
In depth review of the Lytro Light Field Camera - wxs
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lytro
======
kghose
I'm trying to think how I would use it. I, like everyone else, use shallow DOF
to emphasize different aspects of the image.

If I want to emphasize background and foreground in different shots I just
take two shots at different focus points.

If I want everything to be in focus I stop down the lens.

I have to agree with the dpreview: what artistic problem does this solve?

I can think of a contrived example where there is no time to make two shots (a
basket ball player shooting a hoop) and where you want two parts of the image
at different distances both in focus and the rest blurred. You could do it
with this device, but I would just use image manipulation.

What I would really like is the blade runner camera (or rather dataformat)
since the blade runner picture seems to be a composite of many shots.

~~~
jpeterson
I believe the target market here are amateurs who don't have the skill or
reflexes to focus properly ahead of time. I certainly fall into that category.

~~~
rogerbinns
My point and shoot camera has an auto everything mode. It figures out what
scene to use (eg night versus landscape versus portait), where to do metering
and what to focus on. I've never had a problem nor needed any skill. You can
press the shutter half way down and it will follow focus whatever is
appropriate showing you what it is doing.

The replacement model even has a touchscreen so if you want you can simply
touch whatever it is you wanted focussed. Again absolutely no skill needed.

Reflexes is a little more interesting. Digital pictures are essentially free
so there isn't any harm in taking lots of them. Amongst the specs listed on
comparison sites are times to first shot and burst modes, the combination of
which means you are likely to get something good despite your reflexes. I
can't find any mention of the lytro having a burst mode.

It doesn't look like the lytro has any benefit compared to a point and shoot
for conventional picture taking including focus and reflexes. But as we all
know from The Innovator's Dilemma that isn't what matters - look to where
things are different. One thing that is immediately apparent is it can build a
3D map of the image as it knows the distance to every pixel.

~~~
juiceandjuice
Your point and shoot doesn't do depth of field very well, let alone let you
adjust it after the fact. It's also likely that focusing is much much slower
for you than the lytro.

In any case, the lytro probably isn't for you right now.

~~~
rogerbinns
Focussing on the point and shoot is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds. (Latest model is 0.1
seconds). Note the comment I was replying to claiming the lytro market is
amateurs with slow reflexes. I don't think the lytro is even close to a good
fit for that market even for amateurs with slow focussing and reflexes. An
auto everything point and shoot is far superior n every aspect. Note how the
review does mention you have to contrive shots to make the lytro functionality
worthwhile.

------
9999
I've been crowing about these issues for months now. They have built something
that solves a problem (getting the important thing in the image in focus) that
has been better solved by multiple other means (AF, hyperfocal distance + high
DOF) without the extremely adverse side effects (super low resolution, bad low
light performance from the sensor). Then they invented a new problem (the
desire to switch between two important subjects after the fact), that for some
reason gadget bloggers fell in love with. Gimmicks should not masquerade as
revolutions.

~~~
colanderman
Ya, but this is a _holographic_ camera. The stupid thing actually captures
honest to goodness _holograms_ \-- not even just stereograms. Why they don't
play this up more is beyond me. Maybe the holographic viewing angle is too
narrow to be useful beyond viewing the image head-on?

------
jrockway
Summary: how to ruin a great idea with bad software and a bad business model.
Who wants a digital camera that can only work with one company's website, and
then only if you have a Mac?

~~~
dsr_
It's probably not a killer limitation to require a Mac for a revolutionary
photography device.

The problem is that it's not wonderful enough to qualify as a thousand-dollar
specialist camera, it's not cheap enough to be a nifty holiday gift ($50-150)
and it isn't widely usable enough to be a killer point-n-shoot replacement.

The post-processing on Lytro's own system though... that makes it aggravating.
I'll bet 50 cents that Marcus Ranum's nudes are verboten by their policy.

I look forward to the next generation of the technology, but I'm not convinced
that Lytro is going to be around to produce it.

------
caublestone
Can we get people to post their design ideas for this product to improve
screen size and general sexiness?

