4 ms·

I think this is great, but I wrote up my reservations about the system here, if a little self-linkage isn't frowned upon: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/doub

I think this is great, but I wrote up my reservations about the system here, if a little self-linkage isn't frowned upon: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/doubts-about-lytros-focus-later-camera/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/22/doubts-about-lytros-focus-l... I can't wait to actually use one, though. From what I've heard, it's something photographers who love the old methods (like myself) sort of "get" once they've used it for a while. And of course it can live in peace alongside the Canons and Sonys of the world.

jessriedel 15y ago
>To start with, a large portion of the photography process has been removed — and not simply a technical part, but a creative part. There’s a reason focus is called focus and not something like “optical optimum” or “sharpness.” Focus is about making a decision as a photographer about what you’re taking a picture of. It’s clear that Ng is not of the same opinion: he describes focusing as “a chore,” and believes removing it simplifies the process. You really seemed to miss the point here. The Lytro camera captures all possible focus settings, allowing the photographer to choose one later...or combine multiple settings together in a single image. This isn't the machine taking over the photographer's job, it's the machine increasing the choices available to the photographer. Similarly, you might not like images which have been heavily dodged/burned, but it certainly was a victory for artists when that technique was developed, allowing them to choose differing levels of exposure in the same image.
- jeroen 15y ago
  It seems you're always stuck with f/2, so there's no way to adjust the depth of field. That not only simplifies the process, it also takes away an important choice.
  - nrp 15y ago
    Physically, you're stuck at f/2 in the sense that that is the actual f-stop of the lens. The information exists to let you choose the focus and the depth of field of the desired display image after capturing the light field. This simplifies the capturing process, but allows for more complex post processing that is not possible with a normal camera.
  - kisielk 15y ago
    Since you can focus at arbitrary points in the photo after the fact it should not be a huge stretch to make software that allows you to change the depth of field. Macro photographers already deal with this by using focus stacking.
- dj_axl 15y ago
  > The Lytro camera captures all possible focus settings. There's a reason photographers prefer certain lenses for sharpness, which can be measured in lp/mm and I wonder how the Lytro compares there. The f/2 glass is probably decent for portraits and exhibits high levels of diffraction when shooting landscape images at f/22. If light field photography solves these problems then that would be very interesting to me. For $399 and shooting at 3-4 megapixels now, it will be a few years before this reaches the 18+ megapixel pro-am level and deals with pro-am criticism.
- devindotcom 15y ago
  No, we just differ on this point. As I said, "Focus is about making a decision as a photographer about what you’re taking a picture of." Lytro removes that decision.
  - micampe 15y ago
    It doesn't remove it, it just moves it to a later time, just like you do with white balance and exposure when shooting raw and then developing (with limitations, but I'm sure this has limitations too). My thought here is that the finished work would always be a picture, not the fancy widget, otherwise the comparison would not even stand.
    - queensnake 15y ago
      Well, but if the photographer passed the image along to the final human viewer in 'light field format', he would defer his artistic choices to that final human viewer.
      - minikomi 15y ago
        Did you ever read mad magazine? At the end of every issue there was a thing called a fold in - it was one image with one caption which, when folded in a certain way, created a new image with an entirely contrasting message. Imagine an image which, depending on the focus, changes the mood and message completely. I'm sure they will emerge. Right now the images on the site are mainly tech demos but in the hands of someone able to think outside the box I'm sure we will see some striking new art.
aidenn0 15y ago
It's been a while since I read the paper, but IIRC, you are wrong about how the process works. First I'll define some terms: Image pixel: pixel in the final image Sensor pixel: actual pixel in the sensor The microlens array bins several sensor pixels into single image pixels. Depending on the incident angle of the light on the microlens, the light will go to a different sensor pixel. This means you can adjust the aperture, as well as focus in post-processing, since a narrower aperture just means a pixel is illuminated by light from a narrower possible number of incident angles. If I had a whiteboard, I'd draw you a diagram, but you sound like a knowledgeable photographer so you probably "get it" if not, just look at the ray-diagrams in the depth of field section of a photography book.
- devindotcom 15y ago
  That's pretty much how I described it in the 6th paragraph. The aperture is still restricted, I believe (F/4 in the paper, F/2 in the production device), and the exposure is governed by sensitivity and exposure length. But I'm not entirely sure about it.
  - aidenn0 15y ago
    So is your concern that you can't go past f/2? This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/devindotcom/5076642726/sizes/l/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/devindotcom/5076642726/sizes/l/... Was taken at f/3.2 so there is no reason you couldn't get this shot with a f/2 shot from a plenoptic camera with a 35mm lens and a APS-C sized sensor (you would actually have to use some of their software to increase the depth of field to get that picture). Lytro doesn't give specs on the focal length or sensor size; I think we can assume it's probably closer to a point-and-shoot than an SLR, and everybody already knows it's hard to do shallow depth of field with a point-and-shoot, it's not anything specific to Lytro's camera. The majority of point-and-shoots have a fixed aperture (if you "stop-down" for outdoors shooting they just use an NDF filter). If they come out with an pro-quality exchangable lens large-sensor plenoptic, you ought to be able to do the same sorts of things you can do with a pro-quality non-plenoptic camera, only you'll be able to do it e.g. with moving subjects that you otherwise would not be able to focus on with such a narrow depth of field (and as a sacrifice you would have many fewer pixels).

