Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You are not condescending, you define condescension. Good luck with that...:rolleