Light Field Camera - Fad, or realistic future for photography?

Father Ted

Father Ted

Joined
Saturday November 6, 2010
Location
Round the bend
https://www.lytro.com/camera

I have been reading about the Lytro, the light field camera that fits in your pocket and captures the whole light field meaning that you can decide on whcih part of the picture to focus on after you have captured the shot.

I like the idea, I cant see it being that good for high speed shots or low light shots, but I do quite like the idea for still life and landscape photography.

Expensive at $400 for the 8mb version though.
 
We've been discussing these in work this week - the lenses are called "Plenoptic".

This is a great video demonstration of the way the focus can be changed and how the image looks in it's raw form:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EI75wPL0nU[/video]
 
Cool. But not for me.

The Raytrix r11, released late last year costs $30,000, for a 3mp final image! Although that one is aimed at the industrial/scientific market.

What will be interesting is if the Lytro model has onboard refocus and processing abilities. I doubt the mass market consumer click and shoot photographer will want to be post processing off camera, they probably don't shoot in RAW now.

Also, they are very coy on resolutions. They only state the size of a JPG you can export from their post production software.

The data stored on the camera is about the size of a traditional RAW file, rumours are it gives a final picture of reportedly 540x540, which can be magnified to 1080x1080, which is ok for posting to facebook, but you aren't getting a quality print from this camera.

Sony did a proof of concept model with a camera of 100Mp with a plenoptic lens and finished with 5.2Mp. Stamford used a 16Mp camera with a final image resolution of 90k pixels.

A fabulous idea and technology, but the marketing takes over where the resolution lacks. It has a 540x540 pixel resolution which can be double-clicked to magnify it to 1080x1080, ie Full HD vertical resolution at the cost of sharpness (so far we don't get to see a whole "HD" shot").

So it is marketed as a simple to use cool photo gadget for Facebook, which it undoubtedly is. At $400 or $500, up to you if you think it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Lots of problems with this, despite the wizzy demonstration. Looking between the lines Lytro suffers from:
- Huge data files but very low resolution
- The need to post-process to produce a useable file or print
- Even the in-focus bits are blurry!
- Not a patch on even basic P&S cameras

Most P&S users take most of their pictures of friends and family. Their major frustration has, in the past, been missing focus on people's faces. Despite being derided as a "gimmic" in these forums, I know lots of people who think face recognition in compact cameras has massively increased their number of usable and printable shots.

Fundamentally the biggest market this camera has, reducing the number of out of focus shots of people, has been solved with face recognition. Sure you get a faux artistic background bokeh blur, but photographers looking for that "artistic" shot won't be prepared to put up with the camera's other sever limitations.
Click to expand...

Lytro themselves say...

You can chose a focus point and export to a 1080x1080 pixel JPG (at which point it's no longer a living picture) and then print the resulting image.

You will be able to print 5x7-sized prints from a JPG, for instance for framing on a desk.

However, we do not recommend printing posters of any size, nor any other kind of large-format printing. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the Lytro Light Field Camera is creating living pictures to be shared online, not printing 2D images.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see proof of a 5x7 print and it's quality.

But then again, it is what it is, and they aren't marketing it as a large print quality image machine.

Hey ho.
 
I hate the idea of it as the same with mobile phones with so called 8mp cameras ect...ect,Why are we in a rushed state of mind nowerdays?.
Can't we just take our time as the same with straight shaving?.I do own photography kit over the excess of £2800 & would not waste good money on this gimmiky cheap lazy toy.......
 
Gimmicky cheap lazy toy sounds right up my street!!! it fantastic I'll be getting one for the misses when her cannon point and shoot dies. 2 buttons and a zoom all they need is some video function and its game on as long as it can produce images that look good on a pc screen or ipad and good standard size photo prints it will be a winner. Early digital cameras were poo but then got better this technology will improve and by then it should be good enough for what I need and the misses.
 
This has come up on a photography forum I frequent. I see the idea, and I think that for certain aspects of the market it could be a good tool. It isn't for me though, at least not at the moment. I've only just moved to DSLR and am quite happy learning. Took some really bad shots last week, then out at the weekend got a marked improvement after a helping hand. Working with RAW files is something that I quite enjoy, although recently I've been more than happy with out of the camera. Raw just gives a couple more pixels over JPEG on my setup which is why I continue to use it both for every shot now. I am going to need some more storage though I think!

If this can get some interest into the P&S market about post processing that would be good, though I'm not sure the convinenece market would want that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom