Can't find any information anywhere on the resolution of a Lytro photo. Not even on their website. That raises a red flag. What in the world is a 'megaray' and more importantly how do you compare that to megabytes for the purpose of estimating picture quality?
If the product meets the initial interest, I won't hesitate to get one. Love the weight. At over 2 lbs, it is just a few ounces less than my favourite workhorse in my film days), i.e., my Canon F1.
This is terrible though. It's got a horribly low resolution. It's nice to be able to change focus, but when the Rez is so low to begin with, it hardly matters.
Computational photography is definitely the future. Lytro's concept is but one part of it. Cameras will continue to gain options which will allow photographers to reframe, refocus, zoom and relight images in amazing new ways.
This is very much a niche product. With a fixed f/2 aperture, most photos are going to have significant swaths that are out of focus when the main subject is in focus. To see everything in focus requires interaction and can't be accomplished all at once in a single snapshot. Judging from characteristics of the original model, at 40 megarays the new model will have an effective resolution under 1 megapixel (or under 2 megapixels interpolated).
anyone know what is the physical size of the sensor?
With a fixed f/2 aperture, most photos are going to have significant swaths that are out of focus when the main subject is in focus.
I think that is the whole point of how they do selective focus. I'm going to assume that "40 mega-array" means there is an array of 40 (1 MP) sensors stacked over the top of each other. Each capturing at slight offset focal lengths. You can have a depth of field based on a single focal length with a shallow depth of field, or combine some/all of the other 39 focal length captures to give yourself a large effective depth of field.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
This is true. That's why I personally think adding something akin to LIDAR to the traditional digital camera sensors will be more useful for future cameras. If one is able to acquire a depth map of the scene being photographed, refocusing would theoretically be much more accurate and allow many more options (especially in terms of being able to relight a scene), but we would also be talking about a bundle of data which would kill the cameras of today.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
The more I read, the less I worry about resolution.
Quote: From TechCrunch
Why capture one [perfect] photo, from one angle, with one perspective, when we could capture everything? When I can explore a photo, zooming and panning and focusing and shifting, why would I ever want to just look at it?
Lytro’s first camera was a toy, but it made us think differently about what a photograph might someday be. Now it’s making those ideas truly achievable with the Illum, a professional-grade tool. If it works, if Lytro can convince just a few people that this is the future, I can’t even imagine what might come next.
And as I stated earlier, i.e., "If the product meets the initial interest, I won't hesitate to get one."
Why not? “Focus after the fact” is a great innovation. I don’t mean lytro the company, I mean lytro’s technology.
I think many people might be curious. However, I think most people who take photography seriously will already know what depth of field and focus they want when they compose the shot; and have the right gear and techique to achieve it. I think this product may be more for the people who take a "spray and pray" approach to photography or for people who have lots of disposable incoming and just want to play.
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be put into writing but it is a "light-field" camera which effectively is brand new technology relative to CCD sensing with a Bayer filter. To answer your question more directly it has a 4MP, peak, 2D output capability
boriscleto, do you know if these cameras use a Bayer array to produce color? Or a foveon technology? Or even a 3ccd? Or something completely different?
You really can't be that dense can you?
And if a Bayer array, then is 480 the number of elements high and wide? I'm not sure how that gets "interpolated" to make a 1080 picture though....
There is plenty of information on Lytro's web site. I'd leave the address but it is pretty obvious you need to learn to do a little leg work yourself.
I think this product may be more for the people who take a “spray and pray” approach to photography…
Exactly. That’s why it’s going to be big in the consumer market. That’s why autofocus was big. This is just the successor thereto.
no doubt, lack of viewfinder (optical or electronic), certainly places it firmly into the consumer space.
Someone mentioned that its fixed f2 lens makes the depth of field too shallow. Actually, I would bet they have the opposite problem in this product. It does not have enough isolation, likely due to a small physical sensor size.
anyone know what is the physical size of the sensor?
Really can people not read in this forum? ???? It says 40 megaray in the article and if you don't like that you can read the specs on Lytro web site.
I agree, can people not read "physical size"? people in glass houses should not throw stones. Take a chill pill please and when you are done, feel free to come back with a useful response.
It has 40 1 MP sensors, I get it. How large are they physically, in area dimensions.
and I went to the Lytro web site and could not find anything which states PHYSICAL SIZE of each sensor .
no doubt, lack of viewfinder (optical or electronic), certainly places it firmly into the consumer space.
Someone mentioned that its fixed f2 lens makes the depth of field too shallow. Actually, I would bet they have the opposite problem in this product. It does not have enough isolation, likely due to a small physical sensor size.
Suggest you watch this, rather than what someone else said.
In fact, I would suggest that this is one of the most informative, hands-on review to date.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
4 MP no matter you you compose the picture isn't really that bad. Beyond that the ability to reset focus and depth of field can be a wonderful thing in a fast paced setting or an environment with a lot of noise. I've had more than a few pictures ruined because the autofocus system decided to lock to a twig at the time I pushed the release. Or whatever it does that I didn't want it to do, the fact is there are many times when you want to recompose after the fact because you had little time to get it right at picture taking time.
Comments
480x480 is correct for the first models. This one is about twice that, about 950x950.
