Lytro Illum - looks quite interesting
- Thread starter marcr1230
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 23
- Views 3K
judsonzhao
Well-known
The long-desired 18-300 f/2.0-ish lens lol
Technology improves the word, I believe in academics of Stanford lol
Technology improves the word, I believe in academics of Stanford lol
helvetica
Well-known
What is interesting about these particular cameras is that you could computationally reverse-engineer any kind of image that you could want out it. The technology - both the hardware and software - has a ways to go to get there, but in theory, it would be possible to say "render this picture as a Noctilux would" with say.. 90%+ believability.
When I first saw the original Lytro, I thought it was nothing more than a party trick until I saw the parallax demonstration. Here is a rough example which with some imagination and extrapolation, is pretty interesting.
When I first saw the original Lytro, I thought it was nothing more than a party trick until I saw the parallax demonstration. Here is a rough example which with some imagination and extrapolation, is pretty interesting.
rybolt
Well-known
I see it's application to the motion picture industry but I don't see it as having much application to still photography in it's current form.
Being able to shoot a motion picture scene and then do focus pulls in post production would be cool.
Being able to shoot a motion picture scene and then do focus pulls in post production would be cool.
Steve M.
Veteran
Other than the parlor trick aspect someone spoke of above, the Lytro seems to have been a big dud. I don't see a need for such features. I played w/ the image on the link, zooming in focus here and there. That got old after 10 seconds. What exactly is the point?
The idea that the Lytro changed photography is laughable. It has changed nothing. No one needs, or wants, what they're selling. More marketing hype.
Can't see it in motion pictures myself. Movies are about story line and character development, not special effects, but this may not be the case these days, as the whole movie industry has become Idiocracy on steroids. Still, just as they've figured out how to do w/o solid, expensive writing and directing, not to mention great acting, maybe they can eliminate the big money paid to a top flight cinematographer and "fix" things later.
The idea that the Lytro changed photography is laughable. It has changed nothing. No one needs, or wants, what they're selling. More marketing hype.
Can't see it in motion pictures myself. Movies are about story line and character development, not special effects, but this may not be the case these days, as the whole movie industry has become Idiocracy on steroids. Still, just as they've figured out how to do w/o solid, expensive writing and directing, not to mention great acting, maybe they can eliminate the big money paid to a top flight cinematographer and "fix" things later.
NicoM
Well-known
That's what they said about auto focus.
I don't know if Lytro as we know it is going to be a big seller, but it's a stepping stone to greater things. We're now seeing this technology trickle down to smart phones, and the results are, relatively speaking, very good. Unlike you, I think that Lytro is a bold camera company that is producing great products by stepping out of the box that most other manufacturers (and consumers) are stuck in. Selective focus after the fact is, like autofocus, another tool to help photographers get desired results.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I jumped on the Lytro bandwagon early, and ended up selling it (actually made money on it!). The idea of the camera is interesting, but the 'hey isn't this cool' aspect of selecting the focus point got a bit boring after a while.
The one thing about the original Lytro I did like was its unusual appearance. This new one is heading in the direction of looking more like a 'camera', and kinda an ugly one at that.
The one thing about the original Lytro I did like was its unusual appearance. This new one is heading in the direction of looking more like a 'camera', and kinda an ugly one at that.
BlackXList
Well-known
I think there are still issues regarding being tied to their website/display/player, and I couldn't find a way to vary the fstop on the examples I played with, just have different points of shallow focus (that may be my own lack of understanding).
However I have to say I'm interested to see what they come up with, It's not for me at the moment, but I enjoy seeing people be innovative.
However I have to say I'm interested to see what they come up with, It's not for me at the moment, but I enjoy seeing people be innovative.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Lytro is a valid product only to the extent that selective focus remains the current fashion statement in photography.
I'm old enough to (Ancient Geezer Rant Warning!) remember when the search for as wide a depth of focus as possible was all the rage, hence one reason why 35mm film camera lenses had DOF markings and swings/tilts on LF cameras was the norm. I can't remember ever seeing a St. Ansel print with selective focus, despite the intrinsically narrow DOF of the format.
Which reminds me, all this talk in the photo media about "full frame" being "better" because it offers more selective focus than, say, smaller- sized sensors is only important if the visual effect desired is more important than the subject matter itself.
