I wonder what the impact of millions of these very easy to use, *no skill* cameras will have on us professional photographers? It will enable anyone to get photos that are always 100% in focus, with very little noise even in low light, that all their friends and family will be able to interact with. How do I compete with that?
Sports photography, even poorly lit indoor events, could become a thing of the past for us. The Lytro has no shutter lag, so Johnny's dad will be able to get tons of 100% in focus shots of Johnny's hockey goals. Then he can share them instantly. So unless I'm there to shoot for Sports Illustrated, I likely won't make too many sales.
I've seen my print sales reduced as my digital file sales dramatically increase. Most people share their photos digitally now, so quality is not an issue for them. This new technology may not produce National Geographic printable images, yet, but its exactly what my customers will want, which could dramatically change my business.
photoelle wrote:
I wonder what the impact of millions of these very easy to use, *no skill* cameras will have on us professional photographers? It will enable anyone to get photos that are always 100% in focus, with very little noise even in low light, that all their friends and family will be able to interact with.
And identical whining was heard with the introduction of autofocus, TTL metering, AV mode, TV mode, P mode, TTL flash, digital, and every other photographic advance of the last hundred years.
obik wrote:
And identical whining was heard with the introduction of autofocus, TTL metering, AV mode, TV mode, P mode, TTL flash, digital, and every other photographic advance of the last hundred years.
AND, the income generated by photography has been steadily eroding... not to say there is any correlation here... And don't forget, this is the first paradigm shift in photography since its inception. Until now a photo regardless of how it was captured, was simply a two dimensional object that once created was simply viewed. This technology allows the viewer to have an interactive relationship with the image. I'm not saying the sky is falling, but this has the potential to change photography in a revolutionary way.
CGrindahl wrote:
AND, the income generated by photography has been steadily eroding...
I could say the same about web designing. 15 years ago, if you knew html and how to tie your shoes, you could pull down $100k a year as a web designer. These days, that same skill set will get you nowhere. I haven't heard any gloom-n-doom about the death of web design as a profession lately.
For most of photography's life, professional photographers have been--by and large--camera operators and most of the jobs they were taking were so simple a monkey could do them. Nowadays, any old idiot can operate a camera and all those easy, point and shoot jobs are going to any old idiot. That squeezes things--hard, especially since some those idiots are competing for (and getting) some of the more complex and high end jobs. If you want to sell pictures these days, you have to bring a lot more to the table than the ability to set up some lights, calculate an exposure, and trip the shutter.
And don't forget, this is the first paradigm shift in photography since its inception.
Been to the movies lately?
To a lesser extent, have you handled a print (or negative, I guess), shot medium format or 35mm, shot in color, or used a digital camera? All of those things changed the photographic profession immensely.
Until now a photo regardless of how it was captured, was simply a two dimensional object that once created was simply viewed. This technology allows the viewer to have an interactive relationship with the image.
Sounds like you've never played a computer game before. I was blown away with photos being used in place of computer-painted sprites in the early nineties. THOSE were photos you could really interact with! And the first time I saw a webcam in action impressed me even more--never mind when I actually talked to someone over one. That was unbelievably cool.
Plenoptic cameras are cool, but in terms of interactive photography I view it as being on par with zoomable images: gimmicky, wildly over-used, and only occasionally well executed.
In terms of production and post-production though, plenoptic cameras could be a real game changer.
obik wrote:
And identical whining was heard with the introduction of autofocus, TTL metering, AV mode, TV mode, P mode, TTL flash, digital, and every other photographic advance of the last hundred years.
And the whiners had a reason. The introduction of digital cameras has changed the world of commercial photography to a huge extent.
I am not a professional photographer but earn my money partly with selling fine art photography since many years. I have spent thousands of dollars paying pros for photos of the artwork and thousands of dollars for sending large format ektachromes with FedEx around the world to clients and for producing books and catalogues.
Since the marketing guys make everyone believe that taking a good photograph is as easy as pushing the button on top of the camera, many pros have given up their businesses and most of the pro labs have gone out of business.
And, I am talking about pros here, that made the images for the annual calendars of a well known German sports car manufacturer, just to name one example.
Digital images have saved a lot of money for my business, but it is really sad that so many excellent photographers had to give up and I really understand that they whine.
Re "Focusing isn't much of a problem", I think even though Lytro makes the case of never defocussed images, its appeal is actually that it does introduce the necessity to focus (in post) an image from a small camera. The total sensor area I imagine would have to be the same size (FT, APS-C...) to get equivalent depth of field effects - but because the microlenses have a much shorter focal length they are tiny. Trading resolution - which is only required for printing anyway - for DoF in a very compact package is appealing.
+1. For the average shooter who takes social pictures, it will be great! This is aimed at the iphone instamatic market, not the Canikon /Zeiss camp.
Of course, if the next iphone has burst shooting capability, an appropriate app could really mimick this effect for .99 cents
CGrindahl wrote:
You mean the hundreds of millions of folks taking photos with their cell phones who have no interest in Leica, Zeiss or much else discussed on this website? Purists may not care for this technology, but that hardly is reason to dismiss it. This may very well be the direction photography will take for the future and for one simple reason... It IS simple and engaging. The developer in an interview noted that 60 BILLION photos were uploaded last year on Facebook. Obviously, for most of these people, having a photo that can be manipulated would be more appealing than one that can't. In the same way professional photographers are finding it ever harder to make money selling their photos because millions of people are taking billions of photos, albeit of a lower quality, the market for quality is fast disappearing. Call it Gresham's Law if you will. Bad money drives good money out of the market.
By the end of this year we'll find out whether this is a great strategy for fleecing investors, or whether this guy and his company will deliver a game changing camera. Inquiring minds want to know... ...Show more →
I think there are some reasonably obvious, if nontrivial, ways to reduce the resolution loss people are discussing.
For macro photography, something like this could be quite useful; being able to shoot at f2.8 and have the DOF of f22 would be huge. (Even after adjusting for the resolution loss, I think it has a big advantage.) But that isn't a realistic market.
Doesn't anyone else think that Lytro's persistent refusal to specify the image resolution in pixels smacks of intentional deception through omission? The product is finalized. There's no longer the excuse that the specifications will change prior to hitting the retail shelves.
Let's remember that low spatial resolution is *the* single technical obstacle to the practicality of plenoptic imaging. This issue was known and understood years ago. So of course technically knowledgeable people (i.e., photographers) are going to want to see how Lytro has addressed the problem of low resolution.
But Lytro won't talk about it. Instead, they give vague, marketing-speak specifications using invented terminologies, like "11 megarays." Again, that's highly suspicious. What is a "megaray?" And why is this number so conveniently similar to current pixel counts in point-and-shoot digital cameras?
I also dislike the way this camera has been so hyped up in the mainstream media, when so few concrete details are known even at this time. I think that says a lot about what this product is actually capable of--in the entertainment business, it's often the case that a big publicity push is used to hide the deficiencies of the product. Wow people with the idea so they'll buy it before they have a chance to discover the smoke and mirrors.
The scientist in me very sincerely wants this technology to succeed. I truly do. I don't feel threatened by its promises. The artist in me wants to know how I might be able to use it creatively. But I look at the way Ren Ng has handled the disclosure of his venture, and the whole thing leaves me with an awful taste in my mouth. It smacks of charlatanism. It's a very good show he's put on, but unless he's really delivered the goods (and I remain extremely skeptical though not entirely dismissive), there will come a point when the truth will come out and the product will have to sink or swim on its own merits. The question is whether that will happen before or after he's taken a lot of people's money.
But Lytro won't talk about it. Instead, they give vague, marketing-speak specifications using invented terminologies, like "11 megarays." Again, that's highly suspicious. What is a "megaray?" And why is this number so conveniently similar to current pixel counts in point-and-shoot digital cameras?
I can understand the need to use different terminology. They've introduced another dimension into the capture (vector (magnitude and direction), and color), so it's like asking for a square foot of milk. It may be introduced as a novelty camera, but imagine security cameras with this technology... switch from focus of the face of a suspect to the license plate.
Have you guys actually looked at the images that are posted on their site? You can't really get a sharp focus where you want, you only get close proximity of where you click. I'm guessing that's limited by number of megarays?
But Lytro won't talk about it. Instead, they give vague, marketing-speak specifications using invented terminologies, like "11 megarays." Again, that's highly suspicious. What is a "megaray?" And why is this number so conveniently similar to current pixel counts in point-and-shoot digital cameras?
I can understand the need to use different terminology. They've introduced another dimension into the capture (vector (magnitude and direction), and color), so it's like asking for a square foot of milk. It may be introduced as a novelty camera, but imagine security cameras with this technology... switch from focus of the face of a suspect to the license plate....Show more →
wickerprints wrote:
Doesn't anyone else think that Lytro's persistent refusal to specify the image resolution in pixels smacks of intentional deception through omission? The product is finalized. There's no longer the excuse that the specifications will change prior to hitting the retail shelves.
Certainly you or I would like to know. I hate to admit it, but I think coy is exactly the right approach. It will be a low number (1MP max). They want people and the press to try it and be enamored with goofing around with the focus selection before writing off based on a particular specification. Specifications would "cloud the dialog". As a technical person I take issue with that just like you, but Ng as an executive saddled with gobs of VC money trying to craft a message and product that will be the success or failure of the venture in one go is probably doing the right thing for his shareholders.
So of course technically knowledgeable people (i.e., photographers) are going to want to see how Lytro has addressed the problem of low resolution.
They have nothing to gain from discussing this since they very likely haven't addressed this issue (i.e. it has very low resolution) and their market isn't photographers to begin with. The very shape of the product tells you they are specifically dodging photographers as a market. Apple has made a multi-billion dollar business (and personality cult) by eschewing the techies and open standards folks who spit upon their specifications and limitations. It's not surprising someone would emulate this culture and find investors to support them in doing so.
But Lytro won't talk about it. Instead, they give vague, marketing-speak specifications using invented terminologies, like "11 megarays." Again, that's highly suspicious. What is a "megaray?" And why is this number so conveniently similar to current pixel counts in point-and-shoot digital cameras?
Because there is a P&S size sensor in the camera. A megaray is presumably just a million ray samples. It is an even worse case than Foveon trying to come up with a relevant metric.
I also dislike the way this camera has been so hyped up in the mainstream media, when so few concrete details are known even at this time. I think that says a lot about what this product is actually capable of--in the entertainment business, it's often the case that a big publicity push is used to hide the deficiencies of the product. Wow people with the idea so they'll buy it before they have a chance to discover the smoke and mirrors.
It is a VC funded start-up making a consumer product. I'm not aware of any other pathway to success beyond what they are doing (despite it being distasteful to some). I also think you overstate the case. They have provided lots of sample images. If you are happy with the samples it is unlikely you'll be misled by the end product. If you expect more than the samples you've seen then buy at your own risk.
It smacks of charlatanism. It's a very good show he's put on, but unless he's really delivered the goods (and I remain extremely skeptical though not entirely dismissive), there will come a point when the truth will come out and the product will have to sink or swim on its own merits. The question is whether that will happen before or after he's taken a lot of people's money.
To me the failure is not going to be in the technology. I'm fairly confident they are going to deliver a plenoptic camera to their customers that works and produces images on par with what they've shown so far - expect no more. Its market success is another question. It is clear they are heavily targeting social media. They've got a gadget that does nothing beyond taking pictures that must get connected to a computer before the proprietary images can be shared. I don't see that model fitting together very well when it has to compete with smart phones that have cameras and data plans with integrating social media applications.
If they fail there is a problem for early adopters. The sharing of these "live pictures" is done through Lytro's servers. Goodbye Lytro means goodbye to any sharing of your "live pictures". Obviously you could still process your "live pictures" into single plane of focus "dead pictures", but what they appear to be selling is viewer interaction with the "live picture" and that depends on Lytro servers being in existence.
Dominik Lazars wrote:
Have you guys actually looked at the images that are posted on their site? You can't really get a sharp focus where you want, you only get close proximity of where you click. I'm guessing that's limited by number of megarays?
No it isn't limited by "megarays". It is limited by their web application. A plenoptic image can be focused at any distance within its total focus range, it isn't limited to "zones". To serve up their images, however, the presently do zone process which results in the behavior you describe. This was brought up and explained way back when they did their first press release.
What "megarays" limit is the product of resolution and total focus range. You can have a deeper focus range with a lower output resolution or choose the opposite trade-off. This is not something the user can select, it is determined by the decimation ratio of the plenoptic micro-lens array. What they are being coy about is what is that decimation ratio or equivalently what is the number of plenoptic micro-lenses.
What it does illustrate well is all the potential problems with their social media business model. Sharing the images in an interactive way is dependent on their servers and how they decide to restrict the processing and viewing. On your computer with their software you'll be able to select an exact plane of focus, but if you share your images it looks like your viewers will see "zones".
As to your other comment, the output is 2D in the same way a movie is 2D. On the other hand movies and still images are quite different, and a scientist would say it is because the movie is a 3D data-set with the third dimension being time. Similarly changing focus is an additional dimension. In reality it is two additional dimensions although their current rendering transforms it into only a single addition dimension (focus distance).
