Light L16 and the rise of computational photography

[lynnb]

With the iPhone 7 it looks like computational photography is emerging as the future of image-making for the majority of people (i.e. cell phone users), and will accelerate the demise of most low- and intermediate-level cameras, leaving traditional camera makers only the high end of the market to compete in.

The Light L16 points to the future. See this PetaPixel article.

Like the name implies the L16 has 16 camera modules of varying focal lengths creating one composite image in a package about the size of a cell phone, but thicker. The IQ isn't there yet (see the detail smearing) but these are early days for the technology. From the samples it looks like they've got the dynamic range problem sorted, at least. They also claim good low light performance.

Personally I like traditional optics and fixed focal lengths. But the generation who grew up with these are on the decline and the cell phone generation will probably embrace computational photography - and why not? I'd buy one as a carry-everywhere digital, to complement my XA or Rollei 35S film cameras.

As long as it also makes phone calls 😀

 

[Chris101]

The L16 is a wild looking camera alright! A couple months ago I bought a Lytro Illum, which is so computational, I feel like I need a lot of study to master it. Unfortunately Lytro has gotten out of the consumer camera business, and I cannot come close to affording their cinematic camera system (I don't know how much it is, I don't 'qualify' to even find out.)

But it is fun for those times I want to play with images in a virtual way. The Lytro lets me edit the depth map on a pixel/area level, which can produce selective, non-contiguous, focus, or 3D. Lytro started out with variable focus after the fact, but ended up with variable aperture, in selected parts of the image. It's wild, and - yep - fun!

 

[rscheffler]

Yeah, the L16 images can look a bit wanting at the pixel level, but then also remember at the largest file sizes (which depend on what 'focal length' was used) it could be upwards of around 80MP. I downloaded their full-rez samples and when those are downsized in steps with some sharpening at each step, the resulting ~24MP images are much better at the pixel level and much better than general phone camera images.

While I don't think I will give up my ILC cameras just yet, I would definitely get the L16 (and have signed up for their updates about their next batch availability) over a $1000 high-end compact such as the Sony RX100 (which may technically still be the better camera).

This is definitely the direction general photography is heading.

 

[Godfrey]

The Light L16 that I ordered in Summer 2015 has reached production and is finally on it's way to me now! I'm looking forward to experimenting, learning, and making photographs with it.

It is due to be here on Tuesday ... If I have enough time to charge it and learn how to use it, minimally, I'll add it to my bag for my holiday trip to Ireland and the Isle of Man! 🙂

G

 

[mich rassena]

The Light L16 has a very long way to go before it can achieve the quality of a dedicated full-frame sensor, or even newer APS-C sensors. There's just not that much sensor real estate in the Light, and the physical apertures are smaller, even combined among the lenses, than a single professional lens, which ultimately limits resolution. It's a great idea for a compact package, like a cell phone and we'll see newer cell phones taking on more lenses in the future. The latest iPhones already have two lenses used computationally to deliver a shallower depth of field for portraits. I assume the Pixel and Galaxy have similar features as well.

What you seen when you look closely at an image from the Light L16 isn't some great increase in resolution, but simply a very large file and lots of pixels.

Compare this full-resolution sample
https://light.co/assets/images/hi-res/Cuba-Fisherman-9-6-17.png

To this one from the Canon EOS 5D
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5ds/downloads/01.jpg

At 50MP the Canon image is fewer megapixels, but it's clear that it's not just better, the sample from the Light isn't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It looks huge comparing to mobile iPhone I have. The dood on bike is about to drop it. Obviously he needs Lugy case for it and stripe. The thing is half a kilo heavy. And longer than my M-E.
Good luck to keep all of its lenses clean. It is going to be like pimples cleansing fun. Big boys toy indeed. 🙂

 

[B-9]

FOR 1950$

I can find better ways to spend my money outside of photography.

Thats pro dollar for what is now only a gimmick... the future? not at that price but I believe it could be a serious hit at half that cost.

Edit: For 950$ I would be seriously considering a pre-order. I do like the idea of it.

 

[Keith]

Impressive technology but really not something I would contemplate owning. Computational image making is really not the future of photography though in my opinion.

 

[michaelwj]

Almost every digital camera already has some "computational photography". In it simplistic form it involves automatic lens corrections which are everywhere (even on everyone's beloved Leica M). In its most advanced incarnation it will do away with the lens entirely (as is already the case with high resolution microscopy).
It is the future, and will bring ever increasing image quality and features to mobile phone cameras. It's going to get better and soon you won't even know that it's there. It's going to be great.

 

[peterm1]

The thing looks like a science fiction robotic spider monster.

 

[Godfrey]

The Light L16 camera that I ordered in 2015 is finally in production. I received my unit yesterday.

I snapped a few exploratory frames playing with the controls. I then set it on a shelf, a 35mm equivalent FoV selected, and let it make a photo of me. I rendered the file with its app and with Lightroom to this first, full resolution (50Mpixel) JPEG. It's a pleasing result given the three different light sources in my office and my complete lack of experience in using this camera.

Light L16
ISO 511 @ f/8 @ 1/25 @ 35mm equiv​

Full resolution JPEG:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4730/39134202292_e4d97307b7_o.jpg

It's a very interesting camera and will take some time to master, never mind for the firmware and its processing app (Lumen) to become mature.

