My first photowalk with the Lytro lightfield camera | Hacker News Reader

My first photowalk with the Lytro lightfield camera

plus.google.com

25 pointsgeekfactor8 comments

This is always a good thing to have in your review:

Unfortunately Eric didn't let me share the actual images online, since this is still a pre-production unit and doesn't have the final software or viewer yet

This is a sad trend in the hardware industry; millions of dollars spent developing cool hardware, all to be ruined by not paying competent software developers. This has plagued Sony for ages and it's just kind of sad. (The justification is always, "our intellectual property is too valuable". Well guess what, it's not very valuable if the product you build with it is unusable.)

I'm also reacting to the fact that I will never be able to buy one of these, since there will never be Linux-based tools. Why is it so hard to spend a day setting an Ubuntu VM and a quick Makefile? I don't use Windows but can target software for it. Why is returning the favor so difficult?

In the video they state that the software is currently OS X only, there isn't even a Windows version.

I keep thinking these are a gimmick, and then I go through the recent photos I've taken and find lots of sets of shots where I'm trying to capture a close and far subject at different focus settings -- one in focus, the other out, then switch...hoping I find the one I like better later...so there's definite appeal here.

I'm not totally sold on this as 1st gen tech, but it's definitely something to watch as the technology matures.

Downside: I'm not as interested in the print aspects of the photos I take, I haven't looked at a physical photo in about 5 years, but I am interested in the longevity of the shots. Having to rely on a special format and viewer makes me want to stay away till it becomes at least a defacto standard if not a proper open standard available as a default in every OS I'd reasonably want to use -- just like jpg, gif, png, bmp are today.

stay away till it becomes at least a defacto standard if not a proper open standard available as a default in every OS I'd reasonably want to use -- just like jpg, gif, png, bmp are today.

I would rather compare it to raw than to jpeg. Looking how raw image formats face the problem of standarization (regardless of ISO 12234-2 - TIFF/EP), I wouldn't count on that happening soon. Currently photo manufacturers keep their raw formats proprietary, undocumented, and sometimes even obfuscated (opensource raw converters such as dcraw need to reverse engineer), so I doubt Lytro will behave differently.

Oh you just found out how to emulate the Lytro, take one shot focussed close and one at infinity. Because of the wide depth of field it has, those two shots should be enough if you take them at f11 or so. Possibly the most pointless photographic invention ever.

It's a little different, but not so much that I entirely disagree with you. If I have two subjects, one close and one far, I'll take two shots, with the focal plane on one, then the other. It's a different effect than shooting at infinity. It appears the Lytro essentially just lets you move the focal plane backwards and forwards, but you still essentially end up with one composition. It saves you from taking the two shots, but you can still only look at one plane at a time, and you need a proprietary format and viewer to do so.

But "far" for most small frame cameras or at any smallesh aperture is infinity as far as focus is concerned, or just use the hyperfocal distance. It is only close shots where you need to focus, and even then it is not as much as people think.

I have an old 1930s folding medium format camera that has two focus settings, people and landscape (and two apertures, sunny and cloudy) and it works fine...

> Well, if you just want the ultimately sharpest photo, this isn't a camera for you (it won't do 22 megapixel photos like my Canon 5D MKII will, and the images are generally good enough for on-screen use but if you want to blow them up to wall sized images, this isn't a camera for you).

> If you like having a huge choice of lenses, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want to shoot action sports, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want to see through the viewfinder to choose your own focus point, this isn't a camera for you.

> If you want the best low-light performance, then this isn't a camera for you.

Sounds like a great camera for actual photographers.

1) Megapixels != sharp photos. In terms of visual perception, contrast == sharpness. Soft edges means lack of sharpness. What's the leading cause of soft edges, you ask? Poor focus. Yes, some sensors and lenses produce sharper images than others, but in the vast majority of the cases, the photographer blaming the camera for soft images is actually to blame for poor focus or aperture selection. Choosing a large aperture causes tight DoF. I've shot with plenty of beginner photographers who went out and spent a fortune on fast glass with large apertures (f2.8 or lower), but fail to understand just how tight the focal plane will be when shooting at that large of an f-stop. The Lytro will be great for the type of photographer that wants to capture a scene or subject without worrying about focus. This will result in a lot sharper photos than rushed, out of focus shots.

2) Lenses are a means to an end. Want to shoot photos of birds? You need a very long lens. Want to shoot sports from the sidelines? You need a fast, moderately long lens. For the types of photos that most of us take, you don't need a lot of lenses. You just don't. Many of the greatest photographers ever to snap a shutter used tiny range finder cameras with a single, prime lens. The equipment is not the photo.

3) If you want to shoot action sports, get out your pocket book. It's that simple.

4) Not having used a Lytro, I'm not sure what he means here. As I understand it, you look at a Lytro like you would a telescope. A small screen on the back shows your composition. Since you can change focus later, I'm not sure why you'd need to choose a focal point.

5) Same rules apply here as they do for action sports. Having said that, advances in noise reduction algorithms have produced some pretty amazing results in the last few years, as have advances in sensor technology. I have no doubt that the first gen Lytro won't be a strong performer in low-light performance. This is a consequence of it's sensor design. Everything in life is a trade-off though. If your goal is to produce great photos, you won't mind a little noise. If your goal is to produce some kind of pixel-circle-jerk, 22 MP, xerographic copy of the scene, then by all means, go buy a Canon 5D ($2,500), an EF 50 f/1.4 prime ($350) [don't waste your money on the f/1.2], and a decent Manfrotto tripod ($150). For about $3,000, you'll have equipment that can capture photos as sharp as you could ever wish for.

I find the Lytro intriguing because it allows a photographer to snap the photo before all the decisions are made. This is a good thing. Great photos only present themselves for a moment. Focus is probably the hardest part of capturing these moments.

With today's software, a photo that is under/over exposed can be pushed about a full-stop in either direction without ruining the photo. When it comes to focus, there's absolutely nothing that can be done (until Lytro came along). The Lytro is a tool unlike any other, and I believe it will allow an average photographer to salvage photos that they might otherwise have to trash. By the numbers, this will produce more good photographs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com