I first want to congratulate and praise these advances in optics. I think it's great that they have received so much funding to further their pursuits.
I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense. The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level cameras are being fazed out obviously).
For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.
I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.
> For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition.
I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for professionals.
This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.
The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it time.
1) This is purely my opinion - There is a fundamental problem with these Lytros. Photography is an art, and art is not easy, which is exactly why art has some value, and not everyone can come up with art. It gives one a sense of joy, pride and achievement, when someone comes up with their own art, because they have taken the pains to capture the right subject, at the right moment with the right focus. What Lytro does is removes this sense of achievement, pride by making it easier for anyone and everyone to capture photos with the right subject, with the right focus - Even if they had captured it originally wrong. It makes the pro's look like idiots.
2) Design - The traditional DSLR's give you a sense of satisfaction, completion and pride when you hold them, because when someone else sees you holding them, they know you are putting in some effort to capture good photos.
The Lytro on the other hand looks like a traditional Kaleidoscope and when someone looks at you holding them - 1) They think its some toy, if they've never heard or seen a Lytro before or 2) They know its a device that lets anyone capture beautiful photos, so its no big deal.
There is very little pride of ownership in owning a Lytro, with contrast to a DSLR.
The Lytro needs some design elements from the traditional DSLR, to make it more appealing to the Masses. Had the Lytro been pitched in the form-factor of a DSLR, but with all the features that Lytro has now, it would have caught up like forest fire.
Lens compatibility. When people buy DSLR's, MOST of them buy the body because they know its from a company that manufactures great lenses (Eg: Canon). With Lytro, I'm not even sure if there are plans to manufacture external Lenses. Even if Lytro does manufacture them, it won't matter because companies like Canon/Nikon have a great array of Lenses, proven with the test of time. Lytro should in the least add support to fix lenses from 3rd party companies.
This is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen in a while.
1) Your first point is exactly why Lytro is exciting—it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.
Everything you said about Lytro could be said about auto light metering, auto focus, digital cameras, lcd viewfinders, Photoshop, etc... you have a bizarre, unproductive pretentiousness. Have you had the joy of carefully metering and focusing a film camera for the pride of seeing a print days later? Does that mean we shouldn't use digital cameras?
2) Why the hell would you create an easy-to-use camera for amateurs and give it interchangeable lens? The target audience of a Lytro isn't going to shop for a 28mm f/1.4 prime. More importantly, the focal length and aperture are fixed to a specific configuration for the microlens array, and that's a constraint of these plenoptic cameras that isn't going to change for a while.
I think you've posted the perfect cover letter for why you should never be CEO of Lytro.
It's great to see a high quality piece of hardware brought all the way to market by a startup. Within the realm of hackernews/ycomb there is a huge focus on software because of the relative cost of bringing it to market, it's understandable. But I would love to see some more stories on HN about some of the behemoth industrial plays that happen outside of the software world, this is a nice example of sorts although it is still a very software heavy company.
I assumed the Lytro device was a proof of concept for the technology so they could embed the technology in cell phones. I cannot fathom a billion dollar use case outside of cell phones.
[+] [-] jeffchuber|13 years ago|reply
I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense. The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level cameras are being fazed out obviously).
For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.
I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.
Maybe that's why this change is happening.
[+] [-] Daniel_Newby|13 years ago|reply
I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for professionals.
This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.
The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it time.
[+] [-] neya|13 years ago|reply
2) Design - The traditional DSLR's give you a sense of satisfaction, completion and pride when you hold them, because when someone else sees you holding them, they know you are putting in some effort to capture good photos.
The Lytro on the other hand looks like a traditional Kaleidoscope and when someone looks at you holding them - 1) They think its some toy, if they've never heard or seen a Lytro before or 2) They know its a device that lets anyone capture beautiful photos, so its no big deal.
There is very little pride of ownership in owning a Lytro, with contrast to a DSLR.
The Lytro needs some design elements from the traditional DSLR, to make it more appealing to the Masses. Had the Lytro been pitched in the form-factor of a DSLR, but with all the features that Lytro has now, it would have caught up like forest fire.
Lens compatibility. When people buy DSLR's, MOST of them buy the body because they know its from a company that manufactures great lenses (Eg: Canon). With Lytro, I'm not even sure if there are plans to manufacture external Lenses. Even if Lytro does manufacture them, it won't matter because companies like Canon/Nikon have a great array of Lenses, proven with the test of time. Lytro should in the least add support to fix lenses from 3rd party companies.
Just my 2 cents.
[+] [-] beering|13 years ago|reply
1) Your first point is exactly why Lytro is exciting—it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.
Everything you said about Lytro could be said about auto light metering, auto focus, digital cameras, lcd viewfinders, Photoshop, etc... you have a bizarre, unproductive pretentiousness. Have you had the joy of carefully metering and focusing a film camera for the pride of seeing a print days later? Does that mean we shouldn't use digital cameras?
2) Why the hell would you create an easy-to-use camera for amateurs and give it interchangeable lens? The target audience of a Lytro isn't going to shop for a 28mm f/1.4 prime. More importantly, the focal length and aperture are fixed to a specific configuration for the microlens array, and that's a constraint of these plenoptic cameras that isn't going to change for a while.
I think you've posted the perfect cover letter for why you should never be CEO of Lytro.
[+] [-] nhannah|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
(Apple would be a great place to look)
[+] [-] pclark|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|13 years ago|reply
How about security cameras that can be focused onto various parts of the scene and stored for posterity?
[+] [-] baq|13 years ago|reply
i'll refrain from saying more.
[+] [-] Caligula|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]