
Lytro Announces New Light Field Camera - fumar
https://www.lytro.com/#
======
drcode
That is one of the worst product websites I have ever seen... I have an
updated version of Chrome and Win8.1 and am either too stupid to figure out
how to navigate the site or it simply doesn't work at all. Does anyone else
have a diagonal divider that runs away from you if you bring your mouse near
it?

That said, looks at first glance like an innovative product- If someone can
post a link to a website for mere mortals that describes the camera's features
I might actually read about what it can do.

~~~
philwebster
It's not just you. These kind of un-scrollable sites are awful. The funky
diagonal line adds to the confusion.

~~~
stronglikedan
It looks like HTML5 has opened up the same avenues of UI abuse that Flash did.

------
mortenjorck
As a photographer, what I really want to know is what characteristics the
light field imager has in terms of things like dynamic range, noise, color
reproduction, and so on. If the Illum has a unique sort of "flavor," in the
same way that Sigma's Foveon series (with its non-Bayer-patterned sensors) has
a certain something that's fun for photographers to experiment with, I could
see it catching on. Much more so if there are some weird, light-field-based
parameters that you can adjust in a Lightroom-esque app from Lytro.

Otherwise, I can't see this thing riding on the appeal of viewer refocusing
and tilting – that's just not going to escape the realm of gimmick. Unless the
tech offers new creative opportunities to the pro / prosumer photographer, I
see that market being less likely to spend $1600 on this than consumers were
to spend $400 on the original.

~~~
deltaqueue
As much as I dislike the stereotypical criticism on HN I agree completely. I
still don't know what problem Lytro is trying to solve or what benefit it
provides, and I've yet to hear about a successful application in the consumer
space. Refocusing after a picture has been taken is interesting, but useless
unless your camera/phone/whatever doesn't focus properly.

Depth of field is just one of many tools used to convey a photograph. For
$1500 this camera better blow away other prosumer point-and-shoots like the
RX100 Mk II, RX10, Ricoh GR, etc. Given the cost of light-field technology I
suspect compromises in sensor sensitivity, dynamic range, and ISO will have to
be made.

~~~
rayiner
> Refocusing after a picture has been taken is interesting, but useless unless
> your camera/phone/whatever doesn't focus properly.

Ever try and take a picture of a kid? My Nexus 5's auto-focus can't keep up
with my toddler at all. Getting this technology down into a compact shooter or
cell phone sized camera would be a huge leap.

~~~
yaakov34
You will never get it in a camera the size of a cell-phone camera. This
technology relies on the fact that each patch of their lens sees a different
image of the subject; it's like stereo, but with a single lens, and many views
rather than two. It fundamentally has to have a large-diameter lens.

~~~
rayiner
What's the limitation on the size of each lens?

~~~
yaakov34
I am not sure what you mean by each lens, since there is only one lens with
this technology. The diameter of the lens has to be comparable to the
separation between the two lenses in a stereo system. For meaningful stereo
effect at distances we would find interesting (say, a few feet between you and
your toddler), this has to be maybe an inch; I don't see a smaller lens being
very interesting.

For a typical cell phone, the hyperfocal distance - beyond which everything is
in focus with the lens focused at infinity - is maybe 6 feet; you can't get
light field information, at all, for anything further than that. And it will
be only a tiny bit of information for closer subjects; you can't take shallow
depth-of-focus photos with a cell phone, and you can't apply this technology
for the same reason. BTW, motion blur is likely a bigger problem for cell
phone photos than focus.

------
yaakov34
The light field technology has a lot of interesting applications outside of
photography as such. I see a lot of sceptical comments here about the
potential of this tech for creative or artistic purposes, and I wanted to
comment that it has been the subject of a lot of research in computer vision.

Basically, the light field lets you reconstruct a series of images of your
subject as seen from every patch of your lens. Of course, for subjects not at
infinity, this means multi-view images. This enables

(a) 3D reconstruction, by multi-view matching and having precisely known
geometry.

(b) segmentation, by using 3D reconstruction as mentioned above.

(c) Super-resolution, again by multi-view matching, which can let you get back
some of the resolution you lost by capturing the image as a "light field"
(which means that your sensor can tell which direction the rays hitting it
come from - it's done by having an array of lenses in front of the sensor,
each covering a patch).

Better segmentation of the image enables all sorts of higher computer vision
algorithms.

Whether this technology is any good as a consumer photography product, I am
not the one who can say.

