EddieColeslaw Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I don't really get it... Why would you want to have to choose what to focus on after you take the photo? Why not just focus on it in the first place?... I could understand that if you took a picture which was out of focus on the part you actually wanted to be focused on and then could fix it but this seems to take the whole picture out of focus then you choose what you want in focus afterwards? I can't remember the last time my point and shoot wasn't in focus when I took a picture. I'm not a big camera person or photo-taker but to me it seems like this is trying to fix something which was never a problem? I can think of so many possibilities! By taking one image, it's like taking multiple images with different focus - you could use that in design, e.g. I'm imagining a montage made of multiple versions of the same picture with different focus. As for your second point, it's nice to be able to choose what you want to focus on, especially in macro shots. Sometimes the subject of the photo isn't obvious depending on what's framing it. I guess it depends on how much you care about taking photos, I always think point and shoots in general has a disappointing lack of control (but I can't afford a DSLR ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 (edited) I don't really get it... Why would you want to have to choose what to focus on after you take the photo?As @EddieColeslaw said, the same image with different focal points, so you wouldn't have to worry about the subject potentially changing inbetween shots. Or say you want to capture some birds taking off from a plaza in Italy... not only do you not have to half press the shutter to get them in focus in the first place, then track them around readjusting the focus until they take off... you can take an instant picture of them when they take off with no shutter delay, and select them as the focal point later! The camera also shoots in RAW images for maximum manipulation, Images can be shown/readjusted in different resolutions... 1080p+ And I think it even does 3D images, and can turn 2D to 3D in post production. --- First Fashion Shoot with the Camera... Edited October 28, 2011 by Retro_Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Did anyone actually manage to spot the Lytro camera in that video? All I saw was some model poncing around. As for the camera, I think it's clever and all, but I have no interest in it. I'd rather just spend my time composing the shot to begin with and making sure my settings are correct. I just don't trust auto settings. Current technology's auto settings can still be tricked, God knows what this will be like. I can see the appeal for the point and shoot market, but I don't think this will be replacing current technology any time soon. It's basically the new Polaroid. Great for people who want instant, simple shots, but it won't replace the established technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 @Goafer Well yeah that's exactly it... it's not something that's meant to take over the industry/become industry standard. It's a camera with a unique purpose... like the GoPro HD Hero camera's. And like the Hero it's priced accordingly. Yeah that fashion video isn't from Lytro themselves, just someone who borrowed a prototype... was a bit poncy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 @Daft Yeah you can definately see the tech being implemented into phones and DSLRs down the line. Oh yeah, that's definately the wouldbe deal breaker atm. Hopefully some competition will come about and start to drive this forward. Can I just draw your attention to the following comic, Retro: "Definitely" Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I don't understand how 8GB is £100/$100 . Anyway, I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Can I just draw your attention to the following comic, Retro: "Definitely" Thank you. It's the internet, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 It's the internet, who cares? Today it's a misspelling of definitely, tomorrow noboday cars abowt anyhing ennymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I learnt about affect/effect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sméagol Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) I don't really get it... Why would you want to have to choose what to focus on after you take the photo? Why not just focus on it in the first place?... I could understand that if you took a picture which was out of focus on the part you actually wanted to be focused on and then could fix it but this seems to take the whole picture out of focus then you choose what you want in focus afterwards? I can't remember the last time my point and shoot wasn't in focus when I took a picture. I'm not a big camera person or photo-taker but to me it seems like this is trying to fix something which was never a problem? It’s when you want to focus on something in particular, with the rest being out of focus, caused by depth of field. Ik shamelesly stole a picture from @Twozzok in the photography thread to illustrate this: See how the plant in the foreground is in focus but the background isn’t. Depth of field isn’t a common feature in point & shoots, I know some of the high-end current ones can do it, but apart from that.. My Canon point & shoot can’t in any case, except in macro mode. So the above picture isn’t achievable for the snapshot photographers. I’ve been following this tech on Engadget, the concept is great, the technology promising, but this product isn't a serious photography tool. It’s a great (and expensive) toy, in my eyes. It’s great for Facebook pics and the like, they don't require a high resolution. This thing does its uses, it’s too bad image quality doesn’t seem to be to great (although to be honest, I haven’t seen any real user experiences and examples yet). But you have to realise, this thing is fast. If you want to capture things “in the moment”, this is great, you can make a snapshot in 3 seconds or so, and you can adjust focus afterwards to suit your needs. It would be very different with a real camera, where you at least have to check what the camera is focussing on, before you can take a picture. This camera removes all the need to “think” about your picture. That said, I think it’s too expensive at this point, for some sort of point & shoot.. If you don’t mind taking a bit more effort in taking pictures, I hear the Sony Cybershot DSC-HX9] (for example) is a great point & shoot, which is cheaper, and does a lot more with greater image quality. If I had the money to spare, I’d buy this thing just for the gadget factor (I love the form factor by the way, no it’s not ergonomic, but since it’s small it can get away with that). Also, it’ll be a while before this will be implemented in other (“more serious”) cameras. It requires a whole different sensor, and the sensor in this thing is quite big. I don’t know how fast they’ll make it small enough to be used in conventional cameras, whether point & shoots, milc’s or dslr’s. And then there’s still the matter of the known camera manufacturers willingness to license this stuff, unless they want to develop their own lightfield sensors. Edit: Had a look again at the site, it’s not the sensor which is big, but rather the image processor. Edited October 30, 2011 by Sméagol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I learnt about affect/effect! Well, my work here is done... *shimmer* *dematerialise* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts