6 ms·

The first thought I had when I saw the new Google Camera app was "wow, this might kill that light field camera thing that came out a couple of months ago that I

The first thought I had when I saw the new Google Camera app was "wow, this might kill that light field camera thing that came out a couple of months ago that I haven't heard of since". I then installed Google Camera, had a play, and it confirmed my thoughts. The new Google Camera app is awesome and it works with my current phone. Extra hardware to carry around = zero. The original Lytro was a cool idea, but I think the slow time-to-market caused it a dragged out death. Google put the last bullet in.

Tloewald 13y ago
It's definitely expensive, and it has been slow to iterate. But the nasty-looking fake bokeh produced by Google's app doesn't even make conventional large sensor cameras obsolete. This thing is actually pretty impressive and lets you do stuff you cannot do with any other camera.
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> But the nasty-looking fake bokeh produced by Google's app doesn't even make conventional large sensor cameras obsolete. The thing is, the fake bokeh is nasty looking to people who know how to judge bokeh, which is a fairly small portion of camera phone users. To most of them, it's probably good enough for what they are trying to accomplish. And in that regard, while it won't make a conventional large sensor camera obsolete, it'll still have enough people saying "my smartphone can do that, why would I bother buying a big camera that doesn't fit in my pocket?" >> This thing is actually pretty impressive and lets you do stuff you cannot do with any other camera. I agree with this, but I often wonder if the Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.
MBCook 13y ago
The difference is that Google's effect is faked in software and relies on the huge depth of field of a tiny sensor. The Lytro actually does what Google is simulating. That's like saying my MP3 player from the early 2000s had a microphone and cost $200, so why would anyone buy thousands of dollars of professional audio equipment anymore to record music?
- slantyyz 13y ago
  >> The Lytro actually does what Google is simulating. But wait a second. We're talking about the Google Camera lens blur function, right? That feature is only really simulating out of focus blur, which is not really the same as what Lytro does. What Lytro does more akin to focus bracketing, isn't it?
  - MBCook 13y ago
    Right. What I meant was that when the Lytro's image is 'focused' on a subject, the background actually is out of focus instead of just having a fancy blur algorithm run on it to simulate being out of focus.
    - vilhelm_s 13y ago
      Well, but maybe it's possible to make a compromise? I mean, for a stationary subject the Google approach (camera movement) and the Lytro approach (microlens array) captures the same data (with the caveat that Google apparently only uses a linear path). I could imagine a system which captures a whole lot of frames with some camera shake, identifies which parts of it moved, and then computes "real" lightfield bokeh for the stationary background while filling in with just image-space blur for the gaps.
taeric 13y ago
Hate that you are getting downvoted, as I think this is actually a discussion that needs to happen. Many people will have a hard time distinguishing these technologies. Especially on paper. My take is that this camera will have some major advantages in shutter speed and quickly taking successive pictures. As an example, at my child's soccer practice, it is not uncommon to fire off about 5 shots in any 2 second interval. It is also not uncommon to have 4 of those shots be out of focus. Heck, all five. This camera could solve that. The phone solution fails, as I can't take that many pictures that quickly. Right?
- dingaling 13y ago
  > This camera could solve that. The Lytro still needs to be focused; the trick it uses is to focus to the hyperfocal distance as you zoom, and then it can capture the equivalent of focus stacking fore and aft of that point; but only on a finite number of focal planes ( fewer than 6 if I recall ). So... your photos could end-up being nearly in focus, but also lacking in detail ( low-res sensor ) and blown-out ( poor dynamic range ).
  - taeric 13y ago
    That makes sense. I'd be curious to know of any wiggle room available in that regard. Seems it would be nice to do a few focal points that are "close" to each other near where you are focused, combined with a few far away ones. If that makes sense. Would make it possible to do sort of HDR images from a single shot, right? And, regardless of that, this still goes a much farther way towards "solving" this problem than the camera phone. Right?
    - slantyyz 13y ago
      The simplest solution to your soccer practice photography dilemma is to get a camera that can focus quickly enough (or maybe to learn how to zone focus). There are many cameras that can do this, but the problem is that none of them are a smartphone.
      - 13y ago

