon but I do see that this may be the future. Sometimes things come and go, sometimes they change things forever. I don't know what this will be but I do see that there is a chance that this will change photography. Imagine an event photographer not having to focus. When their first camera came out I had a question that I could not find an answer for. You can select a focus point after you take the photo but what if you want the whole photo in focus, can it do that? </p>

<p>Analogy warning >> Vinyl was around for decades. Then CD's replaced vinyl, but CD's only lasted a short period of time. We don't even have anything in our house that will play a CD anymore. I wonder if we will look back at conventional 2d sensors and see the same thing. Film was around for decades and decades. 2d sensors may be the 20 year bridge between film and the next thing and maybe this is the next thing.</p>

<p>Dunno, Phil... IMO the most important skills in photography involve selecting what is to be included in the photo and what is not, whether it be cropping/framing decisions, selective focus, exposure (and dynamic range), or even simply composing a scene. Another wise photographer in another recent thread lamented that while blacks and whites were once acceptable, they are now called crushed shadows and blown highlights.</p>

<p>This Lytro technology begs the question of whether we really WANT or NEED ray path information. I can see that there might be some applications. However, I'm not seeing this as being very important for the art of photography. In my experience, there's only so much information that we can record. Recording information we don't need comes at a cost of losing other information we might want. For instance, a shot framed too wide loses resolution when it's cropped. Or an ETTR image in which the brightest highlights are irrelevant might lose shadow detail that might be more important.</p>

<p>The Lytro technology apparently comes at certain costs -- according to Karim, dynamic range and sharpness/resolution. Most people are not going to want to sacrifice these things for an image that may be focused after the capture. Instead they'll want to get the focus right when they shoot the frame. Those wanting selective focus might also get it with new exposure modes the future might bring us, such as a multi-framed focus sweep mode, interpolated in post with software. In fact with the right software and more powerful computers, it should be possible to construct 3D images with single-lens cameras taking multiple images at different focal distances, so I don't think Lytro offers us anything that couldn't eventually happen anyway. The question is whether these capabilities will be of any importance to our photography.</p>

<p>I really think there's a lot to learn from stereophotography. This technology has been around virtually forever, and it's never grabbed hold. It has its niche following, and indeed it is sometimes a valuable tool. I've played around with it myself, and I even have a 3D-capable TV for when all those 3D adult movies come out. (They haven't yet, as 3D seems to be mostly for consumption by children.) Stereophotography may someday make its big splash, but I'm not holding my breath.</p>

<p>If you read the description of the product on the Lytro site, it doesn't seem to completely eliminate the need to focus. The ability to refocus is only available in a zone that can be controlled by the photographer and is displayed on the LCD (my emphasis below):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>During image capture an interactive depth feedback display shows the relative focus of all objects in the frame, allowing composition in three dimensions. A real-time color-coded overlay of the live view lets you know <strong>which elements of the picture are within the re-focusable range</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see this more as a complementary type of photography than an actual replacement.</p>

<p>Hmmmm... I just went to the website. Well, I admit the still/video hybrid images can be compelling, as they allow the still photographer to create a narrative. Soooo...... Maybe! We'll see.</p>

<p>I can see some interesting technology applications in making videos without having to follow-focus which will relieve the camera operator of a huge burden and allow the editor to fix it in the mix, as it were.</p>

<p>For still photography, though, I suspect the majority will see it as an interesting gimmick and a few might purchasing such a camera for occasional use. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Analogy warning >> Vinyl was around for decades. Then CD's replaced vinyl, but CD's only lasted a short period of time. We don't even have anything in our house that will play a CD anymore. I wonder if we will look back at conventional 2d sensors and see the same thing. Film was around for decades and decades. 2d sensors may be the 20 year bridge between film and the next thing and maybe this is the next thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film and vinyl are still around.</p>

<p>Looking at the step they managed to make from the original one to this product, there sure is a big promise. There are (I think) enough scenarios in which this technology has creative promise. It won't end up in any of my bags soon, but it's good to see it doesn't end at the quirky original Lytro only. But, as Laurentiu, short term I see this rather as a complimentary tool, not a disruptive force.<br>

As it is now, it's something I'd more see surface in smartphones for now, though - HTC added a second camera to emulate limited DoF effects afterwards in their new One, Samsung added a software emulation of the same idea and Nokia has an application that allows "refocussing" (by the looks of it, very similar to what Samsung added, but I haven't seen a S5 yet - got the Nokia app and it works decently).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Film and vinyl are still around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And some people still pull plows with draft horses, too. But not because it works better than the alternatives.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Film and vinyl are still around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And some people still pull plows with draft horses, too. But not because it works better than the alternatives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

No one is claiming that Lytro's technology is better than what we have now (except maybe the marketing staff).</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>I'm amazed that a company that has never manufactured a camera lens can come out with a 30-250mm f2.0 lens, weighing in at just half a pound, on their first try. Maybe Canon and Nikon can ask them how they did it. It's an amazing camera no doubt, but in my opinion and like others said, more suited to video than still life. It would certainly make a nice gift(hint my birthday is coming up) but I don't think I'll be getting rid of my DSLR any time soon.</p>

They came out with a 30-250mm "equivalent" lens--roughly a 4-30mm f2 lens--which may well be manufactured by

another company.