Alien Skin Bokeh can produce pretty decent results, may fool some people but it's no match for the real thing or a trained eye.
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
Light field cameras How cool
- Thread starter Rebel t3i
- Start date
Alien Skin Bokeh can produce pretty decent results, may fool some people but it's no match for the real thing or a trained eye.
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, lets get to the bottom of this. Picshop is only the same as light field at a VERY basic level. ALL it does is take the point you tap as the centre of an in-focus circle, and blurs everything outside that.
So it fails dismally if you have something inside the circle but closer to or further from the camera than the thing you want to focus on, because they'll stay in focus when they should be blurred, and it fails dismally if you have something at the same distance but to the left or right, above or below the subject, because they'll be outside the circle and hence blurred when they should be sharp.
Also, it can't focus anything that's blurred in the original, so you have to shoot at a small aperture and so accept a slower shutter speed and/or higher ISO.
Honestly, claiming it does the same thing is like claiming that boosting the blues in PP is like using a polarising filter!
Once they get the technology sorted out, which they will do, there is a massive market for this. All that apps like Picshop do is demonstrate that fact, because people are trying to get the same result already, with poor results.
Last edited:
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Southdowns said:
Honestly, I don't know why people are getting so worked up over my mentioning of picshop.
I was simply using it as an example of how even free, basic software produces results akin to the lightro that most consumers will be happy with.
Think what more advanced software could achieve at significantly less cost than a lightro setup.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes but it'll probably only work with sort of hyperfocal type shots either as a result of using a small aperture / wide lens with a large sensor or relatively small sensor as a starting point. I don't think that clever software could ever do what light field could potentially do or possibly light field will only do something similar but better? I suppose only time will tell.
I do think that the phone app approach will be good enough for many though until / if and when new technology changes the game.
I do think that the phone app approach will be good enough for many though until / if and when new technology changes the game.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 734
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
There is a difference between trolling and putting forward a point of view or idea for discussion or even friendly argument. I think what we see here is the latter rather than the former. IMVHO.
The app / software approach may or may not be the same as light field but it's interesting and worthy of discussion and even comparison IMVHO.
The app / software approach may or may not be the same as light field but it's interesting and worthy of discussion and even comparison IMVHO.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
This is where I differ. Sure, if there is a market for a camera that can selectively de-focus an image after taking, there is the possibility that the technology will become more capable (though it's got a long way to go). The question is, where is this 'massive demand'?
It's targetted at snap-shotters, because that's where the money is to be made. But these customers are very happy with their mobile-cams and compacts where pretty much everything is in front-to-back focus anyway. What they want is more video and sound capability, and lower prices.
3D cameras have more chance than Light Field, and that's a very tall order. If it turns out that shapshotters do indeed want the ability to de-focus, then even now it would be a very simple trick to do in software. That it is not already an everyday feature should tell us something. As is the fact that Lytro has been toted round all the major brands already, with no takers.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
That in itself means nothing. Dyson, Baylis and countless others before and after have been ignored or rejected too. Time will tell
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't see that. Yes true IF the tech could be cheap enough (imagine it in an iPhone 7!!), it'd have snapper appeal, but I think the real market is pro's or maybe wannabe pro's/enthusiasts. Basically, this tech adds focus adjustment to everything else you can do in PP, and that is a pro/enthusiast market, not a snapper one.
I think people are also ignoring the creative possibilities; things you can't do in camera no matter how good you are. Deep DoF in a macro shot of a moving subject. Two points of focus in the same shot, especially if the subject/s are moving. Yes you'd need a light field enabled PS for those, but the point is that it'd need the data from a light field camera in order to work; it could never do it with an ordinary DSLR shot no matter how good the photo or how powerful the software was.
And no I don't see how a simulated effect of any quality could be added to Photoshop. How can Photoshop ever know which of hundreds of items in a photo you do and don't want in focus, i.e. how far every item is from the camera?
Odd Jim, the reason people get "worked up" about it is your insistence that it "produces results akin to the lightro". It does not, not by any measure. It very roughly simulates a shallow depth of field, but only works even remotely well with certain types of shot; those with a very isolated, and ideally circular, subject where you want EVERYTHING else blurred.
Last edited:
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
whom said:
I think my understanding of the term 'troll' must differ from yours.
I've put sensible opinions across and explained my reasoning. I'm not doing it to wind anyone up and if it's achieved that result with you I'd suggest you find something worth getting wound up about.
Just because you can't see my view, or disagree with my point of view doesn't make me a troll.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed. Disagreeing is NOT trolling.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
WoW. I never thought of that.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That in itself means nothing. Dyson, Baylis and countless others before and after have been ignored or rejected too. Time will tell
It doesn't mean nothing. Lytro is not new, and the basic technology has been around for a very long time, with no major takers.
It means that the concept and camera has been seen by all those most likely to invest in it, and they've declined. Maybe they have a vested interest in not developing it, but they also declined to buy the patents anyway, if only to sink them. It was also shown to Steve Jobs shortly before his death, a lateral thinker if ever there was one, but Apple said no as well.
What I think is happening, and I will admit there is also the small possibility that I might be wrong
is Lytro is flying a kite, to attract investment and make money. But I don't believe it has a future, except as I said beyond sceintific applications perhaps.What I find most bewildering is DPReview's apparent support for Lytro, despite a complete lack of substantive evidence that it either works well enough to attract the interest of enthusiasts, or that there is any demand for it from any market sector.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 734
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Alright alright, not a troll. I was just a little surprised Jim that you seemed to think that similar (although inferior) results mean that equipment capable of better results have no place in the market.
DSLR cameras are proof that this is not the case. People are prepared to pay a lot of money for better results Jim, a lot of money.
ALSO, I refer everyone back to your first post:
2 No it doesn't do it just as well
3 No it doesn't enable post shooting focus selection
DSLR cameras are proof that this is not the case. People are prepared to pay a lot of money for better results Jim, a lot of money.
ALSO, I refer everyone back to your first post:
1 The iPad app doesn't do exactly the same thing
2 No it doesn't do it just as well
3 No it doesn't enable post shooting focus selection
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
whom said:
Ah but it does (the last bit) albeit in a different, but entirely fake way! Btw that post was very much Tongue in cheek, guess that didn't translate well.
And - I agree the cheap software manipulation of course isn't as good, but for the mass consumer, they won't care, as snap happy public won't see past the base level.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 734
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well I wasn't sure you were being serious, hence the Troll tag haha
I didn't mean to cause offence.
Anyway, back to my project report :| :rules::bang::thumbsdown::shrug:
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Steve 'whom' if anyone is trolling it is you yourself by insisting that someone else was trolling when they weren't.
If the product is good (it isn't yet) and the market is there (it isn't yet) then yes it may be just what everyone wanted - they just don't know it yet.
The technology may be clever but people may see it as something that should just be an add on feature on their already feature filled camera and not an investment to offer one thing only.
As a typical consumer of camera products, it has no interest to me as a standalone product.
If the product is good (it isn't yet) and the market is there (it isn't yet) then yes it may be just what everyone wanted - they just don't know it yet.
The technology may be clever but people may see it as something that should just be an add on feature on their already feature filled camera and not an investment to offer one thing only.
As a typical consumer of camera products, it has no interest to me as a standalone product.
- Messages
- 734
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,034
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The idea has been there for a long time but IMVHO it's only now in these digital days that it could be, if the will was there, done at a price that could make it interesting for the masses.
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can't see why it'd ever be a standalone product; surely if it ever takes off it'll be as part of a full featured DSLR that can do everything current models can, PLUS light field?
- Messages
- 673
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I find this lightfield idea quite enticing, however I think it's been done way before it's mature enough to hit the open market. Basically I see it as science writing a cheque that technology, as it stands at the moment, can't cash.