It's still pretty low. Their spec is that it will be good "up to 8x10", which isn't saying much. The first ones broke down just above 4x4.
This is terrible though. It's got a horribly low resolution. It's nice to be able to change focus, but when the Rez is so low to begin with, it hardly matters.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
So far I see the following criticisms of this camera:
Price
Megapixels
Form over function
Strangely this resembles the criticisms that some people have for Macs and iPhones. So why not offer the same defenses for Lytro?
Computational photography is definitely the future. Lytro's concept is but one part of it. Cameras will continue to gain options which will allow photographers to reframe, refocus, zoom and relight images in amazing new ways.
This is very much a niche product. With a fixed f/2 aperture, most photos are going to have significant swaths that are out of focus when the main subject is in focus. To see everything in focus requires interaction and can't be accomplished all at once in a single snapshot. Judging from characteristics of the original model, at 40 megarays the new model will have an effective resolution under 1 megapixel (or under 2 megapixels interpolated).
anyone know what is the physical size of the sensor?
Why not? “Focus after the fact” is a great innovation. I don’t mean lytro the company, I mean lytro’s technology.
With a fixed f/2 aperture, most photos are going to have significant swaths that are out of focus when the main subject is in focus.
I think that is the whole point of how they do selective focus. I'm going to assume that "40 mega-array" means there is an array of 40 (1 MP) sensors stacked over the top of each other. Each capturing at slight offset focal lengths. You can have a depth of field based on a single focal length with a shallow depth of field, or combine some/all of the other 39 focal length captures to give yourself a large effective depth of field.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
This is true. That's why I personally think adding something akin to LIDAR to the traditional digital camera sensors will be more useful for future cameras. If one is able to acquire a depth map of the scene being photographed, refocusing would theoretically be much more accurate and allow many more options (especially in terms of being able to relight a scene), but we would also be talking about a bundle of data which would kill the cameras of today.
All I need to know is the resolution, and we know that. It's fine for low quality pics, but not for much else.
The more I read, the less I worry about resolution.
Why capture one [perfect] photo, from one angle, with one perspective, when we could capture everything? When I can explore a photo, zooming and panning and focusing and shifting, why would I ever want to just look at it?
Lytro’s first camera was a toy, but it made us think differently about what a photograph might someday be. Now it’s making those ideas truly achievable with the Illum, a professional-grade tool. If it works, if Lytro can convince just a few people that this is the future, I can’t even imagine what might come next.
And as I stated earlier, i.e., "If the product meets the initial interest, I won't hesitate to get one."
Shift it over to "Illium," the Roman name, maybe the Hittite and Homeric name, for Troy.
But I tend to agree, how are we supposed to pronounce "Illum"?
Why not? “Focus after the fact” is a great innovation. I don’t mean lytro the company, I mean lytro’s technology.
I think many people might be curious. However, I think most people who take photography seriously will already know what depth of field and focus they want when they compose the shot; and have the right gear and techique to achieve it. I think this product may be more for the people who take a "spray and pray" approach to photography or for people who have lots of disposable incoming and just want to play.
You really can't be that dense can you? There is plenty of information on Lytro's web site. I'd leave the address but it is pretty obvious you need to learn to do a little leg work yourself.
Exactly. That’s why it’s going to be big in the consumer market. That’s why autofocus was big. This is just the successor thereto.
Exactly. That’s why it’s going to be big in the consumer market. That’s why autofocus was big. This is just the successor thereto.
no doubt, lack of viewfinder (optical or electronic), certainly places it firmly into the consumer space.
Someone mentioned that its fixed f2 lens makes the depth of field too shallow. Actually, I would bet they have the opposite problem in this product. It does not have enough isolation, likely due to a small physical sensor size.
Shift it over to "Illium," the Roman name, maybe the Hittite and Homeric name, for Troy.
But I tend to agree, how are we supposed to pronounce "Illum"?
Watch the first video.
Really can people not read in this forum? ???? It says 40 megaray in the article and if you don't like that you can read the specs on Lytro web site.
anyone know what is the physical size of the sensor?
Really can people not read in this forum? ???? It says 40 megaray in the article and if you don't like that you can read the specs on Lytro web site.
I agree, can people not read "physical size"? people in glass houses should not throw stones. Take a chill pill please and when you are done, feel free to come back with a useful response.
It has 40 1 MP sensors, I get it. How large are they physically, in area dimensions.
and I went to the Lytro web site and could not find anything which states PHYSICAL SIZE of each sensor .
no doubt, lack of viewfinder (optical or electronic), certainly places it firmly into the consumer space.
Someone mentioned that its fixed f2 lens makes the depth of field too shallow. Actually, I would bet they have the opposite problem in this product. It does not have enough isolation, likely due to a small physical sensor size.
Suggest you watch this, rather than what someone else said.
In fact, I would suggest that this is one of the most informative, hands-on review to date.
4 MP no matter you you compose the picture isn't really that bad. Beyond that the ability to reset focus and depth of field can be a wonderful thing in a fast paced setting or an environment with a lot of noise. I've had more than a few pictures ruined because the autofocus system decided to lock to a twig at the time I pushed the release. Or whatever it does that I didn't want it to do, the fact is there are many times when you want to recompose after the fact because you had little time to get it right at picture taking time.