Lytro Light Field Camera Revealed

http://allthingsd.com …a-revealed/#slideshow-1-6

http://www.lytro.com/
https://www.facebook.c​om/Lytro
http://graphics.stanfo​rd.edu/papers/lfcamera​/

5 Coolest Lytro Light Field Camera Features
http://www.pcworld.com …ield_camera_fea​tures.html

How the Lytro Light-Field Camera Works
http://www.pcmag.com …4,00.asp#fbid=I​oK8HsR0eQA

looks... awkward. how do you hold it? like a flashlight?

Ummm...resolution is "at least HD", or "1920x1080"? Seems beyond pathetic.

So what's the resolution of this thing?

Looking_Searching wrote in post #13274963
So what's the resolution of this thing?

They said "at least HD". Assuming HD = 1080P and not 720P...well, it seems it produces at least 1920x1080 images.

All very sketchy wording.

Am I the only one who's raising an eyebrow about this "product"? Something feels fishy. I understand them not going into great detail to protect their intellectual property, but I have yet to see a sample image created by these cameras that's of reasonable, printable resolution.

I may not be from Missouri, but you've still got to show me!

Here's a thorough explanation of how it works.
http://www.lytro.com/r​enng-thesis.pdf

Vastly reduced resolution is the most apparent side effect. (The camera uses most of the pixels to determine the direction of incoming light, rather than increase resolution.) IMO, all the other 'advantages' listed on the PCWorld 'article' are just typical Marketing Monkey noise.

Even if the thing performs as advertised, it hardly seems like something a serious photographer would care to use. "No viewfinder needed! Just aim the thing in the general direction of the subject and grab a photo. Hey, you can always fix it on the computer!" The photo industry already places WAY too much emphasis on post processing - this is one more 'giant leap' in the wrong direction.

Better give it a few more years - maybe they will eventually come up with a 'real' plenoptic camera that is worth using.

file size is ~22mb per pic which is the same as my 60D raw files. I think I saw somewhere that they were using Canon sensors for their initial work with this. Wouldn't surprise me if there is an 18MP CMOS from a 60D in there.
They also say that the lens is a constant f/2.0...

I'd love to try one out. I still think there is no way this replaces a DSLR, is a little too expensive to be a consumer toy, and is ugly as hell but I'm still interested in seeing how the technology works in real life situations.

pictures samples from their website is sub-par. I wouldn't waste my time or money.

Image quality looks like crap. It's a novelty is all.

Always the nay sayers. I love it. New technology isn't always perfect on release. But if no one researches, no one buys it, technology would never progress.

For $400 I might pick it up as a novelty item; it sure isn't going to revolutionize anything in THIS form, however. Once they figure out how to integrate the tech with real imaging chips and cameras, it might be something nice, though.

Especially with a square format; people are going to freak out when they want to print out 5x7s of their new toy shots and wind up with thick borders or stretching

themadman wrote in post #13275777
Always the nay sayers. I love it. New technology isn't always perfect on release. But if no one researches, no one buys it, technology would never progress.

It's true though, image quality is crap and it's just a novelty. Sure the technology is cool, but it's useless to me. It will continue to be useless until it is capable of similar image quality to other SLR cameras.

400 bucks for a point and shoot? Not even a hot shoe?! I'd like to try one out, but it's like a kids toy -just for fun. The potential is there, but years if not a decade away. The post processing software looks like a joke aswell.