Science and technology are closely intertwined in that technology feeds directly off science. However to put it in basic terms: science defines what should be possible, and technology defines what is actually possible from a given science, and that is the problem with the Lytro. The science is there, but the technology to implement it at the moment is woefully lacking.
So what have we got? Currently we have a company that needs to monetize their R&D investment. Quite possibly due to cash burn and shareholders/investors snapping at their heels. As a result they've released a pretty much proof of concept product onto the market that, apart from it's proclaimed killer function, is vastly inferior to even the cheapest compact on the market, and at a price that would only appeal to the übergeek and/or the well healed hipster.
I hope I'm wrong, but in my years of following technology, releasing somthing where the tech employed is not mature leads to the product, and company, falling into the gutter, often never to be seen again.
In my opinion this doesn't bode well for the future of Lytro as anything more than a cult digital equivalent of the Holga/Lomo cameras
Science and technology are closely intertwined in that technology feeds directly off science. However to put it in basic terms: science defines what should be possible, and technology defines what is actually possible from a given science, and that is the problem with the Lytro. The science is there, but the technology to implement it at the moment is woefully lacking.
So what have we got? Currently we have a company that needs to monetize their R&D investment. Quite possibly due to cash burn and shareholders/investors snapping at their heels. As a result they've released a pretty much proof of concept product onto the market that, apart from it's proclaimed killer function, is vastly inferior to even the cheapest compact on the market, and at a price that would only appeal to the übergeek and/or the well healed hipster.
I hope I'm wrong, but in my years of following technology, releasing somthing where the tech employed is not mature leads to the product, and company, falling into the gutter, often never to be seen again.
In my opinion this doesn't bode well for the future of Lytro as anything more than a cult digital equivalent of the Holga/Lomo cameras
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not really. As it stands now, yes, but the discussion has turned to whether or not there's a market for the technology.
- Messages
- 2,820
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You're right, but often the technology is later taken up and made commercial by someone with market savvy. Just look at e-readers; there was a long history of failures and "that'll only ever be niche" before Amazon came along and worked out what people actually wanted, and offered the Kindle.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Who knows if there is a market?, the answer won't be in this thread that's for sure
Just looking at the form of the light field camera (very long) would suggest it is going to take a fair bit of an advance to get that as an add on feature rather than a standalone device. Whether there is a future market is one thing but whether it is even possible is another...
I think this click to focus thing is just scratching the surface and has the same kind of appeal as instagram - happy quick snaps for a bit of fun. This is based on trying out one of these Lytros.. and no I don't want one.
There must be value in more information, including an idea of the distance to every pixel in an image. Aside from the obvious 3D viewing options it's probably quite good for tracking motion (and evaluating speed) - Kinect 2? Or maybe they'll use it in AF sensors some day to know instantly how to focus the real lens for a picture. For sure I don't know where this tech will end up.
All I know is I'm happy to see someone stepping outside the box camera (coat...) and commercializing technology to the point of mass availability.. when things get cheaper, people get creative.
There must be value in more information, including an idea of the distance to every pixel in an image. Aside from the obvious 3D viewing options it's probably quite good for tracking motion (and evaluating speed) - Kinect 2? Or maybe they'll use it in AF sensors some day to know instantly how to focus the real lens for a picture. For sure I don't know where this tech will end up.
All I know is I'm happy to see someone stepping outside the box camera (coat...) and commercializing technology to the point of mass availability.. when things get cheaper, people get creative.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Very well put
Though I would add that with 'necessity being the mother of invention' actually the technology to make this work reasonably well (ie very high pixel count and fast processing) is easily possible, as suggested in the inventor's thesis I linked earlier.
The problem is, there's no necessity. No obvious market, not on a large scale anyway. No clear return on investment. It gives me no pleasure to pour cold water on new ideas, but I don't see that changing. Not outiside of specialist and scientific applications, and some of the suggestions make elsewhere in this thread I would put very much in the specialist category, which is not where Lytro is aiming at all.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Who knows if there is a market?, the answer won't be in this thread that's for sure
Just looking at the form of the light field camera (very long) would suggest it is going to take a fair bit of an advance to get that as an add on feature rather than a standalone device. Whether there is a future market is one thing but whether it is even possible is another...
Why won't the answer be in this thread? We are the market, we are all consumers. We are as qualified as anyone else.
So maybe it's not for enthusiasts. Well, that's worth confirming for a start, though most of us also own a compact and will use a phone-cam too.
So what about the mass picture-taking market, all those millions of people exactly like our own friends and relatives that buy and use compacts and phone-cams?
So to those here who believe Lytro is the way to go, next time a friend asks for advice on what snapshot camera to buy for a few hundred quid, suggest Lytro. Explain what it does, and see if your advice turns into a purchase. That's really the only test that matters, and without that happening quite soon in significant numbers, the whole thing will sink.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We may be more qualified than the masses due to an over interest in cameras but the market cannot be tested by under 10 people discussing it in a tiny thread on a small section of a UK forum. That is not market research.
If you want to walk the street with your clipboard and talk to 500 people and then extrapolate out the results let me know as I certainly won't be doing it
I would never suggest a Lytro because it is a one trick pony and doesn't do the basics of what most users would want, i.e where is the flash, where is the large screen to review images, where are the effects etc,. It is also pretty expensive at $400 (which will probably equate to £400 if sold in UK)
However, if it goes to £100 then I would probably get one to play with. One use would be for candid street shots as it would be oblivious to most people you are even holding a camera and without having to worry about focus it would be ideal. In fact that is a very large appeal to me and now I want one, where do I get one
magicaxeman
An Idiot
- Messages
- 3,097
- Edit My Images
- No
No its not a standalone product, the images can only be processed and viewed via the website at present, this ties you as without the site you cant process or view your images.
As in all digital camera's all the hardware does is provide the raw data, the real work is done in interpreting the data, rendering it into a useful image, in this respect all digital camera's are reliant on software/firmware to do the real work.
If we equate it to film,in all digital camera's, this one included the sensor is the film, the software the developing process, one without the other is useless, if the hardware fails you have a brick, if the software/firmware fails.. you have a brick.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You misunderstood - what I mean by standalone product is the Lytro camera is a product purchased specifically to do the Lytro thing. Future developments may allow light field technology into other cameras as an add on but the Lytro referred to by the OP is a standalone product purchased to do one thing.
- Messages
- 3,751
- Name
- urrrm.... Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well I think this is very interesting
very clever but limited in scope and quality.
so I see them as the new polaroid.
gimmicky and not too cheap but suitable for some purposes.
Obviously polaroid backs for MF was extremely useful for some people
the only issue I think is with price
as far as quality goes, not everyone has pro-glass and FF cameras.
most photographs are taken on tiny camera phones and then processed through instagram and the quality dropped (often to make them look like retro images)
for photos in the social media world (as opposed to pro-'photography')...quality is not a driver, gimmick and convenience is.
very clever but limited in scope and quality.
so I see them as the new polaroid.
gimmicky and not too cheap but suitable for some purposes.
Obviously polaroid backs for MF was extremely useful for some people
the only issue I think is with price
as far as quality goes, not everyone has pro-glass and FF cameras.
most photographs are taken on tiny camera phones and then processed through instagram and the quality dropped (often to make them look like retro images)
for photos in the social media world (as opposed to pro-'photography')...quality is not a driver, gimmick and convenience is.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Things have moved on. Lytro's creator Ren Ng has been ousted as CEO http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/29/lytroceostepsdown
I didn't read "ousted" anywhere? I used to be CEO of my company but chose to "step down" to become the CTO because I hate all the crap involved in being the CEO.
Now I take care of tech & product vision + strategy and it's best for me and the company both.
That said, lytro has not made a big splash. Let's see if they can put out a 2.0 product with wider appeal.
Now I take care of tech & product vision + strategy and it's best for me and the company both.
That said, lytro has not made a big splash. Let's see if they can put out a 2.0 product with wider appeal.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Depends how you read it, but 'ousted' is a description used by several posters on that link.