Is the new lytro camera a gimmick?

[boerewors]

I had been reading about this new lytro camera that can capture images without bothering about focusing and later during PP you can refocus the images.
Is this camera merely making multiple focus bracketed images and then layering them over one another so that as you click to change the focus during PP, all youre doing is merely revealing the layer with the most contrast (in focus) area where you clicked?
If that is the case then all it is, is a bit of software in a stick. With that said however, i really wish canon would introduce focus bracketing into their firmware.
I dont recall this camera having a flash and now i think i know why :)

[Thalagyrt]

Short version: No, that's not what it is. They're doing some pretty nifty light hax.

Long version: http://www.lytro.com/science_inside

Really long version: http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf

[rick_reno]

I don't believe it's a gimmick, it's new technology and pretty clever. We'll have to wait and see if it gains any traction.

[Ross J]

I don't want to make predictions about the Lytro specifically, but it's technology fits perfectly within media theories regarding digital imaging. The switch from film to sensor was a change from visual space to an acoustic space medium. This is an abstract concept, but it means that the destiny of the digital medium is not going to be tied to sequences or actual light itself. Focusing a camera lens is part of a mechanical sequence left over from film photography and digital will seek to overcome it. The Lytro technology has just eliminated the sequence which fits perfectly within the framework of an acoustic space medium. Bottom line: media theory was able to predict the Lytro camera technology before it even existed so this means it is probably relevant even if nobody knows exactly how relevant yet.

There will probably always be a use or want for mechanical lenses so Canon lenses should be valuable for a long time to come. However, the future of digital imaging will not be tied to mechanical sequences like lenses. Again, this is an abstract concept, but if media theories are correct then digital will eventually create images without using any light at all. It should eventually be possible to create images from acoustic space similar to how ships navigate by sonar.

[Martin Dixon]

I'm not sure you can hear colour.

Accoustic waves are very long and resolution could never match light images. I imagine acoustic imaging would be similar to thermal imaging - interesting but not what your human eye can see.

[Ross J]

I'm not sure you can hear colour.

Accoustic waves are very long and resolution could never match light images. I imagine acoustic imaging would be similar to thermal imaging - interesting but not what your human eye can see.

10 years ago, if someone had said that it would be possible to focus an image after taking it then he would have been laughed at. But here we are today and it is possible. The way to approach media theory is to use it to tell us something that will happen before telling us exactly how it will happen.

[PhotoMatte]

Luckily for us photographers, even if the destiny of the digital medium is not going to be tied to sequences or actual light itself, there will always be a demand for photographs that are tied to actual light, since photography, by definition, "derives from the Greek φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing",together meaning "drawing with light". Or so says Wikipedia :)
Failing that, there's always the trend towards retro fashion, which means all of us 35mm, SLR folks will have a niche to work in.

[brose]

Take a hole. Take a wall. You have the scene on the side of the hole opposite the wall in unmatched focus, resolution and colour. (http://www.abelardomorell.net/photography/cameraobsc_49/cameraobsc_64.html). Put the scene on the wall through software, choosing the part of the scene you want to be the focus, and blur everything else using parameters of distance from your chosen focus/scene centre, average element size and brightness.

Yours already for a fistful of dollars in quality the Lytro will never achieve!

Neil

[Scatterbrained]

Kodak should buy Lytro. Just sayin.


Right now I think Lytro is a novelty. In 5 years however, when they find a way to achieve higher resolutions (when asked about resolution the owner/inventor danced around like a politician confronted about his voting record) I think it will be a much more serious piece of tech. It's a brilliant concept however.

[S.Horton]

Kodak would just kill it beneath a few hundred standard operating procedures.

[brose]

It's a brilliant concept however.


The concept (panoptic) relies on having an infinite number of mircrolenses, all perfect, without any aberrations or distortions. If not, it relies on software trickery (as all the product samples do).

In short, it cannot do better than the physics-optics of the real world of light and materials, and so is doomed to software trickery, and pretty been there done that (as the samples demonstrate) trickery at that!

I've described above how the *concept* and the actuality is already basically in the age old concept and first explorations of photography itself. Nothing OMG futuristic in it in the least.

Neil

[elrey2375]

The concept (panoptic) relies on having an infinite number of mircrolenses, all perfect, without any aberrations or distortions. If not, it relies on software trickery (as all the product samples do).

In short, it cannot do better than the physics-optics of the real world of light and materials, and so is doomed to software trickery, and pretty been there done that (as the samples demonstrate) trickery at that!

I've described above how the *concept* and the actuality is already basically in the age old concept and first explorations of photography itself. Nothing OMG futuristic in it in the least.

Neil

Then where's it been all this time?

[brose]

Then where's it been all this time?

I dunno! Where has anything been?!:confused:

Well this much I can say: it's been a prizewinning Stanford University PhD.

I'll get one as soon as I see a "light ray". Lytro captures 11 million of them, so shouldn't be hard to find 1? If you see one before I do please get back to me asap!

Neil

[Snydremark]

It's new tech, with some interesting potential, but right now I think it's more of an answer looking for a question than anything else.

These early models are being sold to try and help offset the costs of continued R&D and to help figure out what its real-world uses are going to be.

[Shadowblade]

It has a lot of potential, but requires multi-gigapixel sensors and better microlens manufacturing technology to be realised.

At the moment, it's just a gimmick, but so were digital cameras 20 years ago.

[brose]

What I *think* Lytro means is that the device takes 11 million samples at once of the light which passes into it through the front lens, and these samples are said to include information about the direction the sampled light was coming from, and its angle of incidence. This kind of information is not used however as optical information in the same way that a conventional image sensor does. This kind of information is not used in the production of the image. It is information used to *edit* the image using software after and independently of the optical information producing the image. There are already three SW applications that I know of which can apply image-independent edits to images to simulate DOF (eg using a depth map). The information that the Lytro PP SW uses is for a similar result, but apparently at the cost of very much reduced image quality (max 1.2MP jpg, possibly further uneditable, with unknown measures of IQ that we give so much attention to from our gear).

Neil

[Nathan]

I think an appeal to the consumer market is gimmicky, i.e. a lot of reaction to the Lytro over the past year or so is it's impact on photography.

There is no gimmick to its possible applications to in public safety and homeland security applications. If it is possible to make the process efficient and possible to make storage manageable, then there could be some real applications in surveillance technology.

People more creative than me can come up with even better applications.

[bjyoder]

The thesis the camera is based on was written by a guy smarter than me. There have been many people smarter than me saying the thesis is sound. I take this to mean - so far - is that the possibility of the Lytro camera truly doing what the company proclaims it can do will happen sometime in the future. I don't think it's happening now.

From dpreview's hands-on article from January 13th:
In standard mode, the camera's lens is set to the equivalent of the hyperfocal distance in conventional photography (the closest point of focus that renders objects at infinity as acceptably sharp). For instance, at wideangle, it captures a depth of field of approximately 4 inches to infinity, and the final image allows re-focusing at all points in between. The Advanced Light Field mode, (as it currently exists) prompts the camera to phyically refocus its lens closer than this, centering the depth of field in your shot around your specified focus point. When this image is refocused on the camera screen or on your computer, the focus can be shifted around that specified point, but not out to infinity. For example if you focus on a subject's eyes, you will, depending on the focal length, be able to shift the focus between their ears and nose.

What I see the Lytro camera as right now is a complete gimmick. 1) The lens is at a hyper-focal distance for focusing. 2) You can only refocus once the shots are uploaded to the Lytro site. Those two points, gathered from the quote above and elsewhere in the article (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1942514918/ces-2012-lytro-photowalk) lead me to believe that Lytro has made a better, more realistic blur tool that will allow the look and feel of refocusing, but not an actual refocusing of the image as they have lead to believe.

Is it a fun concept? Sure. Is it the future of photography? Not yet, and maybe not for a long while.

[S.Horton]

Strong military and intelligence potential now.

[brose]

The thesis the camera is based on was written by a guy smarter than me. There have been many people smarter than me saying the thesis is sound. I take this to mean - so far - is that the possibility of the Lytro camera truly doing what the company proclaims it can do will happen sometime in the future. I don't think it's happening now.

From dpreview's hands-on article from January 13th:


What I see the Lytro camera as right now is a complete gimmick. 1) The lens is at a hyper-focal distance for focusing. 2) You can only refocus once the shots are uploaded to the Lytro site. Those two points, gathered from the quote above and elsewhere in the article (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1942514918/ces-2012-lytro-photowalk) lead me to believe that Lytro has made a better, more realistic blur tool that will allow the look and feel of refocusing, but not an actual refocusing of the image as they have lead to believe.

Is it a fun concept? Sure. Is it the future of photography? Not yet, and maybe not for a long while.

I wonder how you can be sure how your smartness compares with other people's. That some people hold university jobs I think is more highly correlated with the wealth of their parents than with their own IQ.:rolleyes:

The thesis is a good one probably. Ren Ng is a graduate in mathematical and computational science. This says a lot about what is in his thesis, which is not about the technology of making a light field camera, but about mathematics and computing. It demonstrates how a certain set of equations can be successfully applied to some hypothetical situations related in a schematic way to some aspects of the theory of a light field sensor. Like most theses it deals with one issue only among a complex of issues. It gets nowhere near dealing with the issues of optics-electronics-physics and materials which are the stuff of technology. The device that has been produced does not really represent a technological advance in the making of a light field camera, because it does not really attempt to solve the technological challenges involved. The device is a crude model, a bit like an elastic band powered cardboard toy plane. Sure, it takes photos, just as the toy plane flies! The real grit in the device is the software, as I said in an earlier post above, and this is hardly surprising since Ng is a mathematical and computational scientist!

I remain very sceptical about the light field panoptic camera idea ever having relevance to the photography we mean when we talk about photography here or to the technology used to do it. Toys are great and they sell. Let's be clear what we are talking about.

Neil

[brose]

Strong military and intelligence potential now.

Can you tell us more????? Without risking being "retired", of course!

I know some work has been going on on medical applications, eg a plenoptic camera for medical endoscopy to give depth information in video images.

Neil

[S.Horton]

No I don't know anything.

I can just imagine if you only had time to get one shot, his system would make a great way to get it and not care about focus. Think high speed drone pass, field combat video, that kind of thing.

I am a bit surprised a big company has not snapped it up just to troll the patent.

[bjyoder]

I wonder how you can be sure how your smartness compares with other people's. That some people hold university jobs I think is more highly correlated with the wealth of their parents than with their own IQ.:rolleyes:

The thesis is a good one probably. Ren Ng is a graduate in mathematical and computational science. This says a lot about what is in his thesis, which is not about the technology of making a light field camera, but about mathematics and computing. It demonstrates how a certain set of equations can be successfully applied to some hypothetical situations related in a schematic way to some aspects of the theory of a light field sensor. Like most theses it deals with one issue only among a complex of issues. It gets nowhere near dealing with the issues of optics-electronics-physics and materials which are the stuff of technology. The device that has been produced does not really represent a technological advance in the making of a light field camera, because it does not really attempt to solve the technological challenges involved. The device is a crude model, a bit like an elastic band powered cardboard toy plane. Sure, it takes photos, just as the toy plane flies! The real grit in the device is the software, as I said in an earlier post above, and this is hardly surprising since Ng is a mathematical and computational scientist!

I remain very sceptical about the light field panoptic camera idea ever having relevance to the photography we mean when we talk about photography here or to the technology used to do it. Toys are great and they sell. Let's be clear what we are talking about.

Neil

Wow. That first paragraph was an interesting way of reminding me that I'm probably not actually as dumb as I'd like to believe... ;) :-D

To restate, then, Ng is smarter than me with his mathmatical computational skills, and people with better mathmatical computational skills than me have said the thesis is sound.

That still leaves us at the same conclusion, that, at least this version of the camera/technology is likely a gimmick. There are too many other things that could be at play here for this to be the true technology. I'm a little more surprsed review sites haven't stated the same, and have jumped on the bandwagon.

[S.Horton]

By the way, it would be very easy for a big company to duplicate what that firm is doing and wipe them out.

Funny thing, start-ups. A good idea is not nearly enough.

[RTPVid]

...The switch from film to sensor was a change from visual space to an acoustic space medium...Hogwash. Digital camera sensors could be described as sensors of the broader EM spectrum, but they are not "acoustic" sensors.