jessriedel 15y ago

>To start with, a large portion of the photography process has been removed — and not simply a technical part, but a creative part. There’s a reason focus is called focus and not something like “optical optimum” or “sharpness.” Focus is about making a decision as a photographer about what you’re taking a picture of. It’s clear that Ng is not of the same opinion: he describes focusing as “a chore,” and believes removing it simplifies the process. You really seemed to miss the point here. The Lytro camera captures all possible focus settings, allowing the photographer to choose one later...or combine multiple settings together in a single image. This isn't the machine taking over the photographer's job, it's the machine increasing the choices available to the photographer. Similarly, you might not like images which have been heavily dodged/burned, but it certainly was a victory for artists when that technique was developed, allowing them to choose differing levels of exposure in the same image.

jeroen 15y ago
It seems you're always stuck with f/2, so there's no way to adjust the depth of field. That not only simplifies the process, it also takes away an important choice.
- nrp 15y ago
  Physically, you're stuck at f/2 in the sense that that is the actual f-stop of the lens. The information exists to let you choose the focus and the depth of field of the desired display image after capturing the light field. This simplifies the capturing process, but allows for more complex post processing that is not possible with a normal camera.
- kisielk 15y ago
  Since you can focus at arbitrary points in the photo after the fact it should not be a huge stretch to make software that allows you to change the depth of field. Macro photographers already deal with this by using focus stacking.
dj_axl 15y ago
> The Lytro camera captures all possible focus settings. There's a reason photographers prefer certain lenses for sharpness, which can be measured in lp/mm and I wonder how the Lytro compares there. The f/2 glass is probably decent for portraits and exhibits high levels of diffraction when shooting landscape images at f/22. If light field photography solves these problems then that would be very interesting to me. For $399 and shooting at 3-4 megapixels now, it will be a few years before this reaches the 18+ megapixel pro-am level and deals with pro-am criticism.
devindotcom 15y ago
No, we just differ on this point. As I said, "Focus is about making a decision as a photographer about what you’re taking a picture of." Lytro removes that decision.
- micampe 15y ago
  It doesn't remove it, it just moves it to a later time, just like you do with white balance and exposure when shooting raw and then developing (with limitations, but I'm sure this has limitations too). My thought here is that the finished work would always be a picture, not the fancy widget, otherwise the comparison would not even stand.
  - queensnake 15y ago
    Well, but if the photographer passed the image along to the final human viewer in 'light field format', he would defer his artistic choices to that final human viewer.
    - minikomi 15y ago
      Did you ever read mad magazine? At the end of every issue there was a thing called a fold in - it was one image with one caption which, when folded in a certain way, created a new image with an entirely contrasting message. Imagine an image which, depending on the focus, changes the mood and message completely. I'm sure they will emerge. Right now the images on the site are mainly tech demos but in the hands of someone able to think outside the box I'm sure we will see some striking new art.

aidenn0 15y ago

It's been a while since I read the paper, but IIRC, you are wrong about how the process works. First I'll define some terms: Image pixel: pixel in the final image Sensor pixel: actual pixel in the sensor The microlens array bins several sensor pixels into single image pixels. Depending on the incident angle of the light on the microlens, the light will go to a different sensor pixel. This means you can adjust the aperture, as well as focus in post-processing, since a narrower aperture just means a pixel is illuminated by light from a narrower possible number of incident angles. If I had a whiteboard, I'd draw you a diagram, but you sound like a knowledgeable photographer so you probably "get it" if not, just look at the ray-diagrams in the depth of field section of a photography book.

devindotcom 15y ago
That's pretty much how I described it in the 6th paragraph. The aperture is still restricted, I believe (F/4 in the paper, F/2 in the production device), and the exposure is governed by sensitivity and exposure length. But I'm not entirely sure about it.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  So is your concern that you can't go past f/2? This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/devindotcom/5076642726/sizes/l/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/devindotcom/5076642726/sizes/l/... Was taken at f/3.2 so there is no reason you couldn't get this shot with a f/2 shot from a plenoptic camera with a 35mm lens and a APS-C sized sensor (you would actually have to use some of their software to increase the depth of field to get that picture). Lytro doesn't give specs on the focal length or sensor size; I think we can assume it's probably closer to a point-and-shoot than an SLR, and everybody already knows it's hard to do shallow depth of field with a point-and-shoot, it's not anything specific to Lytro's camera. The majority of point-and-shoots have a fixed aperture (if you "stop-down" for outdoors shooting they just use an NDF filter). If they come out with an pro-quality exchangable lens large-sensor plenoptic, you ought to be able to do the same sorts of things you can do with a pro-quality non-plenoptic camera, only you'll be able to do it e.g. with moving subjects that you otherwise would not be able to focus on with such a narrow depth of field (and as a sacrifice you would have many fewer pixels).