

Wanted: A Light Field CEO - hardwear
http://blog.lytro.com/news/wanted-a-light-field-ceo/

======
jeffchuber
I first want to congratulate and praise these advances in optics. I think it's
great that they have received so much funding to further their pursuits.

I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense.
The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional
photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't
making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism
their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So
this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level
cameras are being fazed out obviously).

For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for
fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the
general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be
very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer
myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and
perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If
they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly
professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost
need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.

I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just
want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally
appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just
don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.

Maybe that's why this change is happening.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
> For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for
> fixing perspective or composition.

I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for
professionals.

This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast
shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur
distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined
to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time
saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.

The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade
company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it
time.

~~~
beering
For these cameras to be taken seriously, I think megapixel count needs to be a
factor higher.

Currently, in video, we're chasing higher and higher output resolutions, and a
10x drop in pixel count isn't feasible. Once the sensors reach 10x the pixel
count we need for output, then we can take the resolution hit for the focal
effects.

1080p-capable light field capture seems possible now, but 4k light field
capture might need a 300 MP sensor.

~~~
shuzchen
Be careful not to think of megapixel count as the end-all of photo quality.
While it is very important, the quality of the image sensor makes the biggest
difference. You can buy some 16MP point and shoot, but the image quality isn't
going to match a quality DLSR at 10MP (like the Nikon D80). Think of megapixel
count as just the upper limit of image quality.

~~~
objclxt
I think the post you're replying to is referring to applying this technology
to video. For feature films, 4K resolution would be highly desirable, and
that's going to need some very large sensors.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Or several smaller sensors and fancier software.

------
neya
1) This is purely my opinion - There is a fundamental problem with these
Lytros. Photography is an art, and art is not easy, which is exactly why art
has some value, and not everyone can come up with art. It gives one a sense of
joy, pride and achievement, when someone comes up with their own art, because
they have taken the pains to capture the right subject, at the right moment
with the right focus. What Lytro does is removes this sense of achievement,
pride by making it easier for anyone and everyone to capture photos with the
right subject, with the right focus - Even if they had captured it originally
wrong. It makes the pro's look like idiots.

2) Design - The traditional DSLR's give you a sense of satisfaction,
completion and pride when you hold them, because when someone else sees you
holding them, they know you are putting in some effort to capture good photos.

The Lytro on the other hand looks like a traditional Kaleidoscope and when
someone looks at you holding them - 1) They think its some toy, if they've
never heard or seen a Lytro before or 2) They know its a device that lets
anyone capture beautiful photos, so its no big deal.

There is very little pride of ownership in owning a Lytro, with contrast to a
DSLR.

The Lytro needs some design elements from the traditional DSLR, to make it
more appealing to the Masses. Had the Lytro been pitched in the form-factor of
a DSLR, but with all the features that Lytro has now, it would have caught up
like forest fire.

Lens compatibility. When people buy DSLR's, MOST of them buy the body because
they know its from a company that manufactures great lenses (Eg: Canon). With
Lytro, I'm not even sure if there are plans to manufacture external Lenses.
Even if Lytro does manufacture them, it won't matter because companies like
Canon/Nikon have a great array of Lenses, proven with the test of time. Lytro
should in the least add support to fix lenses from 3rd party companies.

Just my 2 cents.

~~~
beering
This is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen in a while.

1) Your first point is exactly why Lytro is exciting—it could disrupt
photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.

Everything you said about Lytro could be said about auto light metering, auto
focus, digital cameras, lcd viewfinders, Photoshop, etc... you have a bizarre,
unproductive pretentiousness. Have you had the joy of carefully metering and
focusing a film camera for the pride of seeing a print days later? Does that
mean we shouldn't use digital cameras?

2) Why the hell would you create an easy-to-use camera for amateurs and give
it interchangeable lens? The target audience of a Lytro isn't going to shop
for a 28mm f/1.4 prime. More importantly, the focal length and aperture are
fixed to a specific configuration for the microlens array, and that's a
constraint of these plenoptic cameras that isn't going to change for a while.

I think you've posted the perfect cover letter for why you should never be CEO
of Lytro.

~~~
dr42
"it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to
take good photos."

These cameras do not help beginners, or anyone else take good photos. In much
the same way that instagram doesn't. Sure, it might be a fad, like HDR is, but
nothing short of learning about composition and lighting will make anyone take
good photos.

I don't see anything disruptive about lytro photography. Being able to pick
the focal point arbitrarily after the photo has been taken is a cool gimmick,
but what's the point? How many times have you really wanted to do that with a
photo? Beginners seldom take photos that are out of focus because autofocus
systems have improved so much. Most blurry photos are due to low light and
camera shake, poor handling of the camera. Lytro does not solve that problem.

I hope it succeeds and becomes a viable alternative, just as foveon sensors
were/are, and I hope the company do well, this is an exciting time for
photography.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
"Most blurry photos are due to low light and camera shake, ..."

The Lytro camera has a fixed wide-open aperture, so exposure times are kept
short.

" Being able to pick the focal point arbitrarily after the photo has been
taken is a cool gimmick, but what's the point?"

You can also change the depth of field after the fact. E.g., to blur out the
strip club in the background of an otherwise nice shot.

------
nhannah
It's great to see a high quality piece of hardware brought all the way to
market by a startup. Within the realm of hackernews/ycomb there is a huge
focus on software because of the relative cost of bringing it to market, it's
understandable. But I would love to see some more stories on HN about some of
the behemoth industrial plays that happen outside of the software world, this
is a nice example of sorts although it is still a very software heavy company.

------
rdl
I would strongly suggest looking outside the photography industry for your CEO
-- this is a transformative consumer device, not yet another camera.

(Apple would be a great place to look)

------
pclark
I assumed the Lytro device was a proof of concept for the technology so they
could embed the technology in cell phones. I cannot fathom a billion dollar
use case outside of cell phones.

~~~
beambot
How about microscopes with post-exposure refocusing (at framerates!). That
could be a HUGE biological research tool.

How about security cameras that can be focused onto various parts of the scene
and stored for posterity?

------
Caligula
Charles Chi is a great guy. He recently became the chancellor at my alma
mater(Carleton U), is very approachable and gives tremendous advice.