Acoustic energy is mechanical. EM energy is photonic.

[Numenorean]

The technology is not a gimmick.

The current use of the technology (e.g. the camera itself) is certainly a gimmick.

[RobDickinson]

The technology is not a gimmick.

The current use of the technology (e.g. the camera itself) is certainly a gimmick.

This. The current physical camera is a joke.

[brose]

The technology is not a gimmick.

The current use of the technology (e.g. the camera itself) is certainly a gimmick.

There *IS* no technology to speak of, there are some crude mockups of some concepts, such as the array of digital cameras to simulate the concept of a plenoptic sensor at Stanford.

Neil

[Numenorean]

There *IS* no technology to speak of, there are some crude mockups of some concepts, such as the array of digital cameras to simulate the concept of a plenoptic sensor at Stanford.

Neil

https://www.lytro.com/camera

You can buy them.

Not that I'm disagreeing that they are crude but anyway.

[Bananapie]

Guys...two words: Cell Phones.

The lyttro might be a "gimmic" in its current form factor (which is fun and cool, but not necessarily ideal), but placed in the right tool, it could be extremely powerful.

If you had this technology in a 7D, it would be wasted--well not wasted, perhaps after getting the images into the computer you realized the interesting part of a scene was something different than you had in mind--but at any rate your capability would not increase because of the tech.

However, in a cell phone, you would be able to pull the camera from your pocket and with one dedicated button take a shot in an instant. This would be an exceptional tool for catching the moment without sophisticated control and capability of a DSLR.

It's not a tool for PHOTOGRAPHERS, but it is the next generation tool for people recording memories or events.

[brose]

https://www.lytro.com/camera

You can buy them.

Not that I'm disagreeing that they are crude but anyway.

"them" means what? Is buying a Lytro buying a plenoptic camera? Is buying a rubberband powered cardboard toy plane buying a plane? Who would regard a cardboard box with a hole in it a camera, but of course it is a camera, but not a *meaningful* camera.

Let's be clear what we are talking about!

Neil

[brose]

Guys...two words: Cell Phones.

The lyttro might be a "gimmic" in its current form factor (which is fun and cool, but not necessarily ideal), but placed in the right tool, it could be extremely powerful.

If you had this technology in a 7D, it would be wasted--well not wasted, perhaps after getting the images into the computer you realized the interesting part of a scene was something different than you had in mind--but at any rate your capability would not increase because of the tech.

However, in a cell phone, you would be able to pull the camera from your pocket and with one dedicated button take a shot in an instant. This would be an exceptional tool for catching the moment without sophisticated control and capability of a DSLR.

It's not a tool for PHOTOGRAPHERS, but it is the next generation tool for people recording memories or events.

Yes, there is no shortage of tantalising ideas!! Not only about this! Just watch StarTrek!

Neil

[Bananapie]

Yes, there is no shortage of tantalising ideas!! Not only about this! Just watch StarTrek!

Neil

Are you saying that these wont be in Cell Phones? Guess what company Steve Jobs was meeting with 6 months prior to his death...

It's not a stretch of the imagination to see this in cell phones, there are already crazier things. Google liquid lenses.

[brose]

Are you saying that these wont be in Cell Phones? <...>
It's not a stretch of the imagination to see this in cell phones

Yes, I think it is highly unlikely both that a Lytro will be in a mobile phone, and that anybody will miss it.

No it is not a stretch of the imagination, but that is all it is.;)

Neil

[AngryCorgi]

I wouldn't pay $50 for a silly looking camera that took 540x540 stills, let alone what these goons are charging. The 1080x1080 output is actually interpolated from 540x540. SMH.

[elrey2375]

Yes, I think it is highly unlikely both that a Lytro will be in a mobile phone, and that anybody will miss it.

No it is not a stretch of the imagination, but that is all it is.;)

Neil

I'm beginning to think that someone at this company wronged you in a personal way.

[brose]

I'm beginning to think that someone at this company wronged you in a personal way.