Tloewald 13y ago

It's definitely expensive, and it has been slow to iterate. But the nasty-looking fake bokeh produced by Google's app doesn't even make conventional large sensor cameras obsolete. This thing is actually pretty impressive and lets you do stuff you cannot do with any other camera.

slantyyz 13y ago
>> But the nasty-looking fake bokeh produced by Google's app doesn't even make conventional large sensor cameras obsolete. The thing is, the fake bokeh is nasty looking to people who know how to judge bokeh, which is a fairly small portion of camera phone users. To most of them, it's probably good enough for what they are trying to accomplish. And in that regard, while it won't make a conventional large sensor camera obsolete, it'll still have enough people saying "my smartphone can do that, why would I bother buying a big camera that doesn't fit in my pocket?" >> This thing is actually pretty impressive and lets you do stuff you cannot do with any other camera. I agree with this, but I often wonder if the Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.

MBCook 13y ago

The difference is that Google's effect is faked in software and relies on the huge depth of field of a tiny sensor. The Lytro actually does what Google is simulating. That's like saying my MP3 player from the early 2000s had a microphone and cost $200, so why would anyone buy thousands of dollars of professional audio equipment anymore to record music?

slantyyz 13y ago
>> The Lytro actually does what Google is simulating. But wait a second. We're talking about the Google Camera lens blur function, right? That feature is only really simulating out of focus blur, which is not really the same as what Lytro does. What Lytro does more akin to focus bracketing, isn't it?
- MBCook 13y ago
  Right. What I meant was that when the Lytro's image is 'focused' on a subject, the background actually is out of focus instead of just having a fancy blur algorithm run on it to simulate being out of focus.
  - vilhelm_s 13y ago
    Well, but maybe it's possible to make a compromise? I mean, for a stationary subject the Google approach (camera movement) and the Lytro approach (microlens array) captures the same data (with the caveat that Google apparently only uses a linear path). I could imagine a system which captures a whole lot of frames with some camera shake, identifies which parts of it moved, and then computes "real" lightfield bokeh for the stationary background while filling in with just image-space blur for the gaps.

taeric 13y ago

Hate that you are getting downvoted, as I think this is actually a discussion that needs to happen. Many people will have a hard time distinguishing these technologies. Especially on paper. My take is that this camera will have some major advantages in shutter speed and quickly taking successive pictures. As an example, at my child's soccer practice, it is not uncommon to fire off about 5 shots in any 2 second interval. It is also not uncommon to have 4 of those shots be out of focus. Heck, all five. This camera could solve that. The phone solution fails, as I can't take that many pictures that quickly. Right?

dingaling 13y ago
> This camera could solve that. The Lytro still needs to be focused; the trick it uses is to focus to the hyperfocal distance as you zoom, and then it can capture the equivalent of focus stacking fore and aft of that point; but only on a finite number of focal planes ( fewer than 6 if I recall ). So... your photos could end-up being nearly in focus, but also lacking in detail ( low-res sensor ) and blown-out ( poor dynamic range ).
- taeric 13y ago
  That makes sense. I'd be curious to know of any wiggle room available in that regard. Seems it would be nice to do a few focal points that are "close" to each other near where you are focused, combined with a few far away ones. If that makes sense. Would make it possible to do sort of HDR images from a single shot, right? And, regardless of that, this still goes a much farther way towards "solving" this problem than the camera phone. Right?
  - slantyyz 13y ago
    The simplest solution to your soccer practice photography dilemma is to get a camera that can focus quickly enough (or maybe to learn how to zone focus). There are many cameras that can do this, but the problem is that none of them are a smartphone.
    - 13y ago