
The Light L16 – a multi-aperture computational camera - derwiki
https://light.co/
======
chaostheory
Constructive feedback about the video and website (if the founders are
reading)... I'm probably not the target demographic since I don't know much
about cameras, but the video did not quickly explain to me why this camera was
so special aside from me seeing multiple lenses; I would have just turned it
off after the 15 second mark (even if I saw this on Product Hunt) if this
wasn't posted on HN. It felt like the video didn't really convey anything and
I couldn't help but feel that it was a waste of my time watching it to the
end. Of course it could just be me.

If only this was front and center on their webpage (it took me a really long
time to find this):

 _" With 16 individual cameras, 10 of them firing simultaneously, the L16
captures the detail of your shot at multiple fixed focal lengths. Then the
images are computationally fused to create an incredible high-quality final
image with up to 52 megapixel resolution."_

So you can fit a camera with the power of a DSLR in your pocket now, while
having the same ease of use as a smart phone?

As a quick fix: drop the video and fix your site so that you can explain why
your camera is so special at the top of the page. Use the image gallery as
quick proof right after the explanation.

~~~
eggie
It's not just you. The video, while beautiful, is completely superfluous and
distracting from the target market. In the video, nice people use a cool
smartphone to take pictures. One edits them on their computer. People are
enjoying what they are doing. I had to guess, based on the fact that the
camera appears to have multiple (independent?) lenses, that some kind of
computational method was combining the image data, and then returning to the
site revealed that this is basically the case.

Many questions remain unanswered. Will I be able to fully edit the photos on
my phone, or do I need to get a Mac and some custom software to really take
advantage of this system? Will the software on the device be open? I'd like
insurance against the unfortunate case that you make a nice device but then go
out of business. Will the battery be replaceable? A non-replaceable battery in
a $1600 handheld device is a really nasty design decision.

In short, really nice, and I would love to drop $200 right now to reserve one,
but I'm afraid that I won't be able to undo the reservation if it turns out
that the feature set of the phone doesn't match up with my practical needs.
Marketing: you are losing sales right now. Go back to the beginning and
explain to us _why_ this is a good device.

~~~
gocoder23
In addition, neither the video nor the FAQs clearly explain the basic
technical details that users look for in a device

------
vessenes
Some raw (is there an equivalent here?) or high res samples would be greatly
appreciated in exchange for my deposit.

I had an interesting reaction reading this: I'm totally sold on the idea and
science behind this. We have large scale radio telescopes, why not cameras?

But, I'm super turned off by the proposed plan: modified android OS combined
with the promo photos makes me think viewfinder lag is going to be a bitch. v1
seems likely to feel like a janky short-run phone from a new manufacturer.
Which is too bad, because the concept and possibilities are amazing.

Light; the articles mentioned a partnership with FoxConn; why not work with
them or Samsung to put one out that you just license tech for?

And, it would be cool to see some high res samples.

~~~
moultano
If you break it out of the gallery, you can get a little better look.
[http://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_13.jpg](http://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_13.jpg)
[http://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_14.jpg](http://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_14.jpg)

Pretty impressive.

~~~
vessenes
I liked that first picture, too. And on closer inspection it's interesting --
some different color temperatures in different spots. I wonder if you get a
natural HDR type capability using different sensors like this. The second one
makes me think low light should be reasonably good, which is what I would hope
for considering the technology description.

~~~
eurekin
About the low light... You might want to take a look at this image as well:
[https://light.co/content/2-gallery/rtalt6.jpg](https://light.co/content/2-gallery/rtalt6.jpg)

~~~
lumpypua
That's insane how well the faces are exposed given the dynamic range of the
light in that shot. With an SLR the correct exposure is like walking a
tightrope. Definite postprocessing required to get a result near the L16
image.

~~~
alkonaut
I don't see the problem with exposing that on an SLR. Just meter for the
faces? It looks just like any noisy high-ISO SLR image to me?

~~~
moron4hire
Any modern full-frame Canon with the ol' "nifty fifty" (cheap fixed 50mm, 1.8f
lens) could get a shot like this. I've taken portraits in-doors in candlelight
with mine.

~~~
jerich
It took me a few looks at this picture to pick up on the fact that it is all
in focus, whereas the depth of field of the f/1.8 lens is going to give you
one of the subjects' eyes in focus.

I was a little disappointed in the amount of noise and the noise reduction in
this pic until I started thinking about how it would look with other cameras.
Probably a blurry, noisy mess with cellphone or compacts. To get the same
effect as this pic with a DSLR, you'd have to massively stop down that 50mm
lens and would end up boosting the ISO so high that even a modern full-frame
DSLR wouldn't be that much better.

~~~
moron4hire
You won't get both the front and the back of the table in focus, but given how
far back you'd have to sit to get all three people in frame, you'd probably be
able to get all three people in focus, especially if the guy in the back leans
in a little. Also, I mentioned Canon because their high ISO modes are
particularly low noise these days, even before noise reduction. And Nikon
might have caught up as well, I haven't reviewed lately.

But that's actually not the most important part.

The most important part is that there are only two cameras in my life: my
"good" camera and my smartphone, aka the camera I use when I know I'm going to
be taking photos, and the camera I have on me all the time.

Since this image is probably boosted and noise reduced and photoshopped to
make it the most presentable representation of the product, I really think the
same amount of effort would get you better results, for less money, out of a
DSLR. If you're into spending money, the right DSLR and lens combo would get
you far, far better results.

On the other hand, yes, DSLRs are bulky and you don't want to carry them
everywhere. But the Light is not a smartphone, so it's yet another device to
have to remember and carry around, so while it's smaller, I'm still likely to
leave it home because I just don't think to bring cameras with me everywhere.
I've got an older smartphone (Galaxy Note 3) that can take photos pretty near
this quality in its fakey HDR mode. I've seen some shots out of the newest
iPhone that very much rival this sort of photo. And that iPhone is cheaper
than the Light, plus it's not an extra device.

~~~
alkonaut
That's why it's most interesting as a concept and not a product. I'd really
like my next iPhone (the iPhone 8S if if past shopping behaviour is any
indication) to have 3-4 lenses and sensors, if it meant it could be more
sensitive in low light _or_ use different focal lengths in good light, and
still not be bigger than my current iPhone is. So this company should just
make a showcase product, and then wait to be bought by sony/apple/samsung.

------
tdj
There was a pretty good interview with their CTO a few months ago on Imaging
Resource. Much more technical than what you see on the site, also gives a
glimpse on what they were thinking when they were developing this.

[http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/04/27/light-
interv...](http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/04/27/light-interview-no-
more-full-frame-dslrs-by-2025)

Personally I think the money shot is the synthetic DoF simulation on the
skater:

[https://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_11.jpg](https://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_11.jpg)
[https://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_06.jpg](https://light.co/content/2-gallery/gallery_modal_06.jpg)

The subject isolation properties is a pretty big reason why people still
bother with large-sensor cameras. As an amaterur, I don't have big demands for
image quality, so I only bring my D60 or F4 when I want subject isolation.
Otherwise I'm pretty happy with my smartphone as a camera (Lumia 930).

~~~
bonaldi
I too am interested in this for shallow dof, and was excited at the idea that
these lenses are effectively f1.2. But there's no way that skater shot is
f1.2-equivalent. In fact, there are no sample shots anywhere I can see that
back up that claim.

~~~
olemartinorg
No, that's not like f/1.2 on a full-frame camera. But you have to consider the
sensor size, and thus multiply by the crop factor. Most photographers know
this about focal length (50mm on full-frame becomes a 100mm lens on micro four
thirds), but it seems people forget that the same goes for aperture. f/1.2 on
a full-frame becomes a f/2.4 on m43, so you'll need an even bigger (smaller
number) aperture to have the same effect on a smaller sensor.

I'm guessing these sensors are way smaller than m43 even, so that f/1.2 won't
produce anything near the stunning bokeh it would on a full-frame camera.

~~~
bonaldi
Yes, though if that's their angle the marketing line is very misleading:
they're discussing focal length as 35mm-equivalent, I had assumed they were
doing the same with aperture.

------
07d046
The multi-aperture thing isn't what makes this interesting. What is
interesting is that it takes a bunch of little sensors and combines them into
a single better image with software.

Because a lot of work has been done into making very good sensors and optics
for phones, this approach does make some sense. It also lets you have more
sensor surface area without the bulky optics. I'm pretty sure that there are
telescope arrays that work in a similar way.

I'm not about to replace my cameras with these, but it's got potential.

There's more information in
[http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9473793/light-l16-16-lens-...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9473793/light-l16-16-lens-
camera-specs-price) and [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542121/a-high-
end-camer...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/542121/a-high-end-camera-
in-a-small-package/) .

~~~
steckerbrett
The multi aperture thing doesn't make much sense, it appears to have multiple
lenses which will have debilitating parallax error due to the positioning. I
don't see how that's possible. I'm also struggling to see why they laid out
the sensors in such a non geometric pattern too.

~~~
tlrobinson
Parallax could be corrected by software as long as the subject isn't too
close. You might lose a little detail around the edges but with enough
redundancy it's probably not a big deal

~~~
steckerbrett
In their examples there's a macro photo of a chess board.

~~~
thrownaway2424
If you look closely at that photo, the result is really weird. The black
pieces behind the plane of focus have very uncertain positions that the
software didn't bother fixing. It's bokeh, in a way. A horrible way.

~~~
reitoei
Yup, it's not nice. Headache inducing.

------
_Adam
I don't know if it was intentional, or necessitated by the internal mechanics,
but I find the layout of lenses to be visually unpleasant. It looks like
someone took a camera and gave it chicken pox...

Aside from that, this is a really cool idea! But I don't know how it's being
positioned. Is it a point and shoot replacement? Or a mirrorless camera
replacement?

Or maybe it's just a technology demonstrator - this sort of system, suitably
minimized, would make an excellent smartphone camera.

~~~
userbinator
I agree with the unpleasantness, as the multiple irregular holes does
stimulate my trypophobia slightly. (Note: do not Google "trypophobia" if
things with multiple irregular holes makes you feel uneasy, as you will become
_very_ disturbed.)

~~~
earlz
I wasn't aware I have some trypophobia, but now I do heh.

~~~
has2k1
The only people without trypophobia are those who do not know about it.

------
iamleppert
This camera, like many that have come before it are likely to be subject to
the uncanny valley of market. Consumers won't want to stomach the price tag
and professionals are already accustomed to their DSLR's, and in most cases
have significant investment in specific brand and/or lens type with a lot of
expensive glass.

Professionals don't care about the bulkiness of their cameras, they care about
the performance and flexibility. DSLRs have 20+ years of development in terms
of speed, durability, flexibility and the raw image processing power that the
giants have spent decades perfecting (lots of work on DSPs).

How many pictures can it take in burst mode? How long does the battery last?
Can I use my suite of existing lenses with this?

Sorry to say this camera, while unique and technical marvel, has an uphill
battle from the business perspective. It's interesting from a niche
perspective but I don't see it becoming a huge success financially for them,
which is unfortunate because many talented people probably worked on this.

~~~
rprospero
I agree with everything that you say. However, it's also eerily reminiscent of
the explanations I was given 25 years ago about why digital cameras would
never catch on. Digitals were far more expensive than a simple Canon or
Polaroid, so it would never catch on with consumers. As for professionals,
they had far to much experience with developing negatives to throw it all away
for some flash in the pan gimmick. Heck, the digitals had terrible lenses
compared to what you'd get on Service Merchandise point and shoot, not to
mention anything professional grade. Besides, even if CCDs kept improving,
they'd be competing with a moving target. Even if digitals were better ten
years down the line, it's not like Kodak wasn't going to be improving their
processes, too.

~~~
thrownaway2424
A very attractive straw man, but I personally can't remember anyone saying
that digital would "never catch on". 25 years ago the state-of-the-art digital
camera was a 1.3MP digital back for the Nikon F3, that included a gigantic
external box that the user wore over their shoulder. Only a weirdo would use a
digital camera in 1990, but it was pretty obvious that digital was the future.
15 years ago the digital camera (Nikon D1) was just barely a good idea for
dedicated enthusiasts and still basically terrible for everybody else.

------
unicornporn
My first thoughts as a working professional for 11 years (retouch,
photographer and later videographer).

Forget a raw file format (that you will be able to use in LR/PS) and the
flexibility and editing headroom it gives you. Perhaps there will be some
specialist proprietary software like for the Lytro (that will be unsupported
in 10 years, leaving you with unusable files). Considering this I really hope,
as The Verge article says, "the output isn't as punchy" (which normally means
contrasty and saturated).

The lack of a raw file format will also mean that I can forget DCP camera
profiles to normalize the output with my other cameras.

What we know nothing about: what will AF be like? What will the dynamic range
be like (considering they're stitching, not stacking, smartphone sensors)?
Noise will probably be OK as you can downsample. But Sony is and Canon has
42/49 MP FF cameras out that doesn't need downsampling to look good. A year
from now (when Light comes out) more cameras will have followed.

Focal length range is a bit strange. 35mm equiv is a bit on the long side to
be an all-round solution. 24-70 would have been OK for me, but I realize
that's personal.

Perhaps we shouldn't expect the death of the MILC/DSLR because of this camera
just yet. Many hobbyist though, has left both the compact and the MILC/DSLR
for a more enjoyable smartphone experience. Perhaps it could lure them back to
buying a camera (without a phone in it)

~~~
jerich
If you take a look through the FAQ, they do say that they are designing it to
work within common photography workflows, giving example formats of JPEG,
TIFF, and raw DNG (though I'm assuming the DNG is after their proprietary
postprocessing, not a set of the true raw sensor outputs). They're asking for
input going forward, so take a few minutes to express your concerns about
workflow and maybe it will be a better product for it.

I believe they are doing quite a bit of stacking, as they say they are
processing up to 130 megapixels from 10 sensors to get the final image. There
should definitely be a dynamic range improvement. I hope they can somehow
apply their processing to video streams and provide a wide dynamic range
(maybe even HDR) video, but I'd be surprised if they can do more than provide
a cellphone-like 4K stream from a single sensor.

Focus speed shouldn't be an issue. I'm guessing it's using tiny cellphone-
sized camera sensors, so even at the f/2.4 printed around the lens, they'll
have massive depth of field. It looks like they even have the DOF printed on
each lens: 10cm-infinity for the 35mm lenses, 40cm-inf for the 70mm, and
100cm-inf for the 150mm. Any focusing will be done computationally at post-
processing time.

I'm interested in the concept; I just hope they're a little more developer-
friendly then Lytro turned out to be. I know there's a lot of proprietary
secret sauce going on with the computational post-processing, but if they can
open up their system just a bit to let the crowd in to poke around, there's
probably a lot of unique creative opportunities.

~~~
unicornporn
Thanks for an excellent reply! Well, I had totally overlooked the FAQ and I
see now that they are hoping to deliver DNG, and it doesn't seem to be the
demosaiced linear DNG variant (which is very good). As you say it most
certainly needs to be processed/exported (either in camera or in post) to DNG.
If the software lives as long as the camera, that's fine by me. Many camera
makers already "cook" their raws so perhaps this doesn't need to be bad.

> Any focusing will be done computationally at post-processing time.

I catch myself being stuck in old ways of thinking. Again you are right and
you just threw some fuel on my excitement fire.

I must say I love the innovation that new actors are bringing to the market.
However, I will remain a bit skeptical until release. A lot can happen in a
year.

------
flashman
The most exciting thing about this (and things like Lytro) is that people are
still discovering fundamentally different ways to do 'camera'. Perhaps one day
our phones will use a dozen cameras, some optimised for low light, others for
high dynamic range, and others still for action, with software figuring out
the best combination to use for the each shot.

~~~
starky
Despite all the interesting cameras that have been made recently, they all
rely on one piece of technology that is pretty archaic, the lens. Today's
lenses are definitely limiting the image quality available on small sensors,
and they seems to improve at a snails pace. I'm cautiously optimistic that
this camera may be able to correct for many of the issues with the lenses by
using the multiple lenses to create the single image.

------
tmd83
Don't really know much about optics to really know the viability of this
specially after Litro. But here is what I like

1\. Its a different take on the problem, stitching multiple lens and sensor
data to make a whole that's better than the parts. Even if this don't work I
think that idea would probably live to see another day.

2\. There are comments about DSLR being fast, viewfinder easier to work on all
situations and I agree to all of that. But I think the biggest point is what
one of the founder said in the video, it doesn't matter if you have the best
camera @home. This is something you can carry just like your smartphone.

3\. Yet even this is a separate device, what I would like eventually is for
this idea to be improved and implemented for smartphones. Maybe a 3 lens
system that's not as good but much better than current cameras?

4\. And I really loved the way the lenses were placed horizontally. That looks
to be a simple yet effective innovation (not that I know if it has bad optical
consequence).

~~~
dspillett
_> Its a different take on the problem, stitching multiple lens and sensor
data to make a whole that's better than the parts._

I've seen the idea discussed a few times in the past, essentially doing for
cameras what is done with multiple radio telescopes to create something that
would be impractical to achieve with a single unit. This is the first time
I've heard about someone having implemented the idea outside of a proof-of-
concept. I'd be interested to see how well it works in practice. I'm not that
much much of a photo taker myself, but a few of my friends are camera bugs so
I'll be passing the link on for them to dissect.

~~~
tmd83
I tend to use the HN crowd like that :). You can expect to find from an optics
professor to professional photographer and everything in between to comment on
this.

------
leni536
According to the FAQ they support raw DNG. Does that mean that you can get the
raw sensor data for each individual sensor and you can hack around your own
algorithm for merging them?

------
kisstheblade
Well at least this looks like something new! But notify me again when I can
read the review on dpreview.com, the site was kind of light (pun!) on the
details.

~~~
desireco42
I agree, all this is nothing without thorough review. Looking forward to that,
this really looks interesting though.

------
DannoHung
This is a straight up weird product at the price point they're targeting. And
given that they're asking for money up front and not providing sample raw
images and/or full resolution jpegs makes me very hesitant.

------
YZF
This is quite interesting/cool but the two primary reasons I prefer DSLRs to
any point and shoot are: 1. The viewfinder. Screens just don't cut it in
sunlight or at night (too much or too little light). 2. Time between getting
the camera out and getting that shot is very very quick with a DSLR.

It's hard to imagine this replacing my DSLR. If the cost is low enough it
could replace my point and shoot though... I'm still more likely to have my
phone on me than a camera...

~~~
thrownaway2424
I have an interest in photography and little to no interest in cameras like
Lytro, and probably this one although there's not enough information yet to
tell. As you point out handling and speed are important. Nobody cares about a
"light field" camera if it's impossible to hold and takes three seconds to
turn on. $1300 is a huge chunk of money for unknown performance.

------
themagician
This is interesting, but silly. It's hard to imagine a practical use for this
other than perhaps wanting to flip between two versions of a photo with one
wide open and one sharp across the frame. But you'll have different shutters
anyway to keep the same exposure.

Seems like this was spawned from a moment of inquiry where someone was so
preoccupied with whether they could that no one stopped to think about whether
they should.

~~~
apendleton
I don't think the point is to let you switch between different versions of an
image (though the after-the-fact adjustments of depth of field are really
slick). I think it's more that with a bunch of sensors and lenses you can
simulate a much larger sensor and lens, so you get the low noise and choice of
lens profiles of a DSLR without having to actually lug one around, or a bag of
lenses to go with it. Some of those pictures in their gallery are pretty
awesome, particularly in terms of noise. I'd never have guessed that they were
taken with something so portable.

------
nkoren
I try not to engage in classic HN-style middlebrow dismissal, but can I take a
moment to complain about their "Watch the Film" promotional video? It tells me
nothing more than "this is a device you can take photographs with". Absolutely
useless .

------
billconan
why do they arrange the lens irregularly, what's the reason behind this
arrangement?

~~~
onion2k
They're not irregularly arranged. If you look at the image of the front of the
camera at the bottom of the [http://light.co/camera](http://light.co/camera)
page, they're arranged in concentric circles around a point that's just off to
the right hand side of the case. As there are 15 lens and a laser rangefinder,
presumably they're directed at various points in space from that center along
a straight line in front of the camera. Which 10 lens used for a picture, and
consequently how far along that line your subject is, will depend on the
rangefinder for an optimal image.

------
desireco42
It is about time someone makes this.I know it looks gimmicky and it kind of
is, but this trend should allow more interesting photography. I personally am
looking forward to it, whether this one will be good or someone else, I am not
invested much, I am just looking forward to the trend.

Also, better processors should allow more sampling from sensors and
aggregating that info for better photos.

------
grondilu
I was hoping this was an application of the single-pixel camera concept I've
read about few years ago[1]. Apparently not.

1\.
[http://web.stanford.edu/~jbarral/PSY221/SinglePixelImaging.h...](http://web.stanford.edu/~jbarral/PSY221/SinglePixelImaging.htm)

------
analytically
You video is pretty useless. People taking pictures. Tell us why it's
different, what's new.

------
watersb
This multi-aperture camera was delivered rather before the Light L16:

[https://public.nrao.edu/telescopes/vla](https://public.nrao.edu/telescopes/vla)

It's about time someone did this for consumer products.

------
SandB0x
Everyone in the video seems to be holding the camera in an awkward way to
avoid getting their fingers in front of any of the lenses.

------
aaronbrethorst
Man oh man, do I _want to believe._ But given what a huge disappointment Lytro
turned out to be, I'll wait for v2 or v3.

------
beyondcompute
Can it make calls?

