I'm not using it so much. It's pretty limited, IMO, in both use and need. The lens cap won't stay on, the display has an extremely narrow field of view and is a bit small.
What, if anything, has made you regret getting it? (other than size of picture image...I know it's only 1.2MP)
I wish I used it more! But I'm still fascinated by it and glad I have it, even though it's really just a novelty thing for me. As a camera itself it's really not all that useful, I don't think.
What I'd like to know is how many photosites are binned together to make a single pixel? 10? 20? 40?
A full-frame sensor with the photosite density of the Canon G10's sensor would have almost 300 million photosites - and this isn't even close to the highest-density sensor. If these photosites were to be binned together to make, say, a 30MP image, it could be quite useable. Diffraction wouldn't be any more of an issue than for any other 30MP full-frame camera - there are still 30MP, just that, instead of having a single photosite behind each pixel, there are 10. Same goes for noise.
Naturally, this is still experimental technology at the moment, and the Lytro is more a proof-of-concept exercise than anything else.
I agree with your proof of concept comment (as a Lytro owner and user). I've read that they use an 11-ish MP sensor and use clusters of about 10 pixel diameter photosites for each data point. Also someone in Lytro commented that stuck pixels are not a problem since so much data are gathered. The 11 MP / 10 gives the 1080 by 1080 pixel JPGs that the desktop software builds from the camera data. The files that are actually uploaded to lytro dot com are only about 1 mb and consist of largely a depth map and JPGs. Lytro boosts the color of the JPGs before putting them in their library for their Flash apps to show. I've made an animated GIF from four of the JPGs out of a lytro file here: http://kailuasteveberg.wordpress.com/at-the-zoo/
There are artifacts in the dark portion of some lytro images, but I think those are from the processing, not from the camera. They say that better software will permit all in focus and wiggle 3-d viewing (which they have already demonstrated) so current early-edition "images" (data files?) will be able to be reprocessed and improved.
I hope. ;-)
I recently played with one for almost a week and while it is definitely neat and it took decent enough photos, it was a pain to wait until I got home, went down to my iMac (no laptop here), downloaded them then waited for them to be ready....which seemed to take a lot longer than I would have thought. I'm not talking 100's of pictures, but like 30 would take long enough where I left and did other things.
Another con is when I posted pictures, people would comment on the noise, even in sun. And editing on the computer? Forget it...cropping and refocusing is ALL you can do right now.
On the pro side, wow...I love the form factor. Took a few minutes to get used to but this is definitely something I liked. I got all kinds of looks and questions about what I had and when I explained to them what it was, they were very interested. Macro photography would benefit from this camera I think.
But...and here's where I'm hoping that Lytro comes out with an update for...what would REALLY boost this camera sales is to REALLY have the camera do all in focus. That update is coming soon...when? Who knows. But that way, people can truly point and shoot without focusing and then focus on the computer. As is, right now when you just point it and shoot, not everything (if anything!) is in focus. Kind of frustrating. Lytro says that you need to learn how to compose all over again...thinking in 3D. While that's interesting and the "living photos" concept is cool, it gets old pretty fast especially since you can only upload that format to Lytro's site. Open it up to other software/sites and you will see a benefit.
Oh, and make it truly portable by creating an app for the iPad.
it's usual for people to have a wishlist for anything they own... if only this, if only that... but any technology including cameras has definite limitations and many of our wishes for technology simply cannot be achieved, and never will be achieved
in the case of photography, the basics of the technology haven't changed in fundamental ways since the development of lenses, shutters, aperture, focal length and practical sensors. why? because light is what it is, and it always has been, and will be
so first, Lytro has to deal with light. second Lytro has to work with lens, shutter, aperture, focal length and sensor to capture, manipulate and record light, and all of these components bring unavoidable limitations of their own. Lytro can't surmount such limitations any more than any other camera
the problems with the Lytro that you describe are a mixture of data, performance and practicality factors. it's the same set of issues which fill these and similar forums. in the case of the Lytro the data problem is mainly a computing problem, and this has implications for saving, uploading, editing and end use in the kind of ways you have described
since digital we are all familiar with having to use off-camera computing resources, as in such applications as Aperture and Lightroom, etc. (photography has always needed other supporting technology as well as just camera specific technology, eg darkroom technology). as well, some of the most significant recent advances in camera bodies have been in in-camera software handling of data (in the case of Canon, the latest DPP will get you a big hunk of the advances in the latest bodies, without upgrade and for free!). with Lytro you have to use the off-camera computing resources of that company. no way round it!
being able to buy a Lytro is one thing. I'm all for it! finding that it is worthwhile owning is another. to my mind, and with reference to "photographic values", the Lytro is not very desirable, and I think that it is never going to be
once upon a time microscopes worked with visible light. now they work with electrons. where are the electron point-and-shoots?:D
I recently played with one for almost a week and while it is definitely neat and it took decent enough photos, it was a pain to wait until I got home, went down to my iMac (no laptop here), downloaded them then waited for them to be ready....which seemed to take a lot longer than I would have thought. I'm not talking 100's of pictures, but like 30 would take long enough where I left and did other things.