~Joe
I'm old enough to (Ancient Geezer Rant Warning!) remember when the search for as wide a depth of focus as possible was all the rage, hence one reason why 35mm film camera lenses had DOF markings and swings/tilts on LF cameras was the norm. I can't remember ever seeing a St. Ansel print with selective focus, despite the intrinsically narrow DOF of the format.
Which reminds me, all this talk in the photo media about "full frame" being "better" because it offers more selective focus than, say, smaller- sized sensors is only important if the visual effect desired is more important than the subject matter itself.
~Joe
helvetica
Well-known
I respectfully challenge the notion that the point of Lytro is after the fact focus. It's neat, but it's only the tip of the iceberg The lytro offers more information than our current cameras. What can you do with that? Well at the moment, any-focus and parallax. What could you do with that? Time will tell. Putting electric contacts in the lens was kind of silly at first, just to drive AF. Now we use it for distance metering, IS/VR driving, power zoom, and all kinds of things that people had not dreampt up yet.
Parallax is the key to me - you can make an image that you can (to a degree) float around in and explore. What if you made a parallax viewing app for the ipad? It would be like a digital, full color hologram.
Parallax is the key to me - you can make an image that you can (to a degree) float around in and explore. What if you made a parallax viewing app for the ipad? It would be like a digital, full color hologram.
Darshan
Well-known
it's all bokeh's fault 😀
Darshan
Well-known
another way to look at it, focus is no longer important..it's all about composition, isn't it? and that too in 3D 😱
thegman
Veteran
I don't use digital at all, but I applaud Lytro for trying something a bit different. Really, up until this point digital photography is mostly a replica of film photography. Most of the software you see for sale on camera web sites is about making digital look like film. Even the race to affordable full frame is just a race to an arbitrary size created by a film company. I like that Lytro is making something that's using digital's potential to be different to film, not just try to re-create it.
I think in the hands of a skilled user, it could make some very interesting pictures.
I think in the hands of a skilled user, it could make some very interesting pictures.
rscheffler
Well-known
I agree with helvetica that this is only the beginning of what the technology will enable.
In the near future, light field photography will allow the construction of simpler image capturing devices (lenses) that rely to a greater extent on software correction to render the intended end result.
As someone who shoots a lot of sports, I'd love to be able to shoot at a decent resolution and be able to optimize focus in post. Someday it will be possible. Software focus pulls in video would also be great...
In the near future, light field photography will allow the construction of simpler image capturing devices (lenses) that rely to a greater extent on software correction to render the intended end result.
As someone who shoots a lot of sports, I'd love to be able to shoot at a decent resolution and be able to optimize focus in post. Someday it will be possible. Software focus pulls in video would also be great...
Eric T
Well-known
I took the plunge and pre-ordered the new Lytro camera. There is so much emphasis on the speed and quality of autofocus in today's digital cameras that I think it will be quite refreshing to shoot with a camera where focusing at the time of image capture doesn't matter at all.
jsrockit
Moderator
Eric T, do you have a project in mind for this, or are you just interested in trying it out?
NeeZee
Well-known
This.
And as for the camera just jumping the bokeh wagon - with this technology it should also be easy to create images with infinite DOF as all the information is there.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The thing is ... I have a camera already that has a little viewing window at the back which shows me an image of what I'm pointing the lens at. On the front there's this ring that I can rotate clockwise or counter clockwise ... incredibly it allows me to put any part of that image into or out of focus.
And I can actually do this 'before' I take the photo! 😱
And I can actually do this 'before' I take the photo! 😱
bjornkeizers
Established
Lytro is doing some neat stuff for sure, but in my mind... it's a feature of a product, not a product itself.
I feel it should be incorporated in other cameras just like autofocus, high ISO, built in HDR, auto scene lighting, the 'miniature look' filter, etc. But it's not a stand alone feature that would make me shell out 1.500 for a camera that has it as a unique selling point.
So they're probably better off licensing it to others.
I feel it should be incorporated in other cameras just like autofocus, high ISO, built in HDR, auto scene lighting, the 'miniature look' filter, etc. But it's not a stand alone feature that would make me shell out 1.500 for a camera that has it as a unique selling point.
So they're probably better off licensing it to others.
rybolt
Well-known
Yes. Give me the light field array on a Foveon sensor and I'm in.
Similar threads
