Lytro consumer camera

[Andrewteee]

This is the camera that you can focus after you take the picture.

Lytro

 

[stillshunter]

Jeez between this and Adobe's new deblur PS plug-in, then we'll be out of a job. Well I suppose we might still be required to frame the shot....but modern technology will dispense the need to nail exposure and focus.

Then again wider panoramas and 360 degree are maturing fast too. So all we'll be doing is pulling a file, figuring the focus, deblurring and cropping the bit we want.

Hmmm....the technology and art debate moves further forward.

 

[BBW]

I remember Don's bringing this up when it first hit the "news stands": https://www.photographerslounge.org/f73/lytro-shoot-now-focus-later-3087/

Mark, don't you worry...you're going to be using cameras that require you to think for a long time to come. Now me, on the other hand, I am into framing and subject matter and try not to have to think about too much more.

 

[stillshunter]

....Now me, on the other hand, I am into framing and subject matter and try not to have to think about too much more.

Now BB I would like to believe you, I really would, but your photos betray otherwise I'm afraid!

 

[BBW]

I don't think so... I mean I do think about lighting and all that but I'm really very nontechnical....though I did love color printing in the good old darkroom days but that's different from working with a camera that is a computer...if you follow me.

 

[Herman]

Any Lytro fans here?

 

[davect01]

Still better to have the focus right to begin with.

I have had a few images that I thought were sharp when I took them only to realize the focus was not as sharp, or focused on the wrong item. I wish I had been able to change them so dramatically.

Now the LYTRO itself is a facinating idea. Will it produce professional shots or simply facebook images? I don't see any light controls or speed controls. Are these adjustable later as well? Here's a bit more info:
Lytro Light-Field-Camera Review: Overview

With Lytro, Shoot First and Refocus Later - Technology Review


Who has a few hundred buck to find out.

 

[stillshunter]

Silly question: what's the sensor size?

 

[Lightmancer]

This is a camera for the terminally indecisive techno-tubby and all those who cannot be bothered to learn the craft of photography.

 

[stillshunter]

Please Bill don't hold back

The more I look at the image samples the less I am impressed. Strikes me that the only advance is clever integration of software and hardware. Seems they've thrown a really small sensor in a tube. Now the sensor, by virtue of its size, will render almost the whole FoV in 'focus'. Then tell the software which bit you want to remain sharp and it will apply a blurring effect to the rest.

I'm sure you get more for your money than that?

Reminds me of a vignette from the Simpson's, where Homer is evaluating his brother's new invention (I think it was a baby translator). His brother asks what he thought and Homer replies..."I don't know Herb, people don't like new things, wouldn't it have been better to get an existing object and put a clock in it"....or words to that effect.

I don't know looks about as useful to a photographer, who cares about photography, as owning a Pentax Q kit

 

[Armanius]

This is very interesting technology. I can't wait to try one out!

 

[Andrewteee]

I don't know looks about as useful to a photographer, who cares about photography, as owning a Pentax Q kit

I own the Q.

By Thom points out that it is around a .5 MP sensor, so pretty dang small. He also point out a few things from the Terms of Use agreement, including that you cannot print for non-personal use with the consent of Lytro. And it's hard to read the legalese, but if you share an "unlisted" picture you are supposed to include the Lytro trademark with it. Pretty bizarre.

 

[davect01]

I own the Q.

By Thom points out that it is around a .5 MP sensor, so pretty dang small. He also point out a few things from the Terms of Use agreement, including that you cannot print for non-personal use with the consent of Lytro. And it's hard to read the legalese, but if you share an "unlisted" picture you are supposed to include the Lytro trademark with it. Pretty bizarre.

Huh, sounds a bit strange with the legal talk. Still a fascinating idea, wonder how it will turn out.

 

[Andrewteee]

Huh, sounds a bit strange with the legal talk. Still a fascinating idea, wonder how it will turn out.

Correction: you cannot print for non-personal use without the consent of Lytro.

Like asking Canon if you can use a picture you took with a 5D in an ad campaign.

 

[snake]

Technology as a bandaid for slow focus. This might be pretty damn amazing on a camera that can focus properly.

 

[Ray Sachs]

This is a camera for the terminally indecisive techno-tubby and all those who cannot be bothered to learn the craft of photography.

The craft of photography is radically different today than it was when I started as a kid about 40 years ago. Its gonna be even more different in another 20 years. Should it just stop in time RIGHT NOW? I don't think so - anymore than it should have stopped in time 30 years ago. In ten years time people will be doing incredible stuff with this new tech that we can't even begin to imagine now. Just as we're doing things on our desktop PCs now that we couldn't have imagined 25 years ago while stuck in the darkroom. How is this a bad thing?

This is the first implementation of a BRAND NEW idea! Of course its gonna be far less than perfect! I think its a fascinating technology. I look forward to see how it develops and what sorts of applications people find for it. Its too far outside of my paradigm to consider at this point - I like to process my shots, print some of them, etc. I don't know that this tech will lend itself to any of that. But so what - I'm an old guy and my mind isn't as elastic as it was 30 years back? In 10 years people will be doing stuff with this that we can't even begin to imagine and some of it will definitely qualify as "art", even if its a type of art we can't see yet. I may or may not ever get around to adapting to this technology, but many people will not only adapt, but come to take it for granted and some of them will do amazing stuff with it. Nay-saying this at this early stage in its development is like nay-saying the first cars because they weren't as reliable as a horse or nay-saying the first cameras because the results weren't as artistic as what could be produced with a paint brush or naysaying the first computers because coding a computer to add 10 plus 10 was far more complicated and time consuming than just adding 10 plus 10!

I think its exciting as hell, whether I ever come around to using it or not.

-Ray

 

[crazyhendrix]

Have to agree with Ray. It is definitely an interesting development in photography. Imagine they transfer this technology to video. There's so much possibilities.

--
crazyhendrix