3 ms·

I'm trying to think how I would use it. I, like everyone else, use shallow DOF to emphasize different aspects of the image. If I want to emphasize background a

by kghose 15y ago

I'm trying to think how I would use it. I, like everyone else, use shallow DOF to emphasize different aspects of the image. If I want to emphasize background and foreground in different shots I just take two shots at different focus points. If I want everything to be in focus I stop down the lens. I have to agree with the dpreview: what artistic problem does this solve? I can think of a contrived example where there is no time to make two shots (a basket ball player shooting a hoop) and where you want two parts of the image at different distances both in focus and the rest blurred. You could do it with this device, but I would just use image manipulation. What I would really like is the blade runner camera (or rather dataformat) since the blade runner picture seems to be a composite of many shots.

jpeterson 15y ago
I believe the target market here are amateurs who don't have the skill or reflexes to focus properly ahead of time. I certainly fall into that category.
- rogerbinns 15y ago
  My point and shoot camera has an auto everything mode. It figures out what scene to use (eg night versus landscape versus portait), where to do metering and what to focus on. I've never had a problem nor needed any skill. You can press the shutter half way down and it will follow focus whatever is appropriate showing you what it is doing. The replacement model even has a touchscreen so if you want you can simply touch whatever it is you wanted focussed. Again absolutely no skill needed. Reflexes is a little more interesting. Digital pictures are essentially free so there isn't any harm in taking lots of them. Amongst the specs listed on comparison sites are times to first shot and burst modes, the combination of which means you are likely to get something good despite your reflexes. I can't find any mention of the lytro having a burst mode. It doesn't look like the lytro has any benefit compared to a point and shoot for conventional picture taking including focus and reflexes. But as we all know from The Innovator's Dilemma that isn't what matters - look to where things are different. One thing that is immediately apparent is it can build a 3D map of the image as it knows the distance to every pixel.
  - juiceandjuice 15y ago
    Your point and shoot doesn't do depth of field very well, let alone let you adjust it after the fact. It's also likely that focusing is much much slower for you than the lytro. In any case, the lytro probably isn't for you right now.
    - rogerbinns 15y ago
      Focussing on the point and shoot is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds. (Latest model is 0.1 seconds). Note the comment I was replying to claiming the lytro market is amateurs with slow reflexes. I don't think the lytro is even close to a good fit for that market even for amateurs with slow focussing and reflexes. An auto everything point and shoot is far superior n every aspect. Note how the review does mention you have to contrive shots to make the lytro functionality worthwhile.
wxs 15y ago
I agree with you in that I don't see the "living pictures" aspect as particularly useful, I think you'll probably have a given point you want to be in focus, and rarely will want to switch between foreground and background. I see it as more useful in that it eliminates the issue where you take a great photo and then realize that the focus was off. It's a shame the resolution is so low, but I think this is a very interesting first commercial foray into the area.
jacobolus 15y ago
If it was possible to do your own processing of the raw data, some very cool effects could likely be achieved. After all, this camera is capturing precise info on the distance to every pixel. Examples: realistic atmospheric effects, adjustment of color/contrast based on distance (so you could emphasize what you want), correction of color casts in mixed-lighting scenes, motion blur where the length/direction of the blur was a function of distance, synthesized 3d/stereo views. Figuring out exactly what to do with the data in these kinds of images is going to take years of experimentation and creative effort. At the moment, they aren’t that interesting for non-technical users who just want to make pictures.
tincholio 15y ago
>I have to agree with the dpreview: what artistic problem does this solve? Sloppy focusing. Or maybe just a quick shot where you didn't have time to properly check focus? Or your AF wasn't fast enough or accurate enough? If this worked in 'real' cameras, I'm sure sports and nature photogs would be happy about it.

by kghose 15y ago

jpeterson 15y ago

I believe the target market here are amateurs who don't have the skill or reflexes to focus properly ahead of time. I certainly fall into that category.

rogerbinns 15y ago
My point and shoot camera has an auto everything mode. It figures out what scene to use (eg night versus landscape versus portait), where to do metering and what to focus on. I've never had a problem nor needed any skill. You can press the shutter half way down and it will follow focus whatever is appropriate showing you what it is doing. The replacement model even has a touchscreen so if you want you can simply touch whatever it is you wanted focussed. Again absolutely no skill needed. Reflexes is a little more interesting. Digital pictures are essentially free so there isn't any harm in taking lots of them. Amongst the specs listed on comparison sites are times to first shot and burst modes, the combination of which means you are likely to get something good despite your reflexes. I can't find any mention of the lytro having a burst mode. It doesn't look like the lytro has any benefit compared to a point and shoot for conventional picture taking including focus and reflexes. But as we all know from The Innovator's Dilemma that isn't what matters - look to where things are different. One thing that is immediately apparent is it can build a 3D map of the image as it knows the distance to every pixel.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Your point and shoot doesn't do depth of field very well, let alone let you adjust it after the fact. It's also likely that focusing is much much slower for you than the lytro. In any case, the lytro probably isn't for you right now.
  - rogerbinns 15y ago
    Focussing on the point and shoot is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds. (Latest model is 0.1 seconds). Note the comment I was replying to claiming the lytro market is amateurs with slow reflexes. I don't think the lytro is even close to a good fit for that market even for amateurs with slow focussing and reflexes. An auto everything point and shoot is far superior n every aspect. Note how the review does mention you have to contrive shots to make the lytro functionality worthwhile.

wxs 15y ago

I agree with you in that I don't see the "living pictures" aspect as particularly useful, I think you'll probably have a given point you want to be in focus, and rarely will want to switch between foreground and background. I see it as more useful in that it eliminates the issue where you take a great photo and then realize that the focus was off. It's a shame the resolution is so low, but I think this is a very interesting first commercial foray into the area.

jacobolus 15y ago

If it was possible to do your own processing of the raw data, some very cool effects could likely be achieved. After all, this camera is capturing precise info on the distance to every pixel. Examples: realistic atmospheric effects, adjustment of color/contrast based on distance (so you could emphasize what you want), correction of color casts in mixed-lighting scenes, motion blur where the length/direction of the blur was a function of distance, synthesized 3d/stereo views. Figuring out exactly what to do with the data in these kinds of images is going to take years of experimentation and creative effort. At the moment, they aren’t that interesting for non-technical users who just want to make pictures.

tincholio 15y ago

>I have to agree with the dpreview: what artistic problem does this solve? Sloppy focusing. Or maybe just a quick shot where you didn't have time to properly check focus? Or your AF wasn't fast enough or accurate enough? If this worked in 'real' cameras, I'm sure sports and nature photogs would be happy about it.