3 ms·
Except for delivering images to an editor seconds after they've been shot. Best case scenario for a photo-journalist using film back then would have been a cou
by 9999 15y ago
Except for delivering images to an editor seconds after they've been shot. Best case scenario for a photo-journalist using film back then would have been a couple of hours for an E6 run, even the very first Kodak DCS with its pcmcia storage cards could beat that.
- herval 15y agotrue, ONE advantage. Except the image quality sucked so hard it was impossible to use these digitals on anything but smal pictures on black and white newspapers... for a good couple of years "one killer feature", by the way, is which is what the lytro brings too: take a snap and adjust the focus along with your editor, which is an excelent feature for a photo-journalist. Take a snapshot of that occupy whatever street before u get pepper-sprayed, then adjust to the most dramatic face before putting it live. Awesome!
- 9999 15y agoIt could be awesome if they licensed the technology to someone else, but because of the way the tech works, you're going to inherently have lower resolution and (more importantly to photojournalists) bad low light performance. It reminds me of the tradeoffs that the Foveon sensor made. Insanely good high ISO performance (like you get with the D3S now even up to 128,000 ISO, and that could easily hit 512,000 in a couple of years) can actually obviate the need for this kind of focus adjustment because you can shoot at f/8 and get a high depth of field even in low light scenarios.
- herval 15y ago"if they licensed the technology to someone" => which leads us exactly to the point of this comment thread: Kodak buying them and using the tech as a big competitive advantage ;-)