However, this technology doesn\'t work well with the tiny sensor formats used in phones/web cams, for a couple of reasons. First, focusing isn\'t even much of a problem on tiny sensors; the few-mm focal length lens used in these applications already has a huge depth of field, and shows very little difference whether in or out of focus. Second, the tiny sensors are already pushing the limits on pixel pitch size imposed by optical wavelengths --- you can\'t get any extra information (2D or 3D) once you go smaller than the wavelength of light (sub-micron pixel sizes). Only by making a 35mm or larger sensor using cellphone-sensor pixel sizes can you get to the 200Mp+ sizes needed to do much with this technology.
You identify the issues rather well (along with your other comments) with this technology. Computational photography has been around for sometime, and there are others in the valley who do this. Pelican Imaging is another start up which does similar things in addition to time of flight stuff. I personally think Nokia with its N8/N9 programs is going in the right direction. Finally, someone is thinking about sticking good lenses on cell phone cameras instead of cheap plastic. Not directly related to this topic, but there is a lot that can be done by introducing good glass on cell phone cameras.
Ohh yes, there is a lot of \"skunk works\" sub diffraction imaging out there (0.7 - 0.9 um px).
I think the Bang & Olufssen or the Hipstamatic crowd will be impressed with Lytro stuff.
However, this technology doesn\'t work well with the tiny sensor formats used in phones/web cams, for a couple of reasons. First, focusing isn\'t even much of a problem on tiny sensors; the few-mm focal length lens used in these applications already has a huge depth of field, and shows very little difference whether in or out of focus. Second, the tiny sensors are already pushing the limits on pixel pitch size imposed by optical wavelengths --- you can\'t get any extra information (2D or 3D) once you go smaller than the wavelength of light (sub-micron pixel sizes). Only by making a 35mm or larger sensor using cellphone-sensor pixel sizes can you get to the 200Mp+ sizes needed to do much with this technology.
I can\'t comment much on the company or their lensing due to direct conflicts of interest, but you identify the issues rather well (along with your other comments) with this technology. Computational photography has been around for sometime, and there are others in the valley who do this. Pelican Imaging is another start up which does similar things in addition to time of flight stuff. I personally think Nokia with its N8/N9 programs is going in the right direction. Finally, someone is thinking about sticking good lenses on cell phone cameras instead of cheap plastic. Not directly related to this topic, but there is a lot that can be done by introducing good glass on cell phone cameras.
Ohh yes, there is a lot of \"skunk works\" sub diffraction imaging out there (0.7 - 0.9 um px).
I think the Bang & Olufssen or the Hipstamatic crowd will be impressed with Lytro stuff.
Jun 24, 2011 at 03:02 AM
Previous versions of Ajay C's message #9703603 « Lytro »