Another con is when I posted pictures, people would comment on the noise, even in sun. And editing on the computer? Forget it...cropping and refocusing is ALL you can do right now.
On the pro side, wow...I love the form factor. Took a few minutes to get used to but this is definitely something I liked. I got all kinds of looks and questions about what I had and when I explained to them what it was, they were very interested. Macro photography would benefit from this camera I think.
But...and here's where I'm hoping that Lytro comes out with an update for...what would REALLY boost this camera sales is to REALLY have the camera do all in focus. That update is coming soon...when? Who knows. But that way, people can truly point and shoot without focusing and then focus on the computer. As is, right now when you just point it and shoot, not everything (if anything!) is in focus. Kind of frustrating. Lytro says that you need to learn how to compose all over again...thinking in 3D. While that's interesting and the "living photos" concept is cool, it gets old pretty fast especially since you can only upload that format to Lytro's site. Open it up to other software/sites and you will see a benefit.
Oh, and make it truly portable by creating an app for the iPad.
Comments
I wish I used it more! But I'm still fascinated by it and glad I have it, even though it's really just a novelty thing for me. As a camera itself it's really not all that useful, I don't think.
I haven't.
John[/QUOTE]
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I agree with your proof of concept comment (as a Lytro owner and user). I've read that they use an 11-ish MP sensor and use clusters of about 10 pixel diameter photosites for each data point. Also someone in Lytro commented that stuck pixels are not a problem since so much data are gathered. The 11 MP / 10 gives the 1080 by 1080 pixel JPGs that the desktop software builds from the camera data. The files that are actually uploaded to lytro dot com are only about 1 mb and consist of largely a depth map and JPGs. Lytro boosts the color of the JPGs before putting them in their library for their Flash apps to show. I've made an animated GIF from four of the JPGs out of a lytro file here: http://kailuasteveberg.wordpress.com/at-the-zoo/
There are artifacts in the dark portion of some lytro images, but I think those are from the processing, not from the camera. They say that better software will permit all in focus and wiggle 3-d viewing (which they have already demonstrated) so current early-edition "images" (data files?) will be able to be reprocessed and improved.
I hope. ;-)
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Another con is when I posted pictures, people would comment on the noise, even in sun. And editing on the computer? Forget it...cropping and refocusing is ALL you can do right now.
On the pro side, wow...I love the form factor. Took a few minutes to get used to but this is definitely something I liked. I got all kinds of looks and questions about what I had and when I explained to them what it was, they were very interested. Macro photography would benefit from this camera I think.
But...and here's where I'm hoping that Lytro comes out with an update for...what would REALLY boost this camera sales is to REALLY have the camera do all in focus. That update is coming soon...when? Who knows. But that way, people can truly point and shoot without focusing and then focus on the computer. As is, right now when you just point it and shoot, not everything (if anything!) is in focus. Kind of frustrating. Lytro says that you need to learn how to compose all over again...thinking in 3D. While that's interesting and the "living photos" concept is cool, it gets old pretty fast especially since you can only upload that format to Lytro's site. Open it up to other software/sites and you will see a benefit.
Oh, and make it truly portable by creating an app for the iPad.
Maybe next year I will order one.
it's usual for people to have a wishlist for anything they own... if only this, if only that...
in the case of photography, the basics of the technology haven't changed in fundamental ways since the development of lenses, shutters, aperture, focal length and practical sensors. why? because light is what it is, and it always has been, and will be
so first, Lytro has to deal with light. second Lytro has to work with lens, shutter, aperture, focal length and sensor to capture, manipulate and record light, and all of these components bring unavoidable limitations of their own. Lytro can't surmount such limitations any more than any other camera
the problems with the Lytro that you describe are a mixture of data, performance and practicality factors. it's the same set of issues which fill these and similar forums. in the case of the Lytro the data problem is mainly a computing problem, and this has implications for saving, uploading, editing and end use in the kind of ways you have described
since digital we are all familiar with having to use off-camera computing resources, as in such applications as Aperture and Lightroom, etc. (photography has always needed other supporting technology as well as just camera specific technology, eg darkroom technology). as well, some of the most significant recent advances in camera bodies have been in in-camera software handling of data (in the case of Canon, the latest DPP will get you a big hunk of the advances in the latest bodies, without upgrade and for free!). with Lytro you have to use the off-camera computing resources of that company. no way round it!
being able to buy a Lytro is one thing. I'm all for it! finding that it is worthwhile owning is another. to my mind, and with reference to "photographic values", the Lytro is not very desirable, and I think that it is never going to be
once upon a time microscopes worked with visible light. now they work with electrons. where are the electron point-and-shoots?:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix