True, but the processing is done on Lytro's server's; and (I think) if you want to share the photos you need Lytro's servers . This fit's well with Apple's business model and adds value to their ecosystem.
.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Met with Light Field Camera (Lytro) Company's CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True, but the processing is done on Lytro's server's; and (I think) if you want to share the photos you need Lytro's servers . This fit's well with Apple's business model and adds value to their ecosystem.
.
If that is true, it is really quite disappointing, as there should be no reason for the processing to need to be done on their servers. Even Apple doesn't restrict your photos like this.
What? Where in the hell do you get this? If you youtube search for Lytro review, you can find a review where someone demonstrates the image refocussing straight on the camera. I highly doubt that the camera is loaded with 3G/WiFi.
Seriously, it would be far easier to process this locally than in the cloud.
Lol. Sure.... if you don't know jack squat about cameras or photography then I could see some gullible yokel actually believing that.
You might want ask a competent photographer if they feel that Apple has reinvented (sic) photography.
Don't be surprised if they laugh in your face
Sorry, to clarify, I think Lytro provides Mac only Lytro photo processing software to manipulate the picture you take (to make 'living pictures', as they call it).
But for others to view it (outside of the Lytro software, of course), you have to use Lytro's patented algorithms (by posting to their Flickr-like site or a plug-in that is created by them... such as a facebook plug-in).
IMO, it makes sense since part of their business model is not just to license or sell camera tech, but to also create a photo viewing/sharing site that depends on their algorithm. It's their patents that they revolve the model around (otherwise it's very hard to attract investors to fund your start-up).
=======
Excerpt from their terms of use:
"Users
Users are those of our customers register to use Lytro.com. Users may, subject to these Terms of Use, (1) create and maintain their own picture gallery where they can upload, store, display, and share their pictures taken with the Lytro camera (which we call "living pictures"), (2) view other users’ living pictures, and (3) use other services which we may provide to Lytro.com users. ..."
"Visitors
Visitors may, subject to these Terms of Use, access and browse Lytro.com and use the other Lytro.com services provided to visitors, such as viewing, commenting on, and sharing others’ living pictures. Visitors may, but are not required to, give us their email address. If you do so, you agree that the email address you provide is valid and yours. ..."
======
I did a quick Google on the business model, and got this from Camera Technica:
"Viewing “Living Images”
This brings up one of the more controversial parts of the business model . Although you can manipulate the light field files on your own computer to your heart’s content, sharing with others requires more work. Since viewing the files takes special algorithms and lots of processing power, sharing is not as simple as emailing jpegs off to Grandma. In order to share a “photo” with others which can be viewed interactively, it must be hosted on a server (presumably Lytro’s own) and viewed with the appropriate browser or Facebook plugin. For those used to the infinite number of ways that a standard jpeg file can be viewed and shared, this may be unnerving. But this may just be part of the adjustment to a new way of experiencing photographs."
.
Last edited:
So you are referring solely to the ability of other people to view and adjust the focus of the photo after the fact?
LYTRO Technology is Perfect for the iPhone5
The light field technology by LYTRO is poised for the smartphone market..... especially the iPhone5. I can't tell you the number people I've seen who have simply no clue to touch the area of their screen to focus the picture. The LYTRO technology will eliminate this all together. Being "focused" on the moment before you is key. Having the ability to focus after the image is taken is a much better way to approach an image.
I've actually had the pleasure of a hands on demonstration of the LYTRO camera. You can read about that experience on my blog post http://www.spencergordon.com/2011/12/15/lytro-camera-a-pro-or-a-con/
LYTRO - as a camera I'd have to say NO, however as a technology LYTRO's breakthrough will be a welcomed feature in any digital camera or imaging device.
The light field technology by LYTRO is poised for the smartphone market..... especially the iPhone5. I can't tell you the number people I've seen who have simply no clue to touch the area of their screen to focus the picture. The LYTRO technology will eliminate this all together. Being "focused" on the moment before you is key. Having the ability to focus after the image is taken is a much better way to approach an image.
I've actually had the pleasure of a hands on demonstration of the LYTRO camera. You can read about that experience on my blog post http://www.spencergordon.com/2011/12/15/lytro-camera-a-pro-or-a-con/
LYTRO - as a camera I'd have to say NO, however as a technology LYTRO's breakthrough will be a welcomed feature in any digital camera or imaging device.
Yes.. I thought that processing that makes the 'living photo' was on Lytro's servers, but's it is indeed on the Mac (there's no PC software yet).
Which means that if Apple is endeavoring towards more of a post-PC world, they would have to either have to make iphone/ipad software (assuming that it is has the processing power); Or have people rely on their PC/Mac; Or off-load some of the processing to their servers.
I assume if they (Apple or Lytro) wants to move towards more of a 'near-real-time' like twitter, photostream, facebook photosharing, they would have to allow a user to take a picture, process it, and post it, share it, without going back home to their PC's.
.
A good photographer does not want everything in focus. That would be a very flat image. Infinite depth of field is bad.
A good photographer uses lens aperture to control depth of field so, only the things they want in focus are in focus. Limiting depth of field gives a picture a 3d feel that you can't get with a point and shoot. Depth of field lets you draw the viewers attention to what you want them to look at and away from what you don't.
This is why full frame sensors are much better than smaller ones. Small sensors put everything into focus giving you little control of depth of field. Big sensors give you far more control letting you have a small part of the image be sharp. (This is a gross simplification as it is a ratio between the sensor size and the F-stop but you get the idea.)
I think HDR has a shot (bad cow pun) of putting a dent into the way we do photography. I don't think HDR needs to be used in all shots. I think it looks bad 90% of the time. For technical photography or when you need it, HDR rocks. HDR is a very important tool that will change the way much of photography is done.
Few real advantages yet
I'm not convinced that the light field technology will have all that much consumer appeal. Yet. Yes, it's revolutionary, but it's not quite mature enough.
No video. That's a deal-breaker for smartphones, even if the lens were shrunk down enough to fit. No way Apple (or most other phone manufacturers) would put separate back-facing still and video cameras into a smartphone. And consumers are gradually expecting still and video capability in point-and-shoot cameras.
Too big for smartphones. The f/2 constant-aperture zoom is unbelievably cool technology. But it will take a lot of engineering to shrink that down enough to fit into an area smaller than a square centimeter for smart phone use. But the current size is fine for point-and-shoot cameras.
Big file sizes (presumably.) It looks like the light field technology uses a 3-dimensional sensor. And from what I gather from the Lytro web site, it records much more than just one sharply-focused "focal plane" of the scene. All of which would cause file sizes to be much larger than for conventional 2-d images.
Of course, all of these problems will be resolved over time. I'm just saying that the light field technology is still in its infancy, much like D-SLRs were about 10 years ago.
I'm not convinced that the light field technology will have all that much consumer appeal. Yet. Yes, it's revolutionary, but it's not quite mature enough.
No video. That's a deal-breaker for smartphones, even if the lens were shrunk down enough to fit. No way Apple (or most other phone manufacturers) would put separate back-facing still and video cameras into a smartphone. And consumers are gradually expecting still and video capability in point-and-shoot cameras.
Too big for smartphones. The f/2 constant-aperture zoom is unbelievably cool technology. But it will take a lot of engineering to shrink that down enough to fit into an area smaller than a square centimeter for smart phone use. But the current size is fine for point-and-shoot cameras.
Big file sizes (presumably.) It looks like the light field technology uses a 3-dimensional sensor. And from what I gather from the Lytro web site, it records much more than just one sharply-focused "focal plane" of the scene. All of which would cause file sizes to be much larger than for conventional 2-d images.
Of course, all of these problems will be resolved over time. I'm just saying that the light field technology is still in its infancy, much like D-SLRs were about 10 years ago.
the same as it ever was for *any* photography technology -- hand helds, point and shoot, cell phone, etc... accessibility means more crap, and more good work. its all in the users' hands.
----------
...im not laughing. my $4,000 set up barely gets used anymore...as all good photographers know, the best camera is the one you have with you. the iphone4 spelled the demise for many, many point-and-shoots. theres a reason its the most-used camera on Flickr.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Yet another discussion thread killed by people with plenty to say but no room for imagination or joy in their lives.
Surely it's better and easier to be positive, to dream of possibilities and be amazed than to be constantly negative and bogged-down by technological semantics & pessimism?
Yet another discussion thread killed by people with plenty to say but no room for imagination or joy in their lives.
Surely it's better and easier to be positive, to dream of possibilities and be amazed than to be constantly negative and bogged-down by technological semantics & pessimism?
I'm completely with you. I was so close to pulling the trigger on a dSLR but then when the iPhone 4S came out I ended up upgrading and haven't looked back since. Sure the picture quality is far from the same but it's the camera is always on me!
Adam
Think Pixar University had a talk about this tech a while back so this makes a degree of sense (long term).
Okay, just so we're all on the same page...
We've spent the last 50 years having the camera/film/computer industry tell us smaller, simpler, lighter, sharper, faster. Now, we have bigger, more limited, more complicated (in ways), and extremely lo-res. I mean, like go back in your desk drawer, pull out your old RAZR, and take some pictures. Remember those days? That's the resolution of the Lytro sensor.
I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, I promise. I applaud Apple for putting a really nice camera module in the 4s -- good enough that you can actually eek some low-light performance out of it, and at close focus distance, you get nice shallow depth of field. I love what app designers have done -- Instagram, SnapSeed, 6x6 have changed the way I share "snapshots" with friends. But the distinction to be made here is that those all affect the static look of a photo -- not the depth of field, focus, or composition. In order to use the one novel feature of a Lytro, you need to view it on a device capable of decoding it.
If the point of the Lytro is to "shoot first, ask questions later," well, then I say you need to start looking at a different camera, or a different subject. There already exists camera technology to overcome the problems the Lytro proports to fix: shooting in RAW gives you oodles of latitude for white balance/levels and the like. Bracketing allows you to shoot multiple frames with different exposure for each. HDR builds a shot out of vastly different exposures. Mirrorless and SLR cameras have lighting-quick focus to catch the moment as it happens, and with a range of different lenses, the photographer has all the control in the world over depth of field.
No, I don't buy it. I don't entirely understand the physics of a light field camera, but what I do understand is that the pictures you can take with it are small, lo-res proprietary files that allow you to futz with focus after the fact, but are otherwise the same as a traditional digital photo.
And let's not even start on how HUGE the optics are for this camera... how on Earth do you pack that into our ever-thinning iDevices?
We've spent the last 50 years having the camera/film/computer industry tell us smaller, simpler, lighter, sharper, faster. Now, we have bigger, more limited, more complicated (in ways), and extremely lo-res. I mean, like go back in your desk drawer, pull out your old RAZR, and take some pictures. Remember those days? That's the resolution of the Lytro sensor.
I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, I promise. I applaud Apple for putting a really nice camera module in the 4s -- good enough that you can actually eek some low-light performance out of it, and at close focus distance, you get nice shallow depth of field. I love what app designers have done -- Instagram, SnapSeed, 6x6 have changed the way I share "snapshots" with friends. But the distinction to be made here is that those all affect the static look of a photo -- not the depth of field, focus, or composition. In order to use the one novel feature of a Lytro, you need to view it on a device capable of decoding it.
If the point of the Lytro is to "shoot first, ask questions later," well, then I say you need to start looking at a different camera, or a different subject. There already exists camera technology to overcome the problems the Lytro proports to fix: shooting in RAW gives you oodles of latitude for white balance/levels and the like. Bracketing allows you to shoot multiple frames with different exposure for each. HDR builds a shot out of vastly different exposures. Mirrorless and SLR cameras have lighting-quick focus to catch the moment as it happens, and with a range of different lenses, the photographer has all the control in the world over depth of field.
No, I don't buy it. I don't entirely understand the physics of a light field camera, but what I do understand is that the pictures you can take with it are small, lo-res proprietary files that allow you to futz with focus after the fact, but are otherwise the same as a traditional digital photo.
And let's not even start on how HUGE the optics are for this camera... how on Earth do you pack that into our ever-thinning iDevices?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
If you don't want one or don't believe in the potential of the tech...Don't buy one and don't concern yourself with letting strangers know (at length) how much you don't believe in the application of the tech.