Great math and computing science, exciting physics/optics/electronics/materials sciences challenges to achieve advances in imaging with potential valuable application in medicine and possibly other areas, especially if miniaturisation can be achieved in the technology which is developed... and just plain fun to imagine and think about!

I have said all that, and that I think Ng has made a real contribution to the theory of plenoptics. I do think however that his product is more a toy, something intriguing to play with, than a meaningful camera, and I think he would actually agree with that. I think he would agree that you can't talk about the Lytro and, say, a D700 in the same breath, as cameras for photographers like us. My bottom line has always been to be careful about exactly what we are talking about here in this thread - a camera as we understand one or a curiosity. I don't think Ng would have any issues with that.

People spend more on alcohol over a month (for example - nothing wrong with it) than the cost of the Lytro. There is no logical reason why Ng's company cannot make some bucks from the Lytro to continue R&D. I wish them success!

Now, so what were you saying again??!!

Neil

[csshih]

I saw and played with one in person.

imho in its current form: gimmick.
give it a few years.

C

[cskorik]

I've got one of these cameras. Is it a gimmick? That depends on your definition of the word. I would say the technology is legitimate and completely real, but if you buy one of these cameras, you should know that it is an infant product. The pictures it produces are grainy and low res. There are color aberrations. There are artifacts. On the plus side, this camera allows you to take pictures unlike I have ever seen before in a consumer camera. One shot captures a 3d block of an image for you to explore. Framing a shot requires consideration in this regard. Later, you will be able to view the images in 3d... A single shot capturing 3d! That is pretty remarkable. After all is said and done, no one is going to shoot a wedding with this kind of camera in the next five years, but I'm sure having fun with mine for the moment.

One last thing: the ability to focus on an object that is touching the lens ad hoc without having to change lenses or add an extension tube is quite handy. My best shots with this camera are certainly macro-type shots.

[Shadowblade]

It's a gimmick with current sensors, since you just don't have enough photosites.

But what if you combined this with a 1-gigapixel full-frame sensor? The gigapixel sensor by itself would be of limited use - its resolution would be diffraction-limited much of the time anyway. But, what if you could combine that sensor with plenoptic technology, to give you a 100-megapixel image, which you could then do whatever you liked with - multiple focal planes, focal 'planes' which aren't planes at all, but regions in 3D space, even conversion for holography and 3D image projection?

Remember, digital photography itself started off as a gimmick.

[brose]

It's a gimmick with current sensors, since you just don't have enough photosites.

But what if you combined this with a 1-gigapixel full-frame sensor? The gigapixel sensor by itself would be of limited use - its resolution would be diffraction-limited much of the time anyway. But, what if you could combine that sensor with plenoptic technology, to give you a 100-megapixel image, which you could then do whatever you liked with - multiple focal planes, focal 'planes' which aren't planes at all, but regions in 3D space, even conversion for holography and 3D image projection?

Remember, digital photography itself started off as a gimmick.

Yes! What if we could live in another universe while we're at it!

Automobiles started off as a Ford T. I think we have made more progress with pizzas!:D

Neil

[Shadowblade]

Yes! What if we could live in another universe while we're at it!

Automobiles started off as a Ford T. I think we have made more progress with pizzas!:D

Neil

I'm talking revolutionary change, not evolutionary. They didn't develop the car by breeding a faster horse, nor the gun by developing better bows and arrows. And - just as with the light field camera - the first cars were much slower than a horse, and the first guns much less effective than bows and arrows. Digital cameras didn't come from faster or better film. And the first digital camera was a 10 kilopixel piece of garbage that was dismissed by Kodak, eventually leaving them in the position they're in now.

Cars haven't changed much. But, with the same concept of the internal combustion engine and some new technology, they developed planes. Then, by combining aircraft design with the jet engine, planes became much more viable. Then, by taking the gas turbine engine from aircraft and putting into ground vehicles, they developed much higher-performance ground vehicles, albeit a a cost in fuel.

Evolutionary change only gets you so far. Revolutionary change make the big leaps.

[Neilyb]

Give it a few years, matched with a sensor based on black silicone shooting ISO independant.... ;)

[brose]

I'm talking revolutionary change, not evolutionary. They didn't develop the car by breeding a faster horse, nor the gun by developing better bows and arrows. And - just as with the light field camera - the first cars were much slower than a horse, and the first guns much less effective than bows and arrows. Digital cameras didn't come from faster or better film. And the first digital camera was a 10 kilopixel piece of garbage that was dismissed by Kodak, eventually leaving them in the position they're in now.

Cars haven't changed much. But, with the same concept of the internal combustion engine and some new technology, they developed planes. Then, by combining aircraft design with the jet engine, planes became much more viable. Then, by taking the gas turbine engine from aircraft and putting into ground vehicles, they developed much higher-performance ground vehicles, albeit a a cost in fuel.

Evolutionary change only gets you so far. Revolutionary change make the big leaps.

mmm...

the internal combustion engine is not revolutionary, it's the same old energy + levers + fulcrum + wheel principles that humans have used forever, just the energy source is combustion rather than steam or wind or water or muscle.

I think it is mighty rash to leap from the imaginable to the doable without reference to the applicable laws. In the cases of the automobile and the plane, the various laws (of chemistry, force, motion, gravity, aerodynamics, materials, math) were applicable and enabled the imagined technology to function. I can imagine a car that transformed itself into a pocketable tablet at the push of a button and transformed itself back into a car at another push of the button. No problem. The problems come finding the laws which enable the necessary technology.

Similarly, for the Lytro to become a revolutionary technology which still remains a camera meaningful to us, where are the enabling laws??!! Light is light, lenses are lenses, light capturing electronics are light capturing electronics - each are constrained by immutable laws. The imagined Lytro requires laws of energy and materials which do not exist! Or which exist perhaps in another universe!

That, mate, is the difference!

Neil

[Shadowblade]

mmm...

the internal combustion engine is not revolutionary, it's the same old energy + levers + fulcrum + wheel principles that humans have used forever, just the energy source is combustion rather than steam or wind or water or muscle.

I think it is mighty rash to leap from the imaginable to the doable without reference to the applicable laws. In the cases of the automobile and the plane, the various laws (of chemistry, force, motion, gravity, aerodynamics, materials, math) were applicable and enabled the imagined technology to function. I can imagine a car that transformed itself into a pocketable tablet at the push of a button and transformed itself back into a car at another push of the button. No problem. The problems come finding the laws which enable the necessary technology.

Similarly, for the Lytro to become a revolutionary technology which still remains a camera meaningful to us, where are the enabling laws??!! Light is light, lenses are lenses, light capturing electronics are light capturing electronics - each are constrained by immutable laws. The imagined Lytro requires laws of energy and materials which do not exist! Or which exist perhaps in another universe!

That, mate, is the difference!

Neil

What do you mean the necessary laws of physics do not exist? They're well-established, and used in every 3D rendering program out there.

A standard camera only detects the position of incoming photons - essentially, it's a two-dimensional snapshot. A light field camera, on the bother hand, detects both the position and direction. Using raytracing techniques, it becomes possible to pinpoint the origin of these photons, building up a three-dimensional picture.

The only thing that's missing is a multi-gigapixel sensor and nanoscale microlens manufacturing technique to take full advantage of it, and faster processors to handle the reverse raytracing of high-resolution files.

[brose]

What do you mean the necessary laws of physics do not exist? They're well-established, and used in every 3D rendering program out there.

A standard camera only detects the position of incoming photons - essentially, it's a two-dimensional snapshot. A light field camera, on the bother hand, detects both the position and direction. Using raytracing techniques, it becomes possible to pinpoint the origin of these photons, building up a three-dimensional picture.

The only thing that's missing is a multi-gigapixel sensor and nanoscale microlens manufacturing technique to take full advantage of it, and faster processors to handle the reverse raytracing of high-resolution files.

mmm...

you show me a light ray and I'll believe all you say!:D

Neil

[Shadowblade]

mmm...

you show me a light ray and I'll believe all you say!:D

Neil

How do you 'show' a light ray? It's like 'showing' the number 7.3.

But you can measure its incoming direction, as well as the point at which it intersects the sensor. Knowing that, you can work out where it came from.

[brose]

Well, you said "raytracing techniques". How do you trace 7.3?

Neil

[Shadowblade]

Well, you said "raytracing techniques". How do you trace 7.3?

Neil

I never said you could trace a number - just that you can't show me a number (as opposed to an abstract representation of a number) in the same way as you can't show a 'liight ray' (as opposed to a representation of one).

Besides, the current gadget might be a gimmick, but it works. So, the theory is sound. It just needs better implementation.

[efoo]

Automobiles started off as a Ford T. I think we have made more progress with pizzas!:D

That is as correct as saying 1+1=3. :rolleyes:

[pwm2]

10 years ago, if someone had said that it would be possible to focus an image after taking it then he would have been laughed at. But here we are today and it is possible. The way to approach media theory is to use it to tell us something that will happen before telling us exactly how it will happen.
No. Capturing light direction was thought about a long time ago. Just that no one knew how to do it with enough resolution for photos. But it was done for other purposes.

For photos, you can live with less quality of determining the angle of rays, but you want to capture a lot of them. In other situations, you instead are fine with a few rays but want to know the angle very accurately allowing origin of light sources to be computed with good precision.

[pwm2]

What do you mean the necessary laws of physics do not exist? They're well-established, and used in every 3D rendering program out there.

A standard camera only detects the position of incoming photons - essentially, it's a two-dimensional snapshot. A light field camera, on the bother hand, detects both the position and direction. Using raytracing techniques, it becomes possible to pinpoint the origin of these photons, building up a three-dimensional picture.

The only thing that's missing is a multi-gigapixel sensor and nanoscale microlens manufacturing technique to take full advantage of it, and faster processors to handle the reverse raytracing of high-resolution files.
3D rendering programs don't need to care about diffraction, or the wavelength of light. The rules used are not the real physical rules but much rougher approximations that ignores a huge part of the real behaviour of waves and particles.

A nanoscale microlens is very much affected by the wavelength of whatever beam that is intended to transfer through the lens. Exactly where does it hit if the wavelength is several times longer than the intended resolution of the sensor?

[Shadowblade]

3D rendering programs don't need to care about diffraction, or the wavelength of light. The rules used are not the real physical rules but much rougher approximations that ignores a huge part of the real behaviour of waves and particles.

A nanoscale microlens is very much affected by the wavelength of whatever beam that is intended to transfer through the lens. Exactly where does it hit if the wavelength is several times longer than the intended resolution of the sensor?

Diffraction is a mathematically-predictable effect that can be reversed by applying a Fourier transformation to the data collected by the sensor. Naturally, with the amount of data in question, significant processor power is required to perform the transformation with any degree of speed or accuracy. Nevertheless, it can be done. Once this transformation is done, you have essentially simplified the succeeding calculations such that light can be treated simply as a straight line - the transformation accounts for the wave-particle duality of light.

A 1-gigapixel full-frame sensor would have pixels around 950 nanometres across - larger than the wavelength of visible light. Therefore, detail can be resolved down to this level.

[brose]

Diffraction is a mathematically-predictable effect that can be reversed by applying a Fourier transformation to the data collected by the sensor. Naturally, with the amount of data in question, significant processor power is required to perform the transformation with any degree of speed or accuracy. Nevertheless, it can be done. Once this transformation is done, you have essentially simplified the succeeding calculations such that light can be treated simply as a straight line - the transformation accounts for the wave-particle duality of light.

A 1-gigapixel full-frame sensor would have pixels around 950 nanometres across - larger than the wavelength of visible light. Therefore, detail can be resolved down to this level.

Every possibility you assert you disclaim with *if we had the gadgets to do it*. There will never be gadgets to do stuff where there are not supporting laws, and scale is a class of laws. If you think the Lytro is an implementation of a plenoptic camera then there it is, go out and get it! It's yours already!

When it takes but half a page of posts to get to absurdities like photography without real light, and the wavelength of visible light, that's an indication how hokuspokus the topic is!

Neil

[Shadowblade]

Every possibility you assert you disclaim with *if we had the gadgets to do it*. There will never be gadgets to do stuff where there are not supporting laws, and scale is a class of laws. If you think the Lytro is an implementation of a plenoptic camera then there it is, go out and get it! It's yours already!

