4 ms·
"- 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 imp
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoGood 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.