A. Yes, I'd imagine so, within reason. Makes for a less interesting demo, though - we've seen lots of images with large focal depth, and lots of images with a n

A. Yes, I'd imagine so, within reason. Makes for a less interesting demo, though - we've seen lots of images with large focal depth, and lots of images with a narrower depth of focus used to call out one thing, but we've never seen snapshots which you can refocus after they are taken. This is seriously awesome. B. This tech isn't going anywhere. If the camera succeeds they might license it. If the camera fails they will surely try to license it. Note also that the technique is apparently not wholly new so the key patents are already running down. And your point about all those design choices that go into the camera cuts both ways. If they license this tech to a consumer electronics company that flubs the execution they will lose money, as the lousy execution will reflect badly on the tech and will prevent it from getting popular sooner. (The sooner every camera buyer wants this tech, the more profits there will be before the patents expire.) In a world consisting mainly of (a) Apple and (b) hardware companies that cannot design software to save their lives, keeping control of your own fate seems wise. The popularity of this technique among the general public will presumably depend crucially on the UI, both when taking the photo and when displaying it. Better to screw that up yourself than outsource the screwing up to someone else. ;)