When it takes but half a page of posts to get to absurdities like photography without real light, and the wavelength of visible light, that's an indication how hokuspokus the topic is!

Neil

The core physics and technology is there.

Just that the supporting technology - gigapixel sensors, faster processors and nanoscale microlens manufacturing techniques - aren't quite there yet. But the supporting technology upgrades needed are just an evolution of currently-existing technology, not a totally new concept (like the plenoptic camera).

A bit like how the concept of a flying, heavier-than-air vehicle based on the wing, including the physics of how it would operate, was around well before the aeroplane was invented. They just needed the internal combustion engine to provide a high-enough power-to-weight ratio to power the thing. Steam engines just didn't cut it. The key concept and technology - the wing - was there, but the supporting technology - engine power - needed further development.

It's not 'hocus pocus'. It's lack of imagination - being comfortable with what exists, and skeptical of new concepts even though the theory (not necessarily the implementation) is sound. Ultimately, that's what doomed Kodak.

[brose]

No. Capturing light direction was thought about a long time ago. Just that no one knew how to do it with enough resolution for photos. But it was done for other purposes.

For photos, you can live with less quality of determining the angle of rays, but you want to capture a lot of them. In other situations, you instead are fine with a few rays but want to know the angle very accurately allowing origin of light sources to be computed with good precision.

The image projected with a pinhole camera contains all the information of light in the scene.

Neil

[brose]

The core physics and technology is there.

Just that the supporting technology - gigapixel sensors, faster processors and nanoscale microlens manufacturing techniques - aren't quite there yet. But the supporting technology upgrades needed are just an evolution of currently-existing technology, not a totally new concept (like the plenoptic camera).

A bit like how the concept of a flying, heavier-than-air vehicle based on the wing, including the physics of how it would operate, was around well before the aeroplane was invented. They just needed the internal combustion engine to provide a high-enough power-to-weight ratio to power the thing. Steam engines just didn't cut it. The key concept and technology - the wing - was there, but the supporting technology - engine power - needed further development.

It's not 'hocus pocus'. It's lack of imagination - being comfortable with what exists, and skeptical of new concepts even though the theory (not necessarily the implementation) is sound. Ultimately, that's what doomed Kodak.

The equations for getting to another universe are easy.

I can make a plane with some cardboard and a rubber band. No math, and no revolution, necessary.

Neil

[NeverFollow]

I think I just walked into the wrong classroom hahaha

[calypsob]

It has a lot of potential, but requires multi-gigapixel sensors and better microlens manufacturing technology to be realised.

At the moment, it's just a gimmick, but so were digital cameras 20 years ago.

agreed, and so were palmtops or "PDA's", just wait and see. I think this technology is going to replace all the analog aspects of photography.

[pwm2]

agreed, and so were palmtops or "PDA's", just wait and see. I think this technology is going to replace all the analog aspects of photography.
Hardly anything ever manages to replace all aspects of an older technology.

[S.Horton]

agreed, and so were palmtops or "PDA's", just wait and see. I think this technology is going to replace all the analog aspects of photography.

When you say that, I think you're involved in the project.

If so, tell them this -- converge augmented reality, and you've got a killer app.

[watt100]

I had been reading about this new lytro camera that can capture images without bothering about focusing and later during PP you can refocus the images.
Is this camera merely making multiple focus bracketed images and then layering them over one another so that as you click to change the focus during PP, all youre doing is merely revealing the layer with the most contrast (in focus) area where you clicked?
If that is the case then all it is, is a bit of software in a stick. With that said however, i really wish canon would introduce focus bracketing into their firmware.
I dont recall this camera having a flash and now i think i know why :)

I don't know but it looks interesting

[calypsob]

I don't know but it looks interesting

Well said. I suppose we can rather expect exceptionally imaginative updates in regards to older technology.

[calypsob]

I don't know but it looks interesting

When you say that, I think you're involved in the project.

If so, tell them this -- converge augmented reality, and you've got a killer app.

HA! I wish I could say that I was involved but Im just a regular college student. An industrial design career involving research on the lytro would be my dream job though

[Nathan]

If anyone really wanted to get their hands on one, a lytro camera is listed on Boston's Craigslist: http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pho/2930562081.html