| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2011 08:57:01 AM · #1 |
Wanted to know your views about this product called Lytro. Lytro.
I really liked the concept of capturing light field and change the point of focus later. I am wondering if we can even change other parameter as well, like aperture size etc...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:04:43 AM · #2 |
| I like new technologies but IMHO this will kill photography ;-) |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:07:00 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I like new technologies but IMHO this will kill photography ;-) |
yea, exactly as video with dslr ! LOL
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:09:38 AM · #4 |
With poor resolution, no tripod mounts, rather impractical design and constant aperture I call this a failure from the beginning. IMO it's like full auto on dSLR: it's makes the photographer think less about the making of a photo, and hence the results will be accordingly.
I might be wrong, but I'm guessing the image quality in dSLRs is far superior to that of light field cameras, when comparing at the same price. And I don't think the pros of a light field camera outweighs the cons... for many years to come.
edit: To me it's more like a gadget than an actual camera...
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 09:10:52. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:16:06 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by goc:
yea, exactly as video with dslr ! LOL |
?
I don't see any connection with what I said. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 09:16:13 AM · #6 |
I like the physical design of it, it looks neat.
I don't see the point of being able to change focus after the fact. I focus on what I want to when I take my shot. If I want, I can refocus on something else in the same shot and take another photo.
Meh... I spent my fandango money on a chainsaw this year.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 02:07:56 PM · #7 |
I gota disagree... IMO this has a big future just not in the first implementation like this one (as does video over stills... but NOT video cameras over slr body - but skipping that topic as seemed we don't want that side topic). This body is just a first step and something fun.....
For most people... not here but in the real world - the vast bulk of "bad" pictures are just plain the camera guessed at the wrong focus point.... This technology on an iPhone or similar and I think it's a home run. It has to work seamlessly and in little things like windoze obviously and it would be nice if adobe and alike added it to their entry software. If so then I think it will be a rage for the bulk of the camera market. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 02:19:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Meh... I spent my fandango money on a chainsaw this year. |
Use the chainsaw to cut it one in half. Take picture using a second lytro and then be able to focus on both half's! |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:22:24 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by robs:
I gota disagree... IMO this has a big future just not in the first implementation like this one (as does video over stills... but NOT video cameras over slr body - but skipping that topic as seemed we don't want that side topic). This body is just a first step and something fun.....
For most people... not here but in the real world - the vast bulk of "bad" pictures are just plain the camera guessed at the wrong focus point.... This technology on an iPhone or similar and I think it's a home run. It has to work seamlessly and in little things like windoze obviously and it would be nice if adobe and alike added it to their entry software. If so then I think it will be a rage for the bulk of the camera market. |
I think that the 'people of the real world', as you call them, buy cheap P&S's and leave them on strange, wandering, face-recognition focus settings; or use their cell phones, because quality isn't a priority for them, price-point and/or convenience is. These folks aren't going to use the proprietary Lytro software to adjust the focus after the fact, or spend the extra money to buy one, or a cell phone equipped with one. I don't see it happening, anyway.
I won't be buying Lytro stock.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:32:50 PM · #10 |
I can see one advantage, it doesn't look like a camera, so the photo police may leave you alone for a bit.
However given the 45 megabytes file size for each image (about 4x the size of the RAW files that a 5D takes) you will need a whole lot of disk space for that family vacation. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:37:38 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pederlol:
I might be wrong, but I'm guessing the image quality in dSLRs is far superior to that of light field cameras, when comparing at the same price. |
SLRs used to have image quality far superior to dSLRs. That changed quickly. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 03:41:20 PM · #12 |
I think if this technology gets integrated with DSLR then picture file which is a combination of RAW file and the file generated by this technique can create wonders. SInce disk space is cheap and compact these days so that should not be a concern.
Message edited by author 2011-11-02 15:41:49. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:01:01 PM · #13 |
| I think it would be fun to play with, but probably not $400 fun. |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:33:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I think it would be fun to play with, but probably not $400 fun. |
If folks would read the existing threads on this topic instead of starting a new one every couple of days they'd know that one of our illustrious members (I think  ambaker) has already volunteered to "take one for the team" and put one on order, with a detailed personal report to follow ... |
|
|
|
11/02/2011 05:44:31 PM · #15 |
It is very interesting that all the most recent trends seem to address traditional limitations (or artistically fruitful features, as somebody might say) of photographic equipment via software solutions or optical advancements which are radically different from traditional optics.
I think that dynamic range expansion via hdr and infinite focus as a standard are the future, whether we like it or not.
The latest P&S models from Sony already sport range expansion through hdr and blur removal in a way indetectable by the average user (e.g. multiple frame are taken in a fraction of a second). Given this models have basically only two, fairly narrow, apertures, there is no way of using DOF creatively. Therefore, now they have an option for photoshopping on the fly lens blur on the background :) It won't be long before this starts being implemented by other manufacturers, possibly succesfully emulating the bokeh of leica lenses :)
I guess the next step will be to have cameras actively suggest 'artistic' options..
I understand that many people are worried this will kill creativity and the craft of photography, and to an extent I share that concern. However, I also think that the introduction of, for instance, auto metering systems probably fostered the same feelings in seasoned photographers of the past. The same probably with the diffusion of 35mm rangefinders as opposed to large/medium format, the advent of digital and so on.
In the facts, all this amazing technology has failed to turn mediocre photographers such as me into Salgado or Cartier-Bresson, so it might not prevent real talent from emerging either.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 11:20:25 AM EDT.
