Light Field Technology!

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Dustin Moore

All of these plenoptic cameras can be seen as a hack to do bokeh in software rather than just using a wider aperture.

It's more than just wide-aperture bokeh. It's the ability to pull focus perfectly every time in post.

Try a shot with a close focus lens and a dolly pulling back from an extreme closeup. Just try to maintain critical focus. After 20 to 30 takes, you'll re-design the shot. But with a plenoptic solution, you can nail the shot in one take. That's huge.

Of course, the technology isn't there yet, and may not be for decades, but never buzzing focus again has a lot of practical value.

[David Heath]

It's now over six months since this was previously discussed, and I thought at the time the product was due to ship soon? It's still given as "Pre-order here" on the website - has anybody heard anything more? Or seen a prototype in the flesh?

[Rick Hill]

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...ld-camera.html

[David Heath]

Yes, but the last post in that thread (by me) is even longer ago (about 9 months). The product was supposed to hit the shops well before Christmas - but where is it? The manufacturers site still seems to have it as "pre-order" only. Anybody heard anything recent?

[Dave Blackhurst]

I think they shipped a batch out to "early adopters" on their waiting list - they only had MAC software, so I'd suspect they are waiting to have Windows software available for wider release. They post regularly on Facebook, and have been doing lots of "PR" and public showings, so I'd guess it's "coming".

I was surprised at how quickly they announced they would ship, maybe they had supply chain issues like many other companies last year? Still be faster than many products from announcement to release...

[Glen Vandermolen]

This may have been posted in the past, but here's a really cool website to this new still camera. It shoots everythng in focus, then you can change the focal points afterward. The link will get you to some samples. It's pretty cool to actually change the focus in the pictures real time.
I know it's not a video camera, but maybe this technology can transfer to video soon.

https://www.lytro.com/living-picture...695?&_suid=829

[Zach Love]

Here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...echnology.html

And here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...ld-camera.html


When I saw the new thread, I was really hoping that someone at DVInfo had purchased one of these & started taking photos. I was so close on purchasing one, just didn't have the extra cash to justify it. If anyone does have one, please share.

[David Heath]

And - as I've said in each of the previous threads - whilst what is claimed for it is perfectly true, it's what doesn't get said that is most relevant.

And that is the resolution of the final images that can be output from it. You trade off resolution for refocussing ability. It should be fine for images on the web, but not serious photography, and lytro have been very reluctant to discuss resolution.

The technology is already having industrial applications via other companies where depth information is more important than absolute resolution, such as in things like face recognition. (eg See Applications - Raytrix GmbH ) Don't expect the technology to transfer to video anytime soon. At normal frame rates, you'd be talking about a massive data rate, only to end up with a standard definition image - albeit one that can be refocussed.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Lytro has certainly had some great marketing these last few months.

Maybe if they tie up with a certain company whose name starts with an 'A', so they could beat a certain rival who has just released a '41'MP camera phone...who knows?

[Nevin Styre]

They need to make a 1080p capable lytro and a plugin for after effects for focus control keyframing, then I might bite. Resolution isn't much for photo, but for incorporating lytro stills into video/motion graphics it could be a creatively useful tool.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Be careful what you wish for, Nevin! Wouldn't want to be the guy sitting on a station tracking focus on a moving shot in Transformers XII.

[Mark Donnell]

Digital photography magazine has an excellent in-depth review of this camera on their website, which is something like dpreview or dpreviews dot com. This camera is really only a toy at this point, but may be the start of something useful. The camera is enclosed in a 1.5 by 1.5 inch rectangular shell which is 4.4 inches long, and captures 1080 by 1080 pixel equivalent (approx 1.2 Mpixel) photos. The software, at last reading, worked only on Mac computers, and it would appear that the company hopes to sell out to Apple in the near future. The data files for the 1.2 Mpixel photo are large, and upscaling to a useful photo size would require very large data files. Interesting, but not yet ready for prime time.

[David Heath]

Thanks Mark. Well worth reading, and bears out much of what I've said - the refocussing ability comes primarily at the expense of resolution.

The article raises a point that I hadn't really thought about - what they call "refocussability" or the range over which the image can be refocussed. They refer to it as equivalent to depth of field in conventional photography, but instead of the depth within with everything is IN focus, it's the depth within with everything CAN be refocussed.

Point is it's not infinite, and (as with dof) the more you zoom in, the less it is. Hence, much of the time the camera still does need to focus to an extent more or less conventionally at the time of shooting.

The other point is that the refocussing "smoothness" is governed by the no of microlenses. More microlenses, smoother the refocussing abilities - but the lower the output resolution. So the "11 megarays" COULD be used to give a final 5.5 megapixel image - but then likely only be able to be refocussed over two planes! Point is that "refocussability" could give you the ability to focus just in front of or just behind the plane you really want - but possibly not actually on it! Of course, more microlenses equals more fineness, but then expect the resolution to drop away.

If this camera is "11megarays" and they quote 1.2 megapixels as final output resolution, it indicates strongly that the microlenses are in groups of 3x3. That similarly indicates that you can expect to move focus between 9 separate planes of focus in the post stage.

[Nevin Styre]

Originally Posted by Mark Donnell

Digital photography magazine has an excellent in-depth review of this camera on their website, which is something like dpreview or dpreviews dot com. This camera is really only a toy at this point, but may be the start of something useful. The camera is enclosed in a 1.5 by 1.5 inch rectangular shell which is 4.4 inches long, and captures 1080 by 1080 pixel equivalent (approx 1.2 Mpixel) photos. The software, at last reading, worked only on Mac computers, and it would appear that the company hopes to sell out to Apple in the near future. The data files for the 1.2 Mpixel photo are large, and upscaling to a useful photo size would require very large data files. Interesting, but not yet ready for prime time.

so it is already HD at 1080x1080, it could still have it's use in video production if we can control the focus over time on a timeline...

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Nevin Styre

so it is already HD at 1080x1080, it could still have it's use in video production if we can control the focus over time on a timeline...

In a video sized frame (16:9) you're talking about the output equivalent to 1280x720 - and the implcations are that that the actual resolution is likely to be less. So 720 HD maybe, but not 1080.

But that's for stills. (And for a relatively coarse refocussing ability.) I don't think there's any suggestion yet that video is feasible. It's one thing to take the 16 "megarays" off the chip and record it as a still photograph - totally another to do that 24 times a second (let alone 50/60).

And even if it was possible, the ability is likely to come at the expense of other factors. The basic photosite size is small, and that's likely to affect dynamic range, for example.

Sorry, It's just not realistic, never say never, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, if ever.