# Lytro Light Field Camera



## Cribynkle (Jan 29, 2012)

So camera types, is this just complete hype or has it got legs?

https://www.lytro.com/


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 29, 2012)

How does that work then ?

Semi-spherical sensor ?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 29, 2012)

Micro lens arrays, fixing the photo after you've taken it ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field_camera

Interesting ...


----------



## Cribynkle (Jan 29, 2012)

gentlegreen said:


> How does that work then ?
> 
> Semi-spherical sensor ?



I haven't a clue about such things and not sure whether it's all nonsense but very much impressed by being able to zoom and focus on the different photos in their gallery


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 29, 2012)

Ironically it'd be ideal for idiots like me, but not at that price.

On the other hand it would be handy for work where they foolishly sometimes ask me to point a camera at groups of people  ...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 29, 2012)

Total bollocks. You can do the same yourself with the most basic of cameras and very little HTML/JavaScript knowledge.

"Light Field"  they could have come up with something better than that.

Their blurb is flawed for all sorts of reasons. Trash. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2012)

According to Wikipedia there is something in the idea. It uses a large number of microlenses on the sensor to gather light from all directions - the 'light field'. Apparently it works to enable focussing after the event using a computer and reportedly 3D results. I cannot think that it will be particularly useful as it stands though, and the cameras are very pricey. No need to throw away your £20,000 worth of existing kit just yet I think.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 30, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> According to Wikipedia there is something in the idea. It uses a large number of microlenses on the sensor to gather light from all directions - the 'light field'. Apparently it works to enable focussing after the event using a computer and reportedly 3D results. I cannot think that it will be particularly useful as it stands though, and the cameras are very pricey. No need to throw away your £20,000 worth of existing kit just yet I think.



It simply captures many images at one time. You can't refocus an image after it's been captured. Absolute bollocks.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It simply captures many images at one time. You can't refocus an image after it's been captured. Absolute bollocks.


Yes you can. Read the wikipedia page, this isn't a normal camera sensor.

Here's the original research: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 30, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Yes you can. Read the wikipedia page, this isn't a normal camera sensor.
> 
> Here's the original research: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/



No. It's capturing several images. Each 'micro-lens' captures a different image.

You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 30, 2012)

i think you misunderstand what is going on. plus HTML doesn't do image manipulation. although you could probably take two picture is quick sucsession with diffrent setting then fade btween the two with javascript that is not what this is doing


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2012)

Stanley Edwards said:


> No. It's capturing several images. Each 'micro-lens' captures a different image.
> 
> You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML.


No you couldn't, because you'd have to capture the images sequentially. This one capture multiple images at multiple focal lengths, _simultaneously_.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 30, 2012)

Crispy said:


> No you couldn't, because you'd have to capture the images sequentially. This one capture multiple images at multiple focal lengths, _simultaneously_.



Granted.

But, it is not a new sensor. It is simply a series of microlenses between the main lens and the sensor.

In answer to Shippy; I understand fully what is going on, and yes, I meant a series of photographs captured sequentially. The limitations of light don't make much difference in the examples shown on the website. The 'image' is not being refocussed post capture, it is simply referring to a different image capture.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 30, 2012)

you first said  " You can do the same yourself with the most basic of cameras and very little HTML/JavaScript knowledge"  then
"You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML"

are you now clarifying  what you actually meant  is  you can  do something that looks a bit similar  with the right set up.  as long as it's not of something moving.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> you first said " You can do the same yourself with the most basic of cameras and very little HTML/JavaScript knowledge" then
> "You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML"
> 
> are you now clarifying what you actually meant is you can do something that looks a bit similar with the right set up. as long as it's not of something moving.



How is that different to this camera? If it was moving it wouldn't work.

The 'Fourth Dimension' they claim is bollocks. The lens, and microlenses still focus on the same focal plane and same sensor - nothing new happening there. All they are claiming is that the microlenses capture different images simultaenously on the same focal plane. What use is this?

Given a high calibre DSLR with fast shutter speed, you could in theory capture 20 frames per second of the same subject at different aperture settings and present them as single images (as these guys do - they rely on the output technology as much as input) using HTML, or JavaScript (for example). There is nothing groundbreaking going on here. It's bollocks, and it's next to useless.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jan 30, 2012)

the "what use"  is claimed to be " This property allows us to extend the depth of field of the camera without reducing the aperture, enabling shorter exposures and lower image noise"
sure you can do things  like it  with other methods   but that isn't  doing the same thing.

the "You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML"  is particularly  not right in terms of comparison. especially as it imply you could do it with HTML.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 30, 2012)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> the "what use" is claimed to be "This property allows us to extend the depth of field of the camera without reducing the aperture, enabling shorter exposures and lower image noise"
> sure you can do things like it with other methods but that isn't doing the same thing.
> 
> the "You could do the same with any camera and a bit of script, or simple HTML" is particularly not right in terms of comparison. especially as it imply you could do it with HTML.



Effectively, you can do the same with any camera and a bit of script/HTML though. So, what is the point in this technology? Great - you can use the same aperture setting to gain the effects of different aperture settings. So what? You can do it all simultaenously - so what? If you have to take real time to view and refocus what's the the point?

There is nothing happening here that hasn't been explored and practiced many times already. It's bollocks. Useless bollocks. Give me just a single example of a worthwhile application that hasn't already been run into the ground.

Multiple capture of the same image on a single focal plane is old. Old and useless in this sense.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 30, 2012)

You can take a single picture of a moment - a person caught in mid-leap, say - and then choose whatever length and depth of focus you want after the fact. You can't possibly do that with any other setup. It allows greater creative freedom, because you're not restricted to whatever focus/aperture the camera was set to when you captured the moment.

Fine, it's no use for still shots, landscapes whatever, but what it does allow you is the full creative use of focus and aperture for action shots, without having to pre-set the camera.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2012)

It's awfully clever but I'm not sure its going to be something that interest me.


----------



## editor (Mar 1, 2012)

It's been reviewed here: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/29/2821763/lytro-review
The conclusion:


> here’s no doubt in my mind that Light Field cameras are the future of photography, or at least part of the future. Light Field photography gives you photos that are so immersive and manipulable that it’s quickly easy to forget that 2D photos are useful at all, and the technology is only going to get better as the processing ability and software in the cameras get more powerful and mature.
> 
> We’ve heard about a Lytro for video, and rumors have flown that we’ll start seeing the technology in smartphones — it really seems like the sky’s the limit here.
> 
> ...


*Good Stuff*

Light Field technology is amazing
Gorgeous, conversation-starting design
Fast and reliable performance
*Bad Stuff*

Aside from the focusing effect, image quality is mediocre
Only works really well in a few situations
Desktop software is a bear


----------

