4 ms·
IIRC there was a micro-lens array between the objective lens and the sensor; each of the micro lenses added a separate, overlapping contribution on the sensor a
by NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
IIRC there was a micro-lens array between the objective lens and the sensor; each of the micro lenses added a separate, overlapping contribution on the sensor and with a bunch of signal processing magic you somehow back out the position/direction.
Reading the article, I don't at all see what the difference is between the Lytro camera and what's described there - although I'm not an optics expert.
- tgflynn 4y agoOne difference may be that, as I recall, Lytro was focused on (2D) photography, while this seems to be targeting 3D, which may be a much more compelling application.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoI don't know - it seems pretty much the same - the whole point of the Lytro camera was that you had sufficient information in the recorded image to select your point of focus and depth in post-processing, which is essentially the same as having depth data.
- tgflynn 4y agoThe same information is used but there's a big difference between using it to make prettier photos versus reconstructing 3D scenes. The second application domain seems to have much more potential for revolutionary change than the first (to me at least). The average person, or probably even the average VC, isn't going to read a pitch about being able to take photos without having to adjust lens focus and say "gee, with that technology you could build a 3D model as easily as taking a photo".