With respect to size, here are two comparison shots next to my iPhone 6:

Weight wise, it's 145g for the iPhone and 435g for the L16.

Someone said to compare the image quality with a Canon 5D. Sure, fine. But consider that a Canon 5D (the original one, later ones are heavier) is 892g for the body, 335g for a 35mm f/2 lens, and the combined size is about four to six times the volume of the Light L16. The L16, in its slip case, fits in my jacket or vest pocket easily, or into the smallest camera bag I have: it's FAR more portable. I can carry it on the bicycle in the back pocket of my cycling jersey and not even notice it's there.

The selfie above printed a 13x19 inch image at 360 ppi (I down-rezzed the print output from what would be the native ~500 ppi because there's no point to pumping out greater than 360ppi to my printer, all it does is take much more time.) The print is lovely and the detail produced is excellent.

So if it make a good photo that I can print up to very nice 13x19 inch prints with, crop as much as I want, whatever, while carrying it in my jersey pocket on the bicycle without even noticing it, I think it's certainly worth the $1200 I paid for it. It's a lot of camera in a small package; when coupled with a small tripod for best stability, I think it will make an excellent field camera for various types of subject matter.

And no: I'm not selling my Leicas. 😀

G

 

[kdemas]

The reviews on it so far are pretty devastating. Big software and speed issues, leaking into image quality. Too bad, I’m a gadget guy and was tempted.

The unit is also far larger than I ever imagined.

 

[Godfrey]

The reviews on it so far are pretty devastating. Big software and speed issues, leaking into image quality. Too bad, I’m a gadget guy and was tempted.

The unit is also far larger than I ever imagined.

Reviewing it as if it were a finished product is silly. Neither the firmware nor the image processing app are even at v1.0 yet. I really couldn't give a darn what "reviewers" have to say at all. They can't even review finished products with any credibility.

If you're not patient enough to enjoy playing with pre-release, in-development machinery, some like the L16 is not for you yet. Maybe it will be someday, who knows? If no one ever wants to play with stuff that is young, not yet complete, etc, well, a lot of what you now take for granted would never have come to be.

I spent most of my career in high tech working with things that were far less developed than the L16, and many of them never made it to being visible to the public. The L16 has already passed that point ... it has a shot at being great. And I'd say a pretty good one if this first, utterly trivial, 'selfie' test, on all pre-release guts, is any indication.

G

 

[Steve M.]

It is probably fine for consumers once they get the bugs out. But it's still gonna produce a digital looking image, so for many of us a film camera will still be for making great images that we frame up and put up on our walls or in galleries. The other stuff is for emailing and sharing on social media sites.

 

[Huss]

Light L16
ISO 511 @ f/8 @ 1/25 @ 35mm equiv​

Dunno about the camera but I like those glasses. Who makes them?
🙂

 

[Keith]

It is probably fine for consumers once they get the bugs out. But it's still gonna produce a digital looking image, so for many of us a film camera will still be for making great images that we frame up and put up on our walls or in galleries. The other stuff is for emailing and sharing on social media sites.

I'm speechless! 😕

 

[Godfrey]

Dunno about the camera but I like those glasses. Who makes them?
🙂

Thanks!

The frames are Lindberg. Incredibly light, tough acrylic in a variety of colors, with titanium arms. Best frames I've ever had!

The camera ... I think it's a cool concept and, with some development yet to go, could be quite a nice piece of equipment. There's lots of potential. When I get back from traveling, I'll work with it and see what it's really good at, even in its current state of development.

G

 

[Rob-F]

I tried the link. I got a brief glimpse, and then the screen darkens until all I can see are two buttons that say, "BUY NOW." I didn't get a chance to look at it or read about it.

Some kind of high-pressure scam advertising?

No thinks, I'm good. I have a my Leicas.

 

[Godfrey]

I tried the link. I got a brief glimpse, and then the screen darkens until all I can see are two buttons that say, "BUY NOW." I didn't get a chance to look at it or read about it.

Some kind of high-pressure scam advertising?

No thinks, I'm good. I have my Leicas.

No, just an overly stylized website that isn't 100% compatible with every browser environment. I had to go in a few times, scroll around a lot, and click on a bunch of different buttons to find the solid information..

https://light.co/technology (camera concept and functional design points)
https://light.co/camera (camera, specs, etc)
https://support.light.co (faq, manuals, etc)

No one with any sense is trying to say that the Light L16 replaces your (or my) Leica M. That's like saying a Polaroid SX-70 replaces a Nikon F ... a ludicrous notion.

An SX-70 presents a completely different way of seeing, of doing photography, compared to a Nikon F. Similarly, an L16 presents a completely different way of doing photography compared to a Leica M. Both are perfectly fine ways of doing photography, each has plusses and minuses, neither replaces the other. They complement each other, if you're so inclined as to enjoy the way different cameras let you see differently and want to take advantage of that.

If you're not so inclined, there's nothing wrong with that. I do feel there is something wrong with disparaging something that you haven't even spent the time to understand in concept, never mind in use.

G

 

[peterm1]

I don't much see the point of it - it seems like a solution in search of a problem. And leaves me with unanswered questions about IQ, sensitivity, dynamic range etc. But if you love new gadgets, good on you - go for it.