pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Focus? Hocus Pocus!  (Read 12752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 22, 2011, 10:50 »
0
I read this article about a camera start up:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/230867/camera_startup_lytro_promises_to_revolutionize_photography.html

Was also playing around on their website adjusting the focus:

http://www.lytro.com/picture_gallery


« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2011, 11:15 »
0
Neat!

« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2011, 11:21 »
0
Yes, if it is everything they say it is, we will all need to buy new cameras soon!

OTOH, I was very hopeful about the Foveon sensor when it was first announced but ASAIK it's promise has never been fully realized.

« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2011, 11:27 »
0
It's an interesting hybrid - keeping some of the camera-view-of-the-world conventions while allowing after-the-fact changes you can't do with current cameras.

It doesn't seem to permit you to have everything in focus - as you would get via focus stacking multiple shots. It also doesn't seem to be able to let you do what a tilt-shift lens would do and move the in-focus plane at an angle.

Will be interesting to monitor this to see how things progress.

« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2011, 11:47 »
0
It's a nice idea, useful for the masses = snap shooters.

I think it won't work for any stock work. Resolution seems to be an issue. Noise is definitely an issue and focus is still soft even at the screen size the show case.

No massive use for professional work.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2011, 12:03 »
0
plenoptic camera? I remember an article about experimenting with that, lenticular leny arrays, from a few years ago. The problem was back than, that -as always- a certain quantity of data is divided up into variations that you can display, meaning it was very low resolution. This still looks very low resoltion, bit if they overcome that, we wont get anymore focus rejections : ) I have my doubts that they can produce this in more than a few megapixels sharp any soon.

« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2011, 12:37 »
0
Neat!

As a non-photographer, that was my professional opinion as well.  ;)

nruboc

« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2011, 13:20 »
0
Here's another company trying to commercialize camera arrays, this time on cell phones

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/helloworld/26638/

nruboc

« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2011, 12:05 »
0
Speaking of Lytro, I went to their launch party last night. While the dynamic refocusing is cool, it's the combination of a vibrant 3D image with dynamic focusing and adjustments to depth of field that was the most striking. They weren't saying how big the camera lens and aperature will be, but the parallax is enough that the 3D looks very good. The value of a light field for capturing and post processing a 3D image is exciting, I'm a believer after seeing it in person.

lagereek

« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2011, 12:17 »
0
Agree, very neat!  but for professional work?  dont know and what about resolution, pixel power, etc?

nruboc

« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2011, 12:37 »
0
Agree, very neat!  but for professional work?  dont know and what about resolution, pixel power, etc?

They didn't mention that, but my guess is it won't be suitable for production work for awhile. That's always been the downside of plenoptic imaging, you split your sensor N number of ways, resulting in much smaller images.

« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2011, 13:00 »
0
Speaking of Lytro, I went to their launch party last night. While the dynamic refocusing is cool, it's the combination of a vibrant 3D image with dynamic focusing and adjustments to depth of field that was the most striking. They weren't saying how big the camera lens and aperature will be, but the parallax is enough that the 3D looks very good. The value of a light field for capturing and post processing a 3D image is exciting, I'm a believer after seeing it in person.

Nice name drop ;) .

nruboc

« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2011, 13:09 »
0
Speaking of Lytro, I went to their launch party last night. While the dynamic refocusing is cool, it's the combination of a vibrant 3D image with dynamic focusing and adjustments to depth of field that was the most striking. They weren't saying how big the camera lens and aperature will be, but the parallax is enough that the 3D looks very good. The value of a light field for capturing and post processing a 3D image is exciting, I'm a believer after seeing it in person.

Nice name drop ;) .

Yeah, because it was so off topic, I shouldn't share my observations.  ::)

Shank_ali

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2011, 13:40 »
0
It's a nice idea, useful for the masses = snap shooters.

Nothing wrong with snap-shooters..... ;)

« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2011, 14:39 »
0
It looks to me as if it adjusts to three or four planes of focus and nothing in between.

No doubt it will get better and better, if the initial idea catches on with buyers.

RacePhoto

« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2011, 02:05 »
0
It looks to me as if it adjusts to three or four planes of focus and nothing in between.

No doubt it will get better and better, if the initial idea catches on with buyers.

No that's not how it works. The answer is more like it measures the light along each individual ray flowing into the image sensor. That's instead of combining all the light, like a standard camera and lens does.

« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2011, 18:07 »
0
The cameras on their site now.  Looks like a toy and there's very little info about things like sensor resolution.  In the low resolution samples, distant subjects look soft.  I'm still excited though, it breaks the mould of digital cameras being very much like film cameras.  Hopefully the technology will be useful for pros one day.
http://www.lytro.com/

« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2011, 19:03 »
0
The Lytro camera released today outputs 11 megarays or around 1 Megapixel with 1080px on its height. No word on the width but I'm betting 1200px.   Hardly stock material. 

In a few generations it will be an incredible tool in the arsenal but right now it is pretty useless besides net pic sharing.  In Macro imaging and microscopy where you usually have to layer and merge several depth exposures this camera could revolutionize those markets.

Lets hope the technology survives until it matures in the market.  I have a Lytro order option right now that lapses in a week. Somehow I don't think it is enough resolution to buy it.   At 3MP it would be a different story, 1MP is just too low.

« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2011, 19:03 »
0
Very cool! I want one!

"It is built for Mac OS and requires Mac OS X 10.6 or higher. A Windows application is in development."

I think I love these people...

« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2011, 01:49 »
0
They will sell a few of these to camera geeks and collectors but if they can't get the price down to $99, I don't think they will sell many.  Hopefully they have the funding in place to work on a pro version already.

I do like the radical design but wouldn't dream of paying $399 for a toy.

fujiko

« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2011, 03:41 »
0
I don't like products with integrated memory where the difference between 8GB and 16GB is $100.

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2011, 07:12 »
0
I don't like products with integrated memory where the difference between 8GB and 16GB is $100.

And it's go everything built in like battery. Seems they took that Mac approach of treating the buyer like some cretin, who's not allowed to manage their own equipment?

Yes designed for the Mac folks, what's that 10% of the world? Mac only? They don't release the MP just that it's 1080i, Oh gee thanks for insulting us again.

Toy right now and I agree on the price point needing to fall drastically.

Hey wait, maybe I can get a toss ball camera with a bunch of sensors...  ;) That entertainment runs out fast after the first pictures. What I'd make is a gas powered launcher (compressed air) and parachute recovery system! Now we're talking!

« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2011, 14:14 »
0
It definitely doesn't sound like it is really ready for prime time, but with a bit of advancement it could radically alter something like macro photography. Imagine being able to just shoot a macro and then in post decide how much of a depth of field you want. You could also vastly improve portrait photography by having more of the face in focus but also have the very out of focus background - plus the data is already there to make things 3d.

I totally agree that the "mac" approach to consumer electronics is very frustrating. I would much rather be able to buy 2 batteries and swap them and upgrade the storage with just a card rather than having to pay an extra 100$ to get 8 more GB worth built in. Not to mention the fact that if the trends of the past continue you could buy a new 64 GB card for that price and the convenience of being able to swap in a fresh card when traveling away from your computer...

RacePhoto

« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2011, 14:50 »
0
It definitely doesn't sound like it is really ready for prime time, but with a bit of advancement it could radically alter something like macro photography. Imagine being able to just shoot a macro and then in post decide how much of a depth of field you want. You could also vastly improve portrait photography by having more of the face in focus but also have the very out of focus background - plus the data is already there to make things 3d.

I totally agree that the "mac" approach to consumer electronics is very frustrating. I would much rather be able to buy 2 batteries and swap them and upgrade the storage with just a card rather than having to pay an extra 100$ to get 8 more GB worth built in. Not to mention the fact that if the trends of the past continue you could buy a new 64 GB card for that price and the convenience of being able to swap in a fresh card when traveling away from your computer...

Yes for macro it would be interesting to make one exposure and then go back and produce a stack, and blend them. Very Cool!

Anyone own a White stereo camera, Nimslo? Well pretty much everyone had or saw a Viewmaster as a kid, and turn of the Century and I mean the last one, Stereo Viewers were the hot item. Same as some of the future for this camera and 3D. It will be in some history books and some people will have saved bits and pieces, but honestly, it's not necessary and it's that much better than flat images so that it makes a big difference.

Now when they come out with the 3d laser holographic TV - I want one! Virtual TV, that would be excellent, walk into a room and stand between the elements of the image, looking any direction you wish. Now that would be 3D TV!  :o

« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2011, 14:54 »
0
... Now that would be 3D TV!  :o

You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2011, 15:21 »
0
... Now that would be 3D TV!  :o


You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

Might not be as long as that.  This is very basic but they say they will have a holographic TV on sale by the end of 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9393762.stm

RacePhoto

« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2011, 23:56 »
0
... Now that would be 3D TV!  :o


You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

Might not be as long as that.  This is very basic but they say they will have a holographic TV on sale by the end of 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9393762.stm


There goes another one of my great ideas, stolen! ;)

Couldn't follow the link and see the report, but I like the idea. Maybe not as soon as what I was really thinking would be hot, sports in a holographic projection. I mean, standing on the field? Playing Middle Linebacker (I know USA but it's the only sport for me after racing) WHOA Baby!

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2011, 02:40 »
0
The Lytro camera released today outputs 11 megarays or around 1 Megapixel with 1080px on its height. No word on the width but I'm betting 1200px.   Hardly stock material. 

In a few generations it will be an incredible tool in the arsenal but right now it is pretty useless besides net pic sharing.  In Macro imaging and microscopy where you usually have to layer and merge several depth exposures this camera could revolutionize those markets.

Lets hope the technology survives until it matures in the market.  I have a Lytro order option right now that lapses in a week. Somehow I don't think it is enough resolution to buy it.   At 3MP it would be a different story, 1MP is just too low.

I bet you thats an already heavily upsampled resolution.

« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2011, 22:05 »
0

This thread has themes last heard in the late 90s and early 00s, "digital will never replace film".

  I wouldn't bet my testicales on any predictions that suggest "it" won't happen.  Nobody knows what sort of "its" are out there.  The only certainty is that we will be surprised.

This technology is very early days, just as digital camera were a little over a decade ago.  Look where we are now.

Ken

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2011, 23:47 »
0

This thread has themes last heard in the late 90s and early 00s, "digital will never replace film".

  I wouldn't bet my testicales on any predictions that suggest "it" won't happen.  Nobody knows what sort of "its" are out there.  The only certainty is that we will be surprised.

This technology is very early days, just as digital camera were a little over a decade ago.  Look where we are now.

Ken

Just because some people are still living in caves somewhere, it doesn't mean we haven't moved out and taken up factory make clothes, shopping for food instead of hunting it or riding in vehicles instead of on animals.  :) There are still people who don't believe film has been replaced by digital. For myself, as soon as I got a 6MP camera I stopped shooting film. For professionals and publication it took a little longer. The Internet is electronic and demands speed as well, and film doesn't have that.

Now 3D? It's like turbine cars, hovercraft and everyone with an airplane in their garage. It's the stuff that nice articles about the future are made of, but impracticable and lacks the basic functionality that people require. You want to read a book? Now you can use a Kindle. Want to watch TV, you carry one on your phone.

3D isn't part of the necessary function of watching. That's all. Advantage to 3D TV is you can watch standard TV on it, which the rest of these products of the past, couldn't do.

How's your stereoscope? Technology that's over 100 years old. Wouldn't people still be using it if there was some kind of demand? White Realist stereo cameras, the Nimslo camera that produced 3D prints. (I think Nishiki bought that?) This is nice, a Nimslo digital printer could bring the technology back. Yes I own one of the first cameras, it's in the storage box for old cameras.
 Back to the point. Demand, cost and functionality. A toy camera for $300 that takes extra large depth of field images, that can't really be viewed as prints, slides, or even 3D. It's all hypothetical.

Remember smell-o-vision, yes someone really made it. Disc camera? (UGH!) How's that new Polaroid doing that prints from a digital camera, in your hand? Hey, the $100 Flip video camera? Gone April 2011. Kodak Advantix? And for every 100 of these schemes that come and go, one might make it. Next thing someone comes along and points out, "Hey people said it was folly, but look now." Funny how the people making that point forget about the other 100 inventions that were useless novelty and toys.

3D television and movies, the kind that need special glasses, will suffer the same as they have in the past. Passing fad.

Anyone still have a Quad tape player or record player? SQ or QS with the decoder. Why not? Stereo was good because it was an improvement in realism over mono. Why didn't quad make it? It's a natural? Want another passing fad? CDs and DVDs. LOL

« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2011, 03:20 »
0
I wonder what percentage of people never make prints or only get small prints?  I think there could be quite a big market for people that only require HD screen resolution.  I think this product might not take off because it's the first generation of new technology and it looks like they haven't produced software that can fully utilise everything it can be used for.  They have rushed this to market and might make some money because its a first.  I do think that this technology is going to change the future for digital cameras.  I think the big manufacturers are going to see this as a threat and will have to work on something similar now.  It's obviously useful for amateurs but professionals are going to want this as well.  If it can be used to drastically increase the focus area for macro photography using wide apertures, it's going to be really useful.  I'm sure the video people will want this, even if the resolution is too low for stills.

« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2011, 08:56 »
0
Personally I think this is revolutionary technology, a paradigm shift. The tech is in is infancy, this is a first step, an embryonic version of something that in a few years, maybe five, will completely change photography. Think about it, deciding after the fact, where to place focus, how much to be in or out of focus. I see so much potential here it's mind boggling. It's either going to put me out of work as a photographer or allow me more creative freedom then ever before. Awesome.

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2013, 21:00 »
0
Going into 2013 I'd like to say, the article said "HOPE" to have a TV on sale by 2012. Anyone see it?

And the latest view from my desk is 3D will be a historic fad (again) and off the market except for a small, small, percentage of the people, by 2016. Kind of like people who still listen to vinyl records, have tube amps because they "sound better", I'll remind people of quad. Surround sound is actually just fine and works.

So what's after 3D TV and movies get tossed into the closet? Maybe holographic projection? There are going to be issues with the color and the clouds, but honestly the holodome or central projection TV with no screen, is a neat trick.

Yes, I brought this one back from the dead because CES is on and 3D is dwindling. Movies are not drawing in 3D like they did a few years ago. The signs are, if you love 3D, do it now. It's going the way of the dinosaurs.  :)


... Now that would be 3D TV!  :o


You watched too much Star Trek. Not gonna happen in the next 100 years - for regular consumers anyway.

Might not be as long as that.  This is very basic but they say they will have a holographic TV on sale by the end of 2012.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9393762.stm


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6031 Views
Last post April 13, 2008, 14:09
by mantonino
5 Replies
3849 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 18:23
by icefront
20 Replies
7742 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 16:38
by vonkara
2 Replies
3241 Views
Last post December 06, 2009, 13:13
by leaf
30 Replies
11794 Views
Last post December 19, 2021, 12:35
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors