Like Tree19Likes

The end of focus?

Reply
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,683
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycat
    No one is a naysayer here Raccon. It is all interesting technology and we all had very interesting conversations about it.
    I think Stoob qualifies as naysayer (no offense intended) as he thinks it's a scam but hasn't presented any hard facts let alone evidence to support this.

    The fact that the screen for the Lytro is about (at a guess) an inch wide will severly limit the possibility for in-camera processing. The camera, as it is, is designed for computer processing, not in-camera processing.
    I don't understand what the screen size has to do with the processing. Of course a small screen limits the effect the user can see on camera, but that's not any proof that the technology or the product doesn't work.

    The fact that people are raising questions on the feasibility and effectiveness of the camera as produced does not give you a right to shut down their opinions.
    I am not trying to put anyone down but isn't it part of a discussion to counter the other party and rebut their arguments?
    But opinions aren't worth much if they are based on unfounded claims or just "because I don't believe it can work" type of arguments when there are many facts to the contrary.
    The feasibility of light field cameras should be beyond questioning because the theory behind it is a century old and there are enough resources on the net that explain this in detail. As well I have linked to another manufacturer's website.

    Furthermore in this thread we talked about the 3D capability, so if Stoob's opinion would be correct that the Lytro employs trickery not only would the camera need to take a rapid succession of pictures with different focal planes (not focal length) but also offset the pictures multiple times in the X and Y direction for each plane.
    But since the Lytro doesn't have any focus capabilities this seems not workable.

    If Lytro had brought a product to market which replicated a DSLR and engineered this techonolgy for sharpening, rather than the ability to refocus, then I certainly would have been interested in it. As it is, a small postcard sized image and the abilty to refocus on points of it doesn't attract me - especially for US$400.
    Agree, as said it's not my kind of toy either. That being said Lytro has indicated that they may be able to process the data for focus stacking / EDOF (Extended Depth of Field), which could be quite interesting, if they get around the other limitations.
    Though perhaps what Stoob mentioned about taking several pictures and then combine them would be better suited for this (not trying to be sarcastic here).

    P.S. Whoever told you that film SLRs are dead severely misinformed you.
    I read it on the net so it must be true.
    Last edited by Raccon; 10-11-2011 at 11:30 AM.
    luckycat likes this.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,378

    Sorry I thought Stoob was trying to be funny.

    I don't see how the actual technology could be in contest.

    I agree that the camera will be able to process. Why wouldn't it? It already will have a sophisticed sensor - it just needs a bespoke interface. That, as you say, will need a bigger screen. I just don't really see the need for it though. If all this Lytro is designed to do is take a photo which can be refocused, presumably you would want to do that on a computer and then print the photo at the desired focal range. On the camera, for me (although admittedly I am not massively interested in this part of the tech), I would just like to see a preview.


  3. #83

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoob
    I think that even if it is feasible it would be impossible to achieve without using billions of sensors and super computer processing power!

    I'm reminded of Steorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia !!

    I will be delighted if I'm proved wrong though!
    Quote Originally Posted by Raccon
    I think Stoob qualifies as naysayer (no offense intended) as he thinks it's a scam but hasn't presented any hard facts let alone evidence to support this.
    Guilty as charged on the "naysayer" accusation but as per previous posts, I 'would' like to be wrong.

    I am not an expert in optical stuff (Hence "focal plane" v "focal length" correction, which I will accept), however I am naturally skeptical of this product.

    If they have a camera, let me test it without laying out USD500 up front, i.e. demo it in a shop etc.!

    Let me download the software and provide actual demo camera files instead of 'playing' with a Flash file.

    Provide specifications for the camera

    Again, What is a "light ray"?, e.g. how many "light rays" are reflected from, say, a pinhead?
    Last edited by Stoob; 10-11-2011 at 01:15 PM.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    781
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoob
    Again, What is a "light ray"?, e.g. how many "light rays" are reflected from, say, a pinhead?
    The most concise explanation I could find is on Light measurement.

    Alternatively, Madonna might have the answer you're looking for


Reply
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9