2 ms·
I remember Lytro. Being able to adjust focus in post was an exciting feature, but the cameras themselves were expensive and had lower quality sensors than the c
by wenc 6y ago
I remember Lytro. Being able to adjust focus in post was an exciting feature, but the cameras themselves were expensive and had lower quality sensors than the cameras of that time (ca 2012).
As you say, the implementation failed but it demonstrated that the technology was feasible. Now the IP is with Google. I'm just waiting for the day when someone perfects light-field technology for cell phone cameras.
- bgrsgeg 6y agoLytro failed, I assume, for the same reasons that companies like Apple makes winners out of failed ideas. When it came out, I nerded out and wanted one so badly. Luckily I couldn't afford one. From what I read was that the software was slow, and it was a pain in the butt to go back and re-frame or refocus a shot. People don't do post-processing for mere white balance [1], why would they bother for focus, focal length, depth of field, pan, and perspective? On the other hand, it means that high end gear is done. Once a well executed light field camera comes to market professionals will flock to it. They have to do post-processing anyway so they'll adopt the camera that is smaller, lighter, single insanely fast lens. Most importantly perhaps, a camera where they don't have to wrestle the bloody auto-focus (the kid! focus of the running kid on the edge of the shot!). Better sensors and faster CPUs and digital cameras as we know them are dead. [1] That's why I like film, preferably B&W. Take the time to do the right shot. Accept the results.