3 ms·
Man, tough crowd. I have a Lytro, and I love it. I'm quite a fan of the technology. It's not perfect, and it's uses are (for now) somewhat limited, but I feel y
by jgeorge 14y ago
Man, tough crowd. I have a Lytro, and I love it. I'm quite a fan of the technology. It's not perfect, and it's uses are (for now) somewhat limited, but I feel your criticism of it may be a little overly harsh.
First off, the current Lytro model does not, and will not, replace any traditional camera I own. I like the technology, and it has it's uses even beyond demoing the refocusing abilities, but it's definitely a supplement to my camera arsenal and not a replacement for anything.
You're right that you can "simulate" focus-stacking with a traditional camera, as long as the object you're shooting is sitting still and there's no motion of the camera or in the frame at all. Any motion at all and your simulated focus stacking doesn't hold up well.
Likewise, you can get a perspective shift from multiple images by slight movement with a traditional camera. Assuming again that no actual motion happens and that no observable length of time transpires between the successive offset shots.
Since the Lytro doesn't have these time limitations, and since focus can be done after the fact, I've been able to get a couple of shots of events that I could never get with a traditional camera, just based on the ability to point the camera and snap the shutter without having to even wait for autofocus to happen.
The hardware in the camera to me feels far ahead of the software that drives it. One of the biggest criticisms I have of the Lytro is that the camera captures a vast amount of light field information, and through The Appropriate Application of Mathematics, you should really be able to do a lot more with the captured pictures than you can now. I remain hopeful that as the camera software progresses that more of these possibilities will come to light, and so far other than the time involved to develop the software I haven't been disappointed - there have been pretty regular software updates, and features are being incrementally added.
The Lytro isn't perfect - I'll grant you that - but it's a radical change in technology, and I think that over time the technology can only get better. The price for the current model is a little higher than "what the heck, I'll try one out" typically justifies.
One thing I use my camera for - more than the refocusability - is macro photography. The Lytro has an absolutely insane macro focus capability. It can focus right down to the front of the exterior lens, and it does a great job at shooting small objects at short range - better than any SLR macro lens I have, and I have a couple of "not cheap" ones to compare it to.
- notlisted 14y agoVery good points. I especially like the macro aspect. To qualify my remarks: I would not propose that anyone takes several images manually or a photographer moves the camera around physically as an alternative. I'm suggesting that competitors (mainstream cameras) could take multiple pictures in rapid succession INTERNALLY (very feasible in lower resolutions). The canon 7D can take videos at 720p @ 60FPS. Higher framerates seem likely in the future. Once one reaches 120FPS, slight variations in the focus whilst shooting 1s of video would result in acceptable shutter speeds (1//120th) for most moving objects and (theoretically) a stack of 120 pictures with different focal points that could be "merged" into a "lytro-like" image through in-camera focus-stacking and some "hotspot" mechanism. Similarly (but less likely) combined with a quick physical circular movement of the sensor, or a lens element (just imagine a "Lytro-lens" for your Canon) would allow us to emulate (match?) the other effect. Perhaps no movement is needed at all if the Canon Lytro Lens had an internal "microlens" array that subdivided the existing sensor, or uses the "pattern filter" technique. My point: Lytro is nice, but has limited usability (for me at least) and I see it merely as a stepping stone towards inclusion of similar features in the mainstream. As a company they will have a very tough time defending whatever patents they might have. Theory and technology go back many many years.
- notlisted 14y agoLet me call out this variation on which was included on the third link in my original response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z7SN7808ANI# http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z...! Also look at the site by the author of said video: http://www.tgeorgiev.net/ http://www.tgeorgiev.net/
- jgeorge 14y agoIt does have limited usability... for now. One review of the Lytro commented that using one was "beta testing the future of photography" and that's really how I view it. I bought one not for what the current camera could do at the time, but in the hopes that they'd be successful enough to come up with the Lytro 2 which did more.