~~~
deeths
Also, focusing (manually or automatically) takes time. Even though it may be
just a second, that's enough time to miss a good shot.

~~~
yaakov34
Well, refocusing is what the marketing and the reviews of this camera focus on
(ha, I kill me...), but personally I find the 3D possibilities a lot more
interesting. On their not-very-usable website, the refocused shots with most
of the image blurry look like gimmicks, while the ones with a 3D effect (they
are reconstructing the view from different points on the surface of the lens,
letting our point of view move around the scene a little bit) look more
promising. I don't know if I would buy the camera just for that as a consumer;
to me personally, it would be more interesting in a computer vision product.

Returning to the focus, it's true that this has some potential to turn the
photographer adage "f/8 and be there" into "f/2 and be there", letting you
keep more of the light while the subject is still in focus. However, this is
not automatic, since multi-view matching has to be done to superimpose the
images of the subject captured from different points of the lens; and this
will bring in the difficulties we have with stereo matching, such as
occlusions (some parts of the subject can be seen from one point of the lens,
but not from another), or ambiguities (it's hard for an algorithm to tell
which points of the pictures correspond to the same point of the subject).

------
dgreensp
I worked on light fields at MIT and I'm a huge fan of this kind of tech.
However, as others have said, the product story is lacking. No one cares about
after-the-fact focusing as Lytro has always presented it.

A consumer novelty / gimmick won't sell hardware when there are already plenty
of smartphone apps that will let you take and share photos in a gimmicky way.

If you want everyday consumer use, make a better camera for taking pictures
and video of pets and kids. Make the camera that doesn't stop to focus. Make
the camera with one button you hold down to open the shutter, and the camera
does the rest (you can select the best shot later). You have to be better than
a smartphone camera app, which is hard because smartphone photography is
getting very, very good. Camcorders and GoPros in the $500-$1000 range are
also very, very good. You'd have to be cheaper and more convenient with
similar or better quality.

If you want professional use, you'll have to talk about the optics and image
quality, or at least the artistic qualities of the result. Your software
should fit into the pro's pipeline and produce a unique result of lasting
value. The hardware can be expensive if necessary to meet this goal.

Just my two cents.

~~~
njloof
The killer app for professionals would be shooting video. You could eliminate
the job of the "focus puller" in a live action video shoot and "focus" on the
performances during the shoot, knowing you could pull focus (and extract 3D
info!) in postproduction.

~~~
sitkack
I told them as much when I talked to the CTO [0] at a presentation he gave at
the UW [1]. I also wanted frame sync so I could use it with other cameras. And
an external trigger (for wildlife, stop motion and true binocular vision). And
the ability to send 3d animated random dot stereo gram gifs directly to
instagram so I can boost my Klout score.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Akeley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Akeley)

[1]
[http://www.cs.washington.edu/node/5261/](http://www.cs.washington.edu/node/5261/)

------
Tloewald
Looks very compelling to me, I love the explorable images -- and adding fast
zoom lens and a hotshoe (and 4" touch screen) make it far more useful than the
first model.

My big issue is resolution -- they talk about a "40 megaray" sensor (which
I'll take to be a 40MP sensor with custom microlenses). The question is how
many MP does that effectively translate to (e.g. how large an image can I
display). I suspect it's significantly shy of 4K, and quite possibly lower
than 1080P.

Note that the original camera had an 11 "megaray" lens. So that suggests a
rough doubling of linear resolution -- good but not great.

It seems to me that resolution is an obvious question, and it was a major
shortcoming of the original camera (your photos were essentially tiny). Why
not address this head-on?

~~~
zokier
From DPreview: resolution is apparently 5 megapixels. So significantly better
than 1080p (2mp) but less than 4k (8mp). So the resolution seems to scale
fairly linearly with the "ray count".

~~~
Tloewald
FWIW the old Lytro is 1080x1080 --
[https://www.lytro.com/camera/specs/](https://www.lytro.com/camera/specs/)

Assuming they move to 4:3 that would be around 1800p. That's pretty darn good,
and likely would look perfectly OK slightly upscaled to 4K (assuming that's
1800p and _sharp_ ).

------
rdl
The problem I would have with a camera like this is it breaks my workflow,
built around Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. that is probably even more true of
real pro photographers.

The camera itself is beautiful! It looks like a blackmagic design cinema grown
up.

I think they would probably do better as a "designed for rental" vs purchased
camera, though. It is enough of a novelty that I'd see people using it for a
few shoots, but like a tilt shift lens, it is only going to be daily useful to
a limited number of people. Especially with limited production, rental would
rock --- either direct, or throug something like borrowlenses or lumoid.

~~~
promptphoto
From the Engadget hands-on:

 _Additionally, Lytro has worked out a deal with Adobe and Apple so you can
transfer those images to Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture if you wish to work
on them after you 've adjusted the image's focus and depth of field to your
heart's desire._

~~~
devindotcom
That's just the app sending a static 5-megapixel jpeg over to another
application it sounds like.

------
Holbein
Additional details:

[http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5625264/lytro-changed-
phot...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5625264/lytro-changed-photography-
meet-the-new-illum-camera)

[http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/22/lytro-
illum/](http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/22/lytro-illum/)

[http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/lytro-announces-
illu...](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/lytro-announces-illum-light-
field-camera)

[http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/q-a-with-lytro-s-
ceo...](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/q-a-with-lytro-s-ceo-and-
founder-on-the-illum)

[http://petapixel.com/2014/04/22/lytro-unveils-illum-light-
fi...](http://petapixel.com/2014/04/22/lytro-unveils-illum-light-field-camera-
features-1-inch-sensor-costs-1600/)

~~~
vilhelm_s
Thanks! I think this was the most interesting part of the interview:

Q: This is a very versatile lens - a bright, constant aperture, lots of zoom,
and 13 elements, which is relatively few for a design like this. How are you
able to create something like this?

A: We designed it in-house and worked with a Japanese partner to build it ...
This plays directly into one of the cooler parts of light field, which is this
ability to use the additional data that we capture to get breakthrough
hardware performances. There’s no lens on the market that’s equivalent to
this.

The reason is that, in the conventional sense, you would’t be able to deal
with the aberration correction you’d need across that long a zoom and that
wide an aperture. The typical way you’d deal with aberration correction is
with glass elements - traditional optics. Since we capture all of the
directional data within the light field, we’re able to do aberration
correction in software and computation. It’s the first big example of us
trading out physical components of the camera and replacing those with
software and computation to give the market something you just couldn’t do
conventionally.

~~~
Holbein
Great find! Interesting indeed.

------
chaostheory
I'm surprised that Lytro hasn't commissioned any photographs from any famous
photographers to put on exhibit yet at say a MOMA or even something like the
California Academy of Arts & Sciences. The reason being that most enthusiasts
aren't very excited about bleeding edge technology, as already seen in the
comments here. I'm sure the complaints would be worse in a photography forum.
Most of them tend to go for tried and true devices. An art commission,
possibly with some really large and nice digital photo frames for a gallery,
should help mitigate this problem for Lytro and open people's eyes

------
phreeza
If I understand this tech correctly, wouldn't the reverse. ie applying the
same trick to displays, have a huge impact on VR? Then one could focus ones
eyes at the actual distance of the object, instead of constantly infinity, and
the DOF effects that occur naturally would also be there.

~~~
corysama
You are correct!

[https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-
field...](https://research.nvidia.com/publication/near-eye-light-field-
displays)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deI1IzbveEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deI1IzbveEQ)

------
lerouxb
I don't know how useful this would be for "normal" photography, because
choosing the composition, focus, etc is the fun part of the creative process.

But I think it can be awesome for macro photography or anything where you're
not in full creative control at the time like those automated wildlife critter
cams, balloon/kite/drone photography, selfies, webcam shots, mars rovers...

------
ISL
The angled display and grip is interesting, it hearkens to medium-format
viewfinders. For a lot of my photography, I'd be surprised if I'd prefer
looking downward rather than at my subject.

Congratulations to Lytro - getting this stuff on the market with increasing
quality will change the world, perhaps in ways we don't yet expect.

------
cschmidt
dpreview has an interview with the Lytro CEO:

[http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/q-a-with-lytro-s-
ceo...](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/q-a-with-lytro-s-ceo-and-
founder-on-the-illum)

It also has an article, which manages to contain the fact they have been
skirting around. It says it produces 5MP images.

[http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/lytro-announces-
illu...](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/22/lytro-announces-illum-light-
field-camera)

~~~
solarmist
True, but it produces many different 5MP images. Reading a bit about this it
seems unimpressive if you just use it to produce static images; It seems more
to deliver on the promise of the holograms you used to be able to buy in
stores.

------
ajaimk
I would appreciate a comparison to their previous camera as to how much better
it actually is. There are no actual metrics on that page for me to work with.

------
antidaily
I own an original Lytro. I've used it maybe 3 times. Was completely
unimpressed. Shifting focus is just not that cool. Especially when it requires
special software and plugins to use it. But its been 3 years or so, so perhaps
this version is better.

------
thenomad
Question, since I can't find an answer on Lytro's site: is it possible to use
this tech to export 3D models rather than images?

~~~
bergie
I guess you could start from [https://github.com/behnam/python-lfp-
reader](https://github.com/behnam/python-lfp-reader) or
[https://github.com/nrpatel/lfptools/](https://github.com/nrpatel/lfptools/)

------
CoffeeDregs
Another product-in-search-of-a-problem from Lytro. It's entirely likely that
I'm wrong, but I assume that there are legions of problems to be solved in the
machine vision world which Lytro could help solve. For example, could Lytro:
help cars see other cars better; improve surveillance capabilities (yes, yes,
surveillance is bad); improve robotics; be useful in medical diagnosis (Lytro
for x-rays?). I have a friend at Lytro and asked him these questions and his
response was basically "no, no, consumer photography is where it's at!"

~~~
taeric
Seems unnecessarily harsh.

I do think this should help with some things, certainly. Seems this could much
more quickly determine distance between some things than a 3d mapping of items
would take.

I would be curious if there are numbers on this regard. But, I don't know any
reason right off to dismiss it. It is not that uncommon for photographs to
focus on the wrong item. This basically solves that problem, right?

~~~
CoffeeDregs
Harsh: agreed; the way I worded that reflected my frustration and was
unnecessarily harsh. That said, I am frustrated that what-seems-like-a-great-
technology is being used so ineffectively. Lytro was chatting with a car
company about using the sensors on their cars and, long time constants aside,
that appears to have been for naught.

Photography: the camera on my phone has been good-enough for me for years, so
I'm a poor judge of camera needs. But I just haven't heard any photo-nerd
complain about the problems with focus on a camera, so I am not sure there is
an actual problem here that Lytro is solving.

~~~
taeric
How do you envision this being better than other sensor technology? Seems that
car sensors would be better off just adding additional sensors instead of
this. No need to image process to determine distance from items, when you can
do a distance sensor, right?

------
hadoukenio
The first thought I had when I saw the new Google Camera app was "wow, this
might kill that light field camera thing that came out a couple of months ago
that I haven't heard of since". I then installed Google Camera, had a play,
and it confirmed my thoughts. The new Google Camera app is awesome and it
works with my current _phone_. Extra hardware to carry around = zero.

The original Lytro was a cool idea, but I think the slow time-to-market caused
it a dragged out death. Google put the last bullet in.

~~~
taeric
Hate that you are getting downvoted, as I think this is actually a discussion
that needs to happen. Many people will have a hard time distinguishing these
technologies. Especially on paper.

My take is that this camera will have some major advantages in shutter speed
and quickly taking successive pictures.

As an example, at my child's soccer practice, it is not uncommon to fire off
about 5 shots in any 2 second interval. It is also not uncommon to have 4 of
those shots be out of focus. Heck, all five.

This camera could solve that. The phone solution fails, as I can't take that
many pictures that quickly.

