Lytro camera - I don't get it!

jfriend

I must say that I just don't get this Lytro camera. Today's product is cool and whizzy techology and somewhat amazing that they can do what they can do, but why does anyone really want to use one? It looks to me like technology looking for a good problem to solve and what most of us use cameras for isn't that problem.

I can't find anything that I normally shoot that would benefit from using the Lytro over any camera I currently own. I can't find any scenario where I'd rather carry a Lytro than any one of the cameras I already own.

And, this is before even beginning to discuss some of the drawbacks of the technology:

• 1.2 Megapixel resolution images in days when phones do 10MP
• No video capabilities
• $399 price tag is more than many highly capable compact cameras
• No editing tools for live images. If you want to edit, you have to convert to standard JPEG and then you've lost the refocusing capability.
• Tiny screen (partly because of the odd form factor they chose)

FYI, I'm not attempting to predict what might happen with the technology in the future and whether they do or don't find something that lots of people want. I'm saying that today's product does not seem to have found a useful problem to solve that lots of people want. One of the reasons you ship v1 is to start the process of finding out what it's good for and what people might use it for, but it seems like they're still searching for that.

MarkR

Because it's new and whizzy and some people just like playing with new technology.

ziggy53

It's possible to share the image matrix through the Lytro site, so that other people can play with the depth "layers". Using this method I was able to screen grab all the different layers and composite them using image stacking software to produce a result with greater DOF "and" with more usable pixels. Yes, it was a lot of work (relatively) to get to a slightly more typical P&S quality image.

Still, it has that "wow" factor that some folks enjoy. (I'm still waiting for 3D images to become popular too.)

Eventually, you'll be able to do much more with the images, including a 3D stereo image from the original image matrix data. (I believe that will include this current camera image data.) It's possible that image quality will improve too.

IOW, everything Lytro is still in its infancy, but it's likely that even early adopters will be able to benefit from later improvements. "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

jmphotocraft

It is a toy for people living their lives on facebook.

ian408

I wouldn't call it a toy. The concept is still new and people are figuring out ways to use it. I can think of one way that would be beneficial to the casual shooter and that is to readjust the focus. People miss the focus a lot and with Lytro, they're able to "fix" that. Ziggy offers an example of something that can also be done in software.

I think it will only be a matter of time before we see more from them and the technology.

jnicklin

Might be of some use for security systems, it could replace the usual fuzzy, blurry, grainy, unrecognizable pictures with something the cops could refocus later if/when needed.

jfriend

jnicklin wrote: »

Might be of some use for security systems, it could replace the usual fuzzy, blurry, grainy, unrecognizable pictures with something the cops could refocus later if/when needed.

I don't think they know how to do video with it yet. Somewhat by definition, it has to capture a lot more data (in order to be able to do the refocusing) and it's much lower resolution. The resolution might be OK for security video, but they'll have to figure out how to do video with it with a practical amount of data capture.

My point was that the current camera is still a technology looking for a problem which seems borne out by the responses that are guessing what problems it might be useful for.

ian408

Grainy security videos have more to do with the quality of the cameras/lenses. The vast majority of 'good' cameras are in the thousand dollar plus range. Most of those you see video from are < $300 each, poorly set up and poorly maintained

ziggy53

Each Lytro capture is processed to form a number of "layers" or "depths". These can be animated with little effort and I'm waiting to see the first video using this effect.

"Some" of what the Lytro can do hasn't even been envisioned yet.

Sand

Think of the Lytro as you did the 1 - 2 mpix digital cameras of 10 years ago. Who in their right mind would want such a thing when Kodachrome is so much better? And yet as digital improved it has pretty much driven Kodak out of business. In ten more years, people may be saying "I can remember when cameras had to be focused before taking a picture. It was horrible."

jfriend

Sand wrote: »

Think of the Lytro as you did the 1 - 2 mpix digital cameras of 10 years ago. Who in their right mind would want such a thing when Kodachrome is so much better? And yet as digital improved it has pretty much driven Kodak out of business. In ten more years, people may be saying "I can remember when cameras had to be focused before taking a picture. It was horrible."

That could be, but as the technology stands now, I can find no reason to want one or to use one. I'm not arguing that they won't figure out interesting things to do with the technology in 10 years. Heck, maybe all digital cameras will have some technology like this in them in some number of years.

I'm arguing that as the product stands now, it's a technological curiosity looking for some useful problem to solve.

MarkR

jfriend wrote: »

That could be, but as the technology stands now, I can find no reason to want one or to use one. I'm not arguing that they won't figure out interesting things to do with the technology in 10 years. Heck, maybe all digital cameras will have some technology like this in them in some number of years.

I'm arguing that as the product stands now, it's a technological curiosity looking for some useful problem to solve.

Sometimes, and for some people, technological toys are their own reward.

ziggy53

Let me put it this way, the Polaroid 300 and Fuhifilm Instax "Mini" series instant film cameras still sell fairly well. They cost $60USD on up, and then you have to buy film too. After a few years, you will easily have $400 invested into the system, and all you've gotten are very small photos that are very difficult to reproduce. (That may be part of the allure.)

Yet, these cameras still sell well, even in this digital age.

They are not appropriate for my needs, but obviously they meet the needs of many others.

Or how about the professional line of Canon (EOS-1V) and Nikon (F6) 135 format, 35mm film cameras? These are tremendously expensive and the cost of ownership includes the cost of film and processing purchases. Most people are not going to purchase them and will purchase digital equivalents instead, but a few professional film cameras sell even today. (Actually, I think most of them go to municipalities as forensic tools where film still counts as a reliable method of preventing image manipulation.)

My point is that just because something doesn't fit "your" needs, doesn't mean that it doesn't fit other's needs and/or wishes. For people with the economic means, the Lytro camera may satisfy as a unique and innovative photographic product.

jmphotocraft

ziggy53 wrote: »

but a few professional film cameras sell even today. (Actually, I think most of them go to municipalities as forensic tools where film still counts as a reliable method of preventing image manipulation.)

Sidebar, but I thought I heard that film has not been admissible as evidence for many years...? All film is digitally scanned in order to be printed now, so unless they look at the negatives or project slides...

I can see a use for the Lytro as a security camera. I can also see it being used by Ken Burns and his imitators for another dimension in their documentaries and slideshows. Hmm... maybe I should get one for my real estate shoots...

Harryb

I'm not interested in the camera but the technology is very interesting. You also have to remember back 15 years or so when most digital cameras were a novelty whose IQ didn't approach the IQ of film. This is just the starting point.

jfriend

ziggy53 wrote: »

Let me put it this way, the Polaroid 300 and Fuhifilm Instax "Mini" series instant film cameras still sell fairly well. They cost $60USD on up, and then you have to buy film too. After a few years, you will easily have $400 invested into the system, and all you've gotten are very small photos that are very difficult to reproduce. (That may be part of the allure.)

Yet, these cameras still sell well, even in this digital age.

They are not appropriate for my needs, but obviously they meet the needs of many others.

Or how about the professional line of Canon (EOS-1V) and Nikon (F6) 135 format, 35mm film cameras? These are tremendously expensive and the cost of ownership includes the cost of film and processing purchases. Most people are not going to purchase them and will purchase digital equivalents instead, but a few professional film cameras sell even today. (Actually, I think most of them go to municipalities as forensic tools where film still counts as a reliable method of preventing image manipulation.)

My point is that just because something doesn't fit "your" needs, doesn't mean that it doesn't fit other's needs and/or wishes. For people with the economic means, the Lytro camera may satisfy as a unique and innovative photographic product.

Does the Lytro camera as it stands today suit ANYONE's needs? Do you know anyone who would rather use today's shipping Lytro for their photography over other cameras? I don't. I only know a few people who played with one out of curiosity and then sent it on to other people to play with out of their curiosity. My supposition is that it doesn't really meet anyone's needs right now. It certainly doesn't meet mine, but I can't find anyone who wants/needs it other than some short term play out of technological curiosity.

ziggy53

jfriend wrote: »

Does the Lytro camera as it stands today suit ANYONE's needs? ...

Yes, in that it provides an interesting social interaction that you can't get from most other camera systems. The ability to focus after the fact provides a unique experience.

jfriend wrote: »

... Do you know anyone who would rather use today's shipping Lytro for their photography over other cameras? I don't. I only know a few people who played with one out of curiosity and then sent it on to other people to play with out of their curiosity. My supposition is that it doesn't really meet anyone's needs right now. It certainly doesn't meet mine, but I can't find anyone who wants/needs it other than some short term play out of technological curiosity.

That's a completely separate issue. I agree that a Lytro camera is not a general photography tool. In that regard, neither is my Calumet 4" x 5" monorail view camera. Neither would make a good "only" camera but both can yield a rather unique product that general photography cameras do not provide.

I agree with you in that a Lytro camera would not serve me very well, considering my interests and needs. I can certainly see how others might use one, similar to how I can see how others use a Diana or a Holga (which I also don't use).

ziggy53

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Sidebar, but I thought I heard that film has not been admissible as evidence for many years...? All film is digitally scanned in order to be printed now, so unless they look at the negatives or project slides...

...

Some courts and some cases still may require either film or some sort of image authentication (in the case of digital) to assure an original image. Film is still allowed because of its intrinsic resistance to tampering.

Digital image authentication is now under review, because a Russian firm demonstrated that both the Canon and the Nikon image authentication systems may be compromised.

It's generally the high-profile cases where authenticity is ever questioned, however. As long as normal chain-of-evidence (or chain-of-custody) procedures are followed, it's rarely questioned for either film or digital acquisition. In those cases where authentication is a question, written testimony (or personal testimony) by the evidentiary custodian is generally sufficient.

Manfr3d

This is cool, a camera that doesn't look like a camera. Nobody will care if you photograph them as long as you look hip, easy going and snap happy!

Stuart-M

jfriend wrote: »

I must say that I just don't get this Lytro camera. It's cool and whizzy techology and somewhat amazing that they can do what they can do, but why does anyone really want to use one? It looks to me like technology looking for a good problem to solve and what most of us use cameras for isn't that problem.

I can't find anything that I normally shoot that would benefit from using the Lytro over any camera I currently own. I can't find any scenario where I'd rather carry a Lytro than any one of the cameras I already own.

And, this is before even beginning to discuss some of the drawbacks of the technology:

• 1.2 Megapixel resolution images in days when phones do 10MP
• No video capabilities
• $399 price tag is more than many highly capable compact cameras
• No editing tools for live images. If you want to edit, you have to convert to standard JPEG and then you've lost the refocusing capability.
• Tiny screen (partly because of the odd form factor they chose)

It's cool, what more needs to be said than that!

JohnR

Exactly. I ordered one because it's an addition to my camera gear. Gear that is essentially collecting dust because I got tired of carrying around something that when I bring it out people instinctively react too. (good or bad). I just want to take casual pictures and this fits that bill.

Plus, with macro, you can get the better shot...at least I can. I find that sometimes the focus is JUST off...with this, I can refocus to where I want.

It's a new thing out there so the only way to go is UP!

Like Ziggy said, it may not be for you or YOUR friends, but there is a market out there. Look at what the iPod did and how it has evolved.

5 years from now, you may just end up owning one!

Harryb

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/lytro-light-field-camera-hands/MjAyMzE1NjM_A

ian408

jfriend wrote: »

My supposition is that it doesn't really meet anyone's needs right now. It certainly doesn't meet mine, but I can't find anyone who wants/needs it other than some short term play out of technological curiosity.

You could have said the same thing about camera phones just a short time ago. Now, you can get a camera phone that's on par with many small p&s cameras on most phones-applications like Camera Awesome or Instagram make the whole process of taking, editing, and publishing simple.

I don't think you can make a strong case (either way) for the success or failure of Lytro as a product right now.

jfriend

ian408 wrote: »

You could have said the same thing about camera phones just a short time ago. Now, you can get a camera phone that's on par with many small p&s cameras on most phones-applications like Camera Awesome or Instagram make the whole process of taking, editing, and publishing simple.

I don't think you can make a strong case (either way) for the success or failure of Lytro as a product right now.

I think we're successfully making a case for today's product being a failure which is my point. I can't find anyone who uses one (other than temporarily playing with it to see the technology) or can even describe how it would be genuinely useful to them.

I'm not attempting to predict what might happen with that technology in the future or what future products might be made out of it. They might or might not figure something out in the future. I'm talking about the product they have today.

ian408

jfriend wrote: »

I think we're successfully making a case for today's product being a failure which is my point.

Being that it's been in consumer hands for just a few months, I believe it's too early to call it anything.

JohnR

jfriend wrote: »

I think we're successfully making a case for today's product being a failure which is my point. I can't find anyone who uses one (other than temporarily playing with it to see the technology) or can even describe how it would be genuinely useful to them.

Who's we? I think you are TRYING to make one, but I don't think it's successful.

It's a brand new device and you are already declaring it dead. Just curious, are you a pessimist?

What did you think when Apple introduced the original iPod? Seriously...many people thought that Apple was crazy for not having a removable SD card, no replaceable battery, limited space (5GB), tied to iTunes, etc.

If it hadn't been for that and iTunes, there would be no iPhone/iPad and your current cellphone would suck. (remember when the Motorola RAZR was THE biggest seller at one time? Now imaging trying to go BACK to using it! Yikes!)

Relating to photography, how long did it take you to switch to digital?

JohnR

Harryb wrote: »

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/lytro-light-field-camera-hands/MjAyMzE1NjM_A

Interesting video, but honestly, I thought it was stupid. Too much time yammering when he should have been putting it to test.

jfriend

JohnR wrote: »

Who's we? I think you are TRYING to make one, but I don't think it's successful.

It's a brand new device and you are already declaring it dead. Just curious, are you a pessimist?

What did you think when Apple introduced the original iPod? Seriously...many people thought that Apple was crazy for not having a removable SD card, no replaceable battery, limited space (5GB), tied to iTunes, etc.

If it hadn't been for that and iTunes, there would be no iPhone/iPad and your current cellphone would suck. (remember when the Motorola RAZR was THE biggest seller at one time? Now imaging trying to go BACK to using it! Yikes!)

Relating to photography, how long did it take you to switch to digital?

By "we", I meant that nobody in this thread has yet identified anyone who's using it regularly or described what it's being used for.

Can you find ANYONE who likes the Lytro and uses it regularly for something? I'm not declaring the technology dead. It may find a successful path sometime in the future. I'm just saying that I can't find anyone who finds the current Lytro product useful for anything other than a technology demonstration so the product looks like it's a technology in search of a useful problem to solve. You guys are reading more into what I'm saying than I intend.

The early consumer digital cameras were immediately useful to some. They didn't match up to the quality of film at the time (nor was anyone expecting them to), but they were immediately useful to some people even with their drawbacks (slow, low resolution, short battery life). I had one that I took photos of kids with. I don't yet see a parallel with the Lytro. It's amazing technology, but I don't see that they've yet found the right way to make it a mainstream consumer product.

I'm not sure what your iPod/iPhone/iTunes comments have to do with Lytro. Those products were all immediately useful to many. They introduced some different/contoversial notions, but they were all immediately useful. Are you saying the current Lytro is in that category?

ian408

jfriend wrote: »

By "we", I meant that nobody in this thread has yet identified anyone who's using it regularly or described what it's being used for.

I know several people outside of this forum who have them and use them to take pictures in the same manner you'd use a cell phone.

jfriend

JohnR wrote: »

Interesting video, but honestly, I thought it was stupid. Too much time yammering when he should have been putting it to test.

It seems like he mostly just talked about the form factor and discussed the photos very little. I think there were only three very small photos even shown during the video.

JohnR

ChrisH101 on NikonCafe has and uses one. If you go on Lytro's site, in the support section, you can see questions by people who use it. Lytro also has a FB page and people post on there. In fact, it was because of the guitarist Joe Satriani (chickenfoot) posting how he has one is how I found out about it. (look under May 10th entry on Chickenfoot's FB page)

The fact that it's so new is the cause of not many people having it right now. I ordered one last week and expected arrival is June-July, so give it a year to see if it's growing.