8 ms·

The downsides, which, of course, this press release doesn't mention: - Greatly, greatly reduced image resolution. Great big dedicated-camera sized lens and ima

The downsides, which, of course, this press release doesn't mention: - Greatly, greatly reduced image resolution. Great big dedicated-camera sized lens and image sensor, cellphone-camera sized pictures. 1680×1050, at most. (1.76MP) - Color aberration. The microlenses have to be small, of course, so they're going to be made of single physical elements, rather than doublets.[1] - Various amusing aliasing problems. (note the fine horizontal lines on some of the demo shots) - Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing, which means the CPU will have to chew on data for a while before you can take another image. - Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images. Sure, cameras all have their particular RAW sensor formats, but this is also going to have its own output image format. No looking at thumbnails in file browsers. Photoshop won't have any idea what to do with it. Can't print it, of course. - - You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over, but why not use a conventional camera with stopped-down[2] lens, then? - It's going to be really thrillingly expensive. This is a given, of course, with new camera technology. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublet_(lens) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublet_(lens) [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/stop#Effects_on_image_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/stop#Effects_on_image_quality

adelevie 15y ago
>cellphone-camera sized pictures. With 5+ megapixel cell phone cameras being common these days, what resolution do you imply in that sentence?
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  Why, back in my day phones didn't have cameras in 'em t'all! So, I don't know. 1280×720? 1680×1050 at most? They don't quote a megapixel number on their site, of course.
- wisty 15y ago
  Most cell phones have about 1 MP of signal, and 4 MP of noise.
MichaelApproved 15y ago
"- Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing, which means the CPU will have to chew on data for a while before you can take another image." This will improve and processor speed improves eventually making it a nonissue. "- Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images. Sure, cameras all have their particular RAW sensor formats, but this is also going to have its own output image format. No looking at thumbnails in file browsers. Photoshop won't have any idea what to do with it. Can't print it, of course." Sure, the raw image needs to be processed but you can export the focused product and do what you like, can't you? I can invasion a raw pic and a "best guess on what you'd like to be in focus" jpeg along with it. You can then improve on the jpeg by using the raw image to change what's in focus and recreate the jpeg.
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  Sure, the raw image needs to be processed but you can export the focused product and do what you like, can't you? Certainly, and that will be a cool feature. I don't think it's worth all the other tradeoffs inherent in a light-field camera. This will improve and processor speed improves eventually making it a nonissue. We are not talking about the future. We are talking about what this particular first-generation product is likely to do, and I, Samuel Bierwagen, will bet you $20 that this camera won't do better than three seconds per photo.
  - MichaelApproved 15y ago
    Good point about referring to first-gen model though I'd be looking forward to it being able to take 1 good picture fast then 3 so so pictures. Either way, I can't wait to see how well it and future versions work in real world environment.
jws 15y ago
Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images – you could embed the full dynamic information in a JPEG extension and use the JPEG thumbnail as a thumbnail and the JPEG image as your selected representation. Then you could use your nonstandard code to regenerate the JPEG image data from your full data when you wished. You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over… – but what fun is that? I'm having a grand time with SynthCam on my iPhone to act like a large lens camera to regain distance dependent focus even though I have a tiny lens. It's going to be really thrillingly expensive. – It doesn't need to be. Tiny micro lenses on the image sensor might be much cheaper than large chunks of precision glass. Think "inkjet-like print head squirting one of the resins used for plastic eyeglasses into etched depressions relying on surface tension to form the lens". Just guessing there. Maybe placing precision sized beads in each depression and then heating to reflow into a surface tension defined lens would work better.
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  It's a piece of first-generation consumer electronics, made in small production runs by a new company that's already spent $30 million in R&D. While each camera will not cost much, they will be priced high.
  - eridius 15y ago
    Not necessarily. If the company is looking to recoup its investment soon, sure. But if the company is looking to get mass-market appeal then they'll price it more aggressively. The latter may be a good idea given the declining interest in dedicated cameras - make it cheap enough, while it's still novel, and people will actually buy the thing.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - newman314 15y ago
      Well, if you watch the Techcrunch video, the CEO was only willing to say it was between free and $10k. That's a big range
cheez 15y ago
It's the first version man. This is exciting technology. I love seeing true innovation like this come to life. I'm gonna be all over this. You know, for the kids.
beambot 15y ago
There are other techniques for computational cameras that produce "flexible depth of field" -- images with objects both near and far in focus [1]. That technique works a little differently: the image detection plane is shifted during image capture, and then you apply digital signal processing. Very cool stuff. [1] http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/06/26/computational-cameras-exploiting-megapixels-and-computers-redefine-modern-camera http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/06/26/computational-cameras-...
snarf 15y ago
The NYTimes also has an article on Lytro which suggests that they have solved the resolution problem. From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?_... : "The picture resolution, he added, was indistinguishable from that of his other point-and-shoots, a Canon and a Nikon. Eliminating any loss of resolution in a camera like Lytro’s, which is capturing light data from many angles, is a real advance, said Shree Nayar, a professor at Columbia University and an expert in computer vision."
riklomas 15y ago
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
- jarek 15y ago
  I take it you bought the first gen iPod?
raleec 15y ago
I realize that this type of discourse is the raison d'être of this site, but I think it's pretty funny that I came to this discussion immediately after reading today's xkcd (http://xkcd.com/915/ http://xkcd.com/915/)
- adolph 15y ago
  Mouth-open really makes a statement about the quality of cheese-steak: http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef01347fc42e5d970c-pi http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef01347fc42e5d97...
  - jerf 15y ago
    Truly, you are a meta-connoisseur.
jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago
"greatly reduced image resolution" Not necessarily. If you're using a plenoptic camera purely for producing 2d images, you can reduce pixel size further than you would normally. This is because each pixel in the output image is the average of many primary pixels in the sensor. The primary pixels can be smaller and noisier while still getting a smooth output image. In rough terms the resolution loss is a cosine term over the pixel areas involved, so it's modest. The technology also allows a tradeoff between resolution and sharpness that is novel, including the possibility of realizing resolutions beyond the diffraction limit. The cameras used in research projects suffered reduced resolution because they were a frankenstein modification of an off the shelf DSLR. A camera designed to be plenoptic from the beginning has different constraints. "color aberration and aliasing" I believe these can be addressed in the processing stage. I don't see anything about either of these issues that's insurmountable. "Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing" The processing can be done at any time after the fact. The primary image capture is just that, a raw image, same as any other camera. The processing is also relatively simple convolution which can be done via FFT. Overall it's comparable to common video and image compression algorithms, not something new that requires a supercomputer in your camera. "Proprietary toolchain" There's no reason we can't standardize raw plenoptic images. Also, once the plenoptic raw has been processed it can be saved as any available 2d or 3d format, from png to psd to jpeg. These files will be fine in Photoshop or on the web. "You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over, but why not use a conventional camera with stopped-down[2] lens, then" This allows depth of field independent of aperture size, which is a new capability. This will greatly aid low light photography, particularly dim landscapes. But secondly, the images contain depth information, with all that implies. This is a very different tool from a stopped down lens. It's capable of realizing images that are physically imposible with a traditional lens and sensor. "thrillingly expensive" Citation needed. AFAIK each piece of technology involved is well understood and readily manufactured.
- thomasgerbe 15y ago
  "The processing can be done at any time after the fact. The primary image capture is just that, a raw image, same as any other camera." I suppose that's the advantage. I could see myself changing the settings so that you preview the image right after the shot (fashion, portrait) or have no preview at all and keep processing power focused on shooting as many photos as possible (sports, wildlife, candid).
dstein 15y ago
This is the biggest advancement in photography I've ever seen. All radical new technologies have some caveats like this initially like how LCD displays were worse than plasma for a long time. Wait a few generations for the tech to mature and I bet there will be no going back.

adelevie 15y ago

>cellphone-camera sized pictures. With 5+ megapixel cell phone cameras being common these days, what resolution do you imply in that sentence?

sbierwagen 15y ago
Why, back in my day phones didn't have cameras in 'em t'all! So, I don't know. 1280×720? 1680×1050 at most? They don't quote a megapixel number on their site, of course.
wisty 15y ago
Most cell phones have about 1 MP of signal, and 4 MP of noise.

MichaelApproved 15y ago

"- Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing, which means the CPU will have to chew on data for a while before you can take another image." This will improve and processor speed improves eventually making it a nonissue. "- Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images. Sure, cameras all have their particular RAW sensor formats, but this is also going to have its own output image format. No looking at thumbnails in file browsers. Photoshop won't have any idea what to do with it. Can't print it, of course." Sure, the raw image needs to be processed but you can export the focused product and do what you like, can't you? I can invasion a raw pic and a "best guess on what you'd like to be in focus" jpeg along with it. You can then improve on the jpeg by using the raw image to change what's in focus and recreate the jpeg.

sbierwagen 15y ago
Sure, the raw image needs to be processed but you can export the focused product and do what you like, can't you? Certainly, and that will be a cool feature. I don't think it's worth all the other tradeoffs inherent in a light-field camera. This will improve and processor speed improves eventually making it a nonissue. We are not talking about the future. We are talking about what this particular first-generation product is likely to do, and I, Samuel Bierwagen, will bet you $20 that this camera won't do better than three seconds per photo.
- MichaelApproved 15y ago
  Good point about referring to first-gen model though I'd be looking forward to it being able to take 1 good picture fast then 3 so so pictures. Either way, I can't wait to see how well it and future versions work in real world environment.

jws 15y ago

Proprietary toolchain for the dynamic images – you could embed the full dynamic information in a JPEG extension and use the JPEG thumbnail as a thumbnail and the JPEG image as your selected representation. Then you could use your nonstandard code to regenerate the JPEG image data from your full data when you wished. You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over… – but what fun is that? I'm having a grand time with SynthCam on my iPhone to act like a large lens camera to regain distance dependent focus even though I have a tiny lens. It's going to be really thrillingly expensive. – It doesn't need to be. Tiny micro lenses on the image sensor might be much cheaper than large chunks of precision glass. Think "inkjet-like print head squirting one of the resins used for plastic eyeglasses into etched depressions relying on surface tension to form the lens". Just guessing there. Maybe placing precision sized beads in each depression and then heating to reflow into a surface tension defined lens would work better.

sbierwagen 15y ago
It's a piece of first-generation consumer electronics, made in small production runs by a new company that's already spent $30 million in R&D. While each camera will not cost much, they will be priced high.
- eridius 15y ago
  Not necessarily. If the company is looking to recoup its investment soon, sure. But if the company is looking to get mass-market appeal then they'll price it more aggressively. The latter may be a good idea given the declining interest in dedicated cameras - make it cheap enough, while it's still novel, and people will actually buy the thing.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - newman314 15y ago
    Well, if you watch the Techcrunch video, the CEO was only willing to say it was between free and $10k. That's a big range

cheez 15y ago

It's the first version man. This is exciting technology. I love seeing true innovation like this come to life. I'm gonna be all over this. You know, for the kids.

beambot 15y ago

There are other techniques for computational cameras that produce "flexible depth of field" -- images with objects both near and far in focus [1]. That technique works a little differently: the image detection plane is shifted during image capture, and then you apply digital signal processing. Very cool stuff. [1] http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/06/26/computational-cameras-exploiting-megapixels-and-computers-redefine-modern-camera http://www.hizook.com/blog/2009/06/26/computational-cameras-...

snarf 15y ago

The NYTimes also has an article on Lytro which suggests that they have solved the resolution problem. From http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html?_... : "The picture resolution, he added, was indistinguishable from that of his other point-and-shoots, a Canon and a Nikon. Eliminating any loss of resolution in a camera like Lytro’s, which is capturing light data from many angles, is a real advance, said Shree Nayar, a professor at Columbia University and an expert in computer vision."

riklomas 15y ago

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

jarek 15y ago
I take it you bought the first gen iPod?

raleec 15y ago

I realize that this type of discourse is the raison d'être of this site, but I think it's pretty funny that I came to this discussion immediately after reading today's xkcd (http://xkcd.com/915/ http://xkcd.com/915/)

adolph 15y ago
Mouth-open really makes a statement about the quality of cheese-steak: http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef01347fc42e5d970c-pi http://blogs.abcnews.com/.a/6a00d8341c4df253ef01347fc42e5d97...
- jerf 15y ago
  Truly, you are a meta-connoisseur.

jasonwatkinspdx 15y ago

"greatly reduced image resolution" Not necessarily. If you're using a plenoptic camera purely for producing 2d images, you can reduce pixel size further than you would normally. This is because each pixel in the output image is the average of many primary pixels in the sensor. The primary pixels can be smaller and noisier while still getting a smooth output image. In rough terms the resolution loss is a cosine term over the pixel areas involved, so it's modest. The technology also allows a tradeoff between resolution and sharpness that is novel, including the possibility of realizing resolutions beyond the diffraction limit. The cameras used in research projects suffered reduced resolution because they were a frankenstein modification of an off the shelf DSLR. A camera designed to be plenoptic from the beginning has different constraints. "color aberration and aliasing" I believe these can be addressed in the processing stage. I don't see anything about either of these issues that's insurmountable. "Low FPS. Each image requires lots of processing" The processing can be done at any time after the fact. The primary image capture is just that, a raw image, same as any other camera. The processing is also relatively simple convolution which can be done via FFT. Overall it's comparable to common video and image compression algorithms, not something new that requires a supercomputer in your camera. "Proprietary toolchain" There's no reason we can't standardize raw plenoptic images. Also, once the plenoptic raw has been processed it can be saved as any available 2d or 3d format, from png to psd to jpeg. These files will be fine in Photoshop or on the web. "You can just produce a composite image that's sharp all over, but why not use a conventional camera with stopped-down[2] lens, then" This allows depth of field independent of aperture size, which is a new capability. This will greatly aid low light photography, particularly dim landscapes. But secondly, the images contain depth information, with all that implies. This is a very different tool from a stopped down lens. It's capable of realizing images that are physically imposible with a traditional lens and sensor. "thrillingly expensive" Citation needed. AFAIK each piece of technology involved is well understood and readily manufactured.

thomasgerbe 15y ago
"The processing can be done at any time after the fact. The primary image capture is just that, a raw image, same as any other camera." I suppose that's the advantage. I could see myself changing the settings so that you preview the image right after the shot (fashion, portrait) or have no preview at all and keep processing power focused on shooting as many photos as possible (sports, wildlife, candid).

dstein 15y ago

This is the biggest advancement in photography I've ever seen. All radical new technologies have some caveats like this initially like how LCD displays were worse than plasma for a long time. Wait a few generations for the tech to mature and I bet there will be no going back.