Right?

~~~
slantyyz
>> As an example, at my child's soccer practice, it is not uncommon to fire
off about 5 shots in any 2 second interval. It is also not uncommon to have 4
of those shots be out of focus.

I'm not sure Lytro's necessarily the right the solution for this either, at
least not today.

I know I'll get laughed at and mocked for saying this, but I bought an
inexpensive Nikon One camera for a very similar use case. I got tired of
carrying my DSLR around on doggie play dates, and while the Nikon One may suck
at an incredibly long list of things, the one thing it still does better than
just about every other mirrorless camera out there (even with the Fuji XT1 and
Sony A6000 now on sale) is AF on moving subjects. It can track a dog running
towards me (the hardest part about AF in this use case) just about as well as
my DSLR.

If you don't believe me about the moving subject AF, Thom Hogan agrees:

[http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/autofocus-
systems.html](http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/autofocus-systems.html)

~~~
taeric
Oh, I should have made this clearer. I have _not_ used this camera. I have
tried my camera phone in frustration a few times, but I am usually only happy
with the shots I get from my DSLR. To the point that I picked up a used 5D
Mark II. I'm very happy with this camera, but getting focus on far away shots
with a zoom can be difficult. Solving that would be nice.

Which is why I think this conversation needs to happen. I'm not sure what the
benefits are. I'm just not dismissive, either. Nor do I think the camera phone
will completely destroy the DSLR any time soon.

(I do think it will eventually happen. Maybe not the camera phone, per se, but
camera sensors could advance such that having many different cameras will be
for novelty more than utility.)

~~~
slantyyz
Ok, that's clearer.

The 5DMKII isn't going to win any awards in AF speed (it is still a great
camera, imo) but you can do some stuff to mitigate your issues. Try shooting
with a smaller aperture to get more depth of field, and consider learning how
to manually zone focus. If you know the distances for which your lens is "in
focus" for a particular aperture, and can evaluate how far away your subjects
are, you might get better results. I think this is how they did this in the
"good old days".

It is more work, requires learning (I think it's a useful skill, but that's
just me), but if you've got AF limitations and don't want to throw money at
the problem (i.e., get an MKIII), it doesn't hurt to try.

~~~
taeric
Oh, certainly! Learning to use my camera has been paying dividends that I
can't really explain. I expect I'll keep getting better.

Biggest thing for me to learn now is how to work with a zoom lens. Then, get a
better one. (Well, I say zoom, I really just mean telephoto. Right now I have
a zoom one, but expect to move to a prime one eventually.)

And I think you are dead on, learning how they did things in the "good old
days" is a huge skill that has been helping a lot. Things are a little tougher
when my child is effectively running around at random right now. I expect that
to change, as well.

~~~
stan_rogers
The "big trick" to sports photography has always been learning the sport, and
that's only a little less crucial now with, say, a 1DX or a D4/D4S than it was
back in my manual-focus days. However, that's not going to be of much help
when the kids you're photographing don't know the sport. Expect a
comparatively large number of failed shots, and learn to laugh. A 400/2.8 L
isn't going to help a whole lot until there's some statistically-valid chance
of anticipating the action. (And it's godawful heavy and awkward as well as
_really good used car_ expensive.) As your photography develops and your
athlete develops, you'll know when (or if) it's time to go for the big guns.
In the meantime, a fast 70-200 (with a good teleconverter for some shot types)
will fill the bill, and unless you're printing huge, don't be afraid to crank
the ISO a bit to keep the shutter speed down. (Look at the pictures, not the
pixels. There ought to be some sort of license required to zoom in to 100%.)

~~~
taeric
I've definitely learned this one the hard way. At first I was excited about
having everything at super low ISO. Now, I take a few quick shots to see what
the lowest I can get away with and still get quick pictures.

Heck, often times I'm happy to just take videos. Really liking how well they
turn out with this camera.

------
unicornporn
The "old" Lytro had a very small sensor. To be able to experience any control
over DOF you had to challenge yourself to create compositions that would
include objects of interest both close and far away to be able to even play
with "the effect". For my shooting style the technology was totally pointless.
Pictures with objects of interest at 1.5 meters up to infinity were sharp all
over the place anyway.

Perhaps this new thing will bring something new to the scene. But at 5 MP it
feels immature. The technology friendly photographers it could attract are
usually not so hot on bridge cameras with huge zoom lenses. Perhaps a fixed
lens (or 24-50mm equiv) would have been a better choice.

I suspect this will be the same. I think the future of focus control might lie
in Google's new camera app[1] and phones with dual cameras. Just give them
some raw format love (like the 1020 got).

[1] [http://googleresearch.blogspot.se/2014/04/lens-blur-in-
new-g...](http://googleresearch.blogspot.se/2014/04/lens-blur-in-new-google-
camera-app.html)

------
MMartin1982
I'm interested in the technology, but I feel it's lacking a real use case for
me.

I really like the sample images where you can perspective shift slightly. So
what I'd like to see is a two camera/sensor setup to capture a 3D image.

I can then take the result, stick my Oculus Rift on and view the result. The
perspective shift lets me move my head around a bit.

Better yet, stick more sensors on, capture as wide a field of view as possible
(closer to 360 the better), and recreate the whole scene in a Rift compatible
viewer. You wouldn't have to move around, just have enough of the scene that
you can look a bit to the left and right. It would let you feel like you are
there to a greater degree. I'd buy something like this for sure.

------
solarmist
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the similarity to the hologram photography.
To me this seems like capturing refocus-able hologram with photographic
quality. And once the technology progresses enough it will also be able to
produce quality stills (this version is fine for smaller prints already) of
printable size.

All in all it seems like a nice step forward in camera technology that
supports and simplifies traditional camera technology (allowing simpler, and
cheaper, lens for example) while adding a new way to be creative (Light field
effects) and maintaining quality.

I don't, however, see it fundamentally changing photography. Just a nice new
technology that will pave the way for the next 20 years of camera advances.

------
erikpukinskis
This just occurred to me.... There's a fundamental problem with the oculus
rift and video content: in order to prevent VR sickness, you need at least
enough of a 3d scene to enable head movements within a small volume. Because
traditional cameras, including binocular cameras, don't capture a true 3d
scene this is impossible. 3d from a camera in the rift will be as bad as the
current 3d displays.

But the Lytro can capture an actual 3d scene right? So maybe the Lytro is the
perfect companion to the oculus rift. The field of view will be limited (like
looking through a window) but at least it will be true 3d and could respond
correctly to head movements!

------
davidtrogers
It looks like [https://pictures.lytro.com/](https://pictures.lytro.com/) got a
facelift as well

disclaimer: I used to work at Lytro

------
johlindenbaum
Can't wait to see this in action.

What a terrible product website.

------
hardwaresofton
maybe the design of the website is subpar/a little annoying, but the actual
object, the camera is actually beautiful.

I think it's very well designed (aesthetically and functionally) -- with any
camera, you're going to spend quite a bit of time looking down at the physical
thing, tilted downwards in your hand, trying to see if you got a good shot
(looking at the preview), I think the design is a pretty bold move towards
better practical usability.

~~~
acjohnson55
As cute a solution as that is, I think fold out screen is far more versatile.

~~~
hardwaresofton
I definitely agree (as functionally, it's indisputable there are more viewing
angles on a fold out screen), but some are not fans of fold out screens, and
it is one more moving part.

Also I didn't mention it before, but I think the whole design has a more
natural grip

------
gdonelli
is it just me or the website is slow? I have the latest MacBook Pro...

~~~
gdonelli
the UI I mean, not the bandwidth...

------
frozenport
You can't compromise image quality for some gimmick!

A conventional lens will let you take an all-in-focus portrait, and we have
increasingly seen that digital techniques produce a similar if not better
image on cellphones.

------
sscalia
God damn, I love companies that make a physical hardware product that is such
a gamble like this one.

I will be pre-ordering, if only to encourage startups to think bigger than
software.

Stunning!

~~~
deathanatos
> if only to encourage startups to think bigger than software.

Interesting that you say that:

> ‘We’re not a camera company’

> Lytro's ultimate, simplest goal is to turn the physical parts of the camera
> — the lens, the aperture, the shutter — into software.

[1]: [http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5625264/lytro-
changed-p...](http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5625264/lytro-changed-
photography-meet-the-new-illum-camera)

------
methehack
Did anyone else take one look at this and think "porn!" or am I, alas, the
biggest perv in the room...

