Lytro's light field is a bullshit product that very few photographers and even fewer consumers will actually give a shit about. Nikon, Canon, etc. have made far more significant advances in the last five years than Lytro. Here is a short list of reasons why Lytro's product is just a big ball of hype:
1) Horrible low light performance from the sensor, which they have deflected by talking up the relatively large aperture of their lens, which is not really even that impressive (f/0.95 would be impressive, maybe even an f/1.4, but f/2? go buy a Panasonic LX5, it blows the Lytro out of the water).
2) No one cares about adjusting focus after the fact, get it right the first time, or don't bother. Even when you can adjust the focus, 99.9% of the time, that feature is only useful for macro photography, which is generally tightly controlled and reproducible at the time of exposure
3) The resolution sucks.
4) The form factor is way too big for a supposedly revolutionary product
5) There is no convenient way to share your photos directly from the device
6) Slow frame rate (again, even the lowly and well aged LX5, which you can buy for around $270 on Amazon right now, blows it out of the water)
7) The UI sucks. They're going for Apple level quality there, but they're a bunch of third rate amateurs.
8) Only hobbyists and pros want to fiddle with an image after it's taken, your average Joe just wants it to look great the second they take it. What's better, red eye reduction in some software on your computer or red eye reduction in the camera?
You know who gives a shit about Lytro? Gadget bloggers do, because it's something new. That's it. The technology is hardly revolutionary. Due to the small sensor size in what they're offering, it's pretty hard to even tell you've shifted focus in anything other than a macro shot. Go look at this example:
http://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/144
This is one of the very few honest examples in their gallery. You can barely detect the focus shift because the depth of field is pretty high already, which is commonly the case with the cameras average users have embraced (wide angle lenses and a small aperture mean that almost any cell phone will guarantee that everything is in focus in a daylight pic). Furthermore, for the vast majority of photography there are not multiple points that should be in focus. 99% of the time, you either want everything in focus or only one thing in focus. Look at this example:
http://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/138
Why would I want only one in focus?? So my gadget blogging buddies can fiddle fuck around with it using some proprietary widget on some website? Jesus.
Lightfield's everything in focus tech comes at a cost that is far, far too high. None of Kodak's expertise can correct for that, because it is basically a question of processing power and what the sensor is optimized for. What do you want? High resolution? Great low light sensitivity? Super high frame rates? Selective focus in editing? Super long battery life? You can't have them all. Consumers won't care about it, pros don't care about it, and there will be a terrible, terrible bunch of reviews as soon as they get to market. I wish they were public so I could short them.
Lenticular printing?? Seriously? Hollywood and every TV manufacturer are slowly realizing (again, because they like to do this every 40 years or so) that almost no one cares about 3D TVs or programming. You want Kodak to go down that path in a format where it's not even as beneficial?
Printing 3D objects is something Kodak could go after, but do they have any expertise whatsoever in that field? Creating a truly revolutionary digital camera (e.g. something that captures things people actually care about, like crazy fast action at a kid's soccer game from 30 yards away like the new Nikon V1 can, and can be shared instantly) is another thing they should go after.
Lightfield. Ha.