5 ms·

Thoughts on the Lytro Camera (2013)

35 points by luu 7y ago

jcims 7y ago
One 'showerthought' I had a while back is that if you shot a film on a lightfield camera, they played it back on a lightfield projector, flashlights in the movie would create spots on the wall in the theater.
olliej 7y ago
Oh wow, I forgot I wrote this. (My amazing web design skills have meant I haven’t ever really needed to update my “site”)
- divbzero 7y ago
  No shame in plain HTML. [1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 "this page is designed to last"
  - olliej 7y ago
    Oh yeah, but the design is still bad (small text, the demos are all terrible applications of low contrast text on dark grey, etc)
yummypaint 7y ago
It's unfortunate the underlying technology hasnt seen much adoption since then. I think thus far a key problem has been displaying images in a way that leverages the new capabilities. Im still optimistic that video for VR might be what drives light field tech in the future.
- MartijnBraam 7y ago
  The lightfield technology is used in the cameras for the newer Google pixel phones. They have way less pixels per lens (only 2) so it's primarily used for depth mapping.
  - ipsum2 7y ago
    I think the the usage of microlens arrays on image sensors predates that of Lytro/popularization of lightfield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens#Applications
  - foobarbecue 7y ago
    fewer pixels
Stratoscope 7y ago
I bought one of the original Lytros and agree with all the author's points. The article mentions one thing that was a particular disappointment to me: the Lytro website let you upload your pictures, but then it was up to people looking at the pictures to click around to focus on different things. Who wants to do that when they view a photo gallery? Anyone? What I'd hoped for was a way that I, the photographer, could set up an automatic "focus pull" to tell a story. For example, one of my Lytro shots was a young lady walking her dog, who had his nose almost right up to the lens. It would have been fun to start the picture focused on the dog's nose, and then slowly pull the focus back to his owner. But that would be something I would want to do to help tell a story, instead of expecting the person viewing the photo to figure it out on their own.
- randomfool 7y ago
  This was exactly my experience as well- browsing the photos was this point-and-click exploration adventure where there were only a few places in a photo that yielded good results. I felt like I really had to plan my photos to have great Lytro experiences, but these experiences only really popped if the viewer clicked on specific locations.
ortusdux 7y ago
I forgot about this thing. I wonder if the images it captures could be viewed in full on the looking-glass display. https://lookingglassfactory.com/ https://lookingglassfactory.com/
advisedwang 7y ago
has anyone tried the Lytro Illum? It would be interesting to see how much it has improved moving from proof-of-concept to fully fledged product.
- frxx 7y ago
  Hello, I have tried the Lytro Illum some time back for a week or two. Other than being very slow, the lens not showing the real focal lenght (instead the equivalent focal length), I found the output lacking in both sharpness and colour. The desktop app for editing was very, very slow (on a quad core xeon), and the worst thing was... no one wants to click your picture to see it animate. You could output a video with a focus pull, but then, who would watch it? At least for me, the process of taking the pictures, editing and the output being ignored, made it uninteresting for me. Any other questions?
  - advisedwang 7y ago
    Thanks for sharing your experience.
shagie 7y ago
I too had one of the original Lytros... and, well, all the embeds on the pages are dead. It was a neat idea, but now the site is dead and the software won't run anymore on my machine. No matter how neat, if the technology isn't something that is sustainable with some standards that will live beyond the company it isn't the right medium for storing those memories or pictures. Going offline: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16742314/lytro-focus-photos-support-cameras-illum https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16742314/lytro-focus-phot... Shutting down and employees going to Google: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17166038/lytro-light-field-camera-company-shuts-down-google-hiring https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17166038/lytro-light-fiel...
colechristensen 7y ago
I have a couple of the original lytros with many ideas for execution but only a little progress. I managed to get a somewhat mangled image out of old Matlab code but didn't get to the point of being able to reproduce the image processing myself.

35 points by luu 7y ago

One 'showerthought' I had a while back is that if you shot a film on a lightfield camera, they played it back on a lightfield projector, flashlights in the movie would create spots on the wall in the theater.

olliej 7y ago

Oh wow, I forgot I wrote this. (My amazing web design skills have meant I haven’t ever really needed to update my “site”)

divbzero 7y ago
No shame in plain HTML. [1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21840140 "this page is designed to last"
- olliej 7y ago
  Oh yeah, but the design is still bad (small text, the demos are all terrible applications of low contrast text on dark grey, etc)

yummypaint 7y ago

It's unfortunate the underlying technology hasnt seen much adoption since then. I think thus far a key problem has been displaying images in a way that leverages the new capabilities. Im still optimistic that video for VR might be what drives light field tech in the future.

MartijnBraam 7y ago
The lightfield technology is used in the cameras for the newer Google pixel phones. They have way less pixels per lens (only 2) so it's primarily used for depth mapping.
- ipsum2 7y ago
  I think the the usage of microlens arrays on image sensors predates that of Lytro/popularization of lightfield. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microlens#Applications
- foobarbecue 7y ago
  fewer pixels

Stratoscope 7y ago

I bought one of the original Lytros and agree with all the author's points. The article mentions one thing that was a particular disappointment to me: the Lytro website let you upload your pictures, but then it was up to people looking at the pictures to click around to focus on different things. Who wants to do that when they view a photo gallery? Anyone? What I'd hoped for was a way that I, the photographer, could set up an automatic "focus pull" to tell a story. For example, one of my Lytro shots was a young lady walking her dog, who had his nose almost right up to the lens. It would have been fun to start the picture focused on the dog's nose, and then slowly pull the focus back to his owner. But that would be something I would want to do to help tell a story, instead of expecting the person viewing the photo to figure it out on their own.

randomfool 7y ago
This was exactly my experience as well- browsing the photos was this point-and-click exploration adventure where there were only a few places in a photo that yielded good results. I felt like I really had to plan my photos to have great Lytro experiences, but these experiences only really popped if the viewer clicked on specific locations.

ortusdux 7y ago

I forgot about this thing. I wonder if the images it captures could be viewed in full on the looking-glass display. https://lookingglassfactory.com/ https://lookingglassfactory.com/

advisedwang 7y ago

has anyone tried the Lytro Illum? It would be interesting to see how much it has improved moving from proof-of-concept to fully fledged product.

frxx 7y ago
Hello, I have tried the Lytro Illum some time back for a week or two. Other than being very slow, the lens not showing the real focal lenght (instead the equivalent focal length), I found the output lacking in both sharpness and colour. The desktop app for editing was very, very slow (on a quad core xeon), and the worst thing was... no one wants to click your picture to see it animate. You could output a video with a focus pull, but then, who would watch it? At least for me, the process of taking the pictures, editing and the output being ignored, made it uninteresting for me. Any other questions?
- advisedwang 7y ago
  Thanks for sharing your experience.

shagie 7y ago

I too had one of the original Lytros... and, well, all the embeds on the pages are dead. It was a neat idea, but now the site is dead and the software won't run anymore on my machine. No matter how neat, if the technology isn't something that is sustainable with some standards that will live beyond the company it isn't the right medium for storing those memories or pictures. Going offline: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16742314/lytro-focus-photos-support-cameras-illum https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/6/16742314/lytro-focus-phot... Shutting down and employees going to Google: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17166038/lytro-light-field-camera-company-shuts-down-google-hiring https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/27/17166038/lytro-light-fiel...

colechristensen 7y ago

I have a couple of the original lytros with many ideas for execution but only a little progress. I managed to get a somewhat mangled image out of old Matlab code but didn't get to the point of being able to reproduce the image processing myself.