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 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 am not trying to put anyone down but isn't it part of a discussion to counter the other party and rebut their arguments?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.
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.
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.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.
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).
I read it on the net so it must be true.P.S. Whoever told you that film SLRs are dead severely misinformed you.