If there are people out there who think image capture has reached it's zenith to the point that future innovation will exist only as refinement...I invite them to continue to use their existing technologies...But then wasn't there once an (admittedly disputed) public assertion in 1899 from the US Patent office that "Everything that can be invented, has been invented"?
Yes these cameras are currently too large with miniaturisation seemingly somewhat limited by Physics...but then Computers with the processing power of a calculator used to be the size of houses and Moore's Law has consistantly been on the verge of being disproven for longer than my lifetime. If it's possible and there is a market for it, mankind has a knack of innovating & overcoming such irksome obstacles as Physics!
If you don't want one or don't believe in the potential of the tech...Don't buy one and don't concern yourself with letting strangers know (at length) how much you don't believe in the application of the tech.
If there are people out there who think image capture has reached it's zenith to the point that future innovation will exist only as refinement...I invite them to continue to use their existing technologies...But then wasn't there once an (admittedly disputed) public assertion in 1899 from the US Patent office that "Everything that can be invented, has been invented"?
Yes these cameras are currently too large with miniaturisation seemingly somewhat limited by Physics...but then Computers with the processing power of a calculator used to be the size of houses and Moore's Law has consistantly been on the verge of being disproven for longer than my lifetime. If it's possible and there is a market for it, mankind has a knack of innovating & overcoming such irksome obstacles as Physics!
so I guess anyone who's not enthralled with the tech should shut up? Fascist much?
yeah like the law of gravity for example.
You won't see this tech in phones for quite awhile, as the cameras require a couple inches of depth to physically work.
so I guess anyone who's not enthralled with the tech should shut up? Fascist much?
yeah like the law of gravity for example.
I didn't suggest that anyone should 'shut-up'. I merely suggested that people shouldn't 'concern' themselves with arguing against the idea of there possibly being a positive application of a technology just because they can't see it. For me it's kind of an oxymoron to spend so much time letting people know how little you care about something. If someone truly didn't care, then surely their nonchalance would be better served by ignoring this thread?
Ergo, your apparent compulsion to label me without grounding or justifiable motivation leads me to believe that you have more in common with the Führer than I ever will.
Furthermore, your only example for something that man has failed to overcome is essentially you pointing out that man hasn't invented a switch that can turn off a fundamental law of Physics in a way that has been deemed impossible under Standard Relativity unless we at some future date discover negative matter that re-writes the rulebook on everything we know about Physics?
Besides...with Commercial air-travel, MAGLEV trains, reaching space, trips to the moon, sending probes beyond our solar system etc. I'm going to be so brazen as to suggest that man is doing fairly well with dealing with the 'problems' that gravity is presenting.
Quit picking fights and find some joy in your life.
I would also love some Optical Zoom on the "Camera I have with me" (which is usually the iPhone 4S). We're not going to see any kind of meaningful Optical Zoom in a device as thin as an iPhone any time soon, but if you don't mind some additional bulk, then there are already several clip-on style after-market products that can add this functionality if you're desperate for it...
It's by being open to innovations such as the one in this article that Apple will likely be at the front of the queue when it comes to approximating your vision of the perfect picture-taking experience in a pocket-sized device. At least they're actively encouraging innovation and refusing to settle on the Status Quo.
Save me the condescension about my life for which you know nothing of, you directly picked a fight when you attacked another poster who happened to not be thrilled by this technlogy to not post and "don't concern yourself with letting strangers know (at length) how much you don't believe in the application of the tech."
Apologies if you feel I was being condescending, it certainly wasn't my intention. I just failed to see why you took issue with my post, certainly as I in no way "attacked another poster". I can only imagine that you misunderstood my use of the verb "to concern":
http://bit.ly/xVF9rp
You see, I felt a genuine and heartfelt pang of worry at the mental state of a couple of posters (now sadly including yourself) who felt the need to show how much they don't care about an article by "contributing" to its discussion. A little like somebody with no love of football attending games just to let everyone in the crowd know how much they don't care about the game. I sympathise with your condition and wish you the very best of health.
Painful as it is to drag myself away from this riveting diversion, I was wondering if anybody "in the know" out there knew when Lytro might begin shipping outside the US or the timeline for bringing Windows Compatibility? I can't find any info on this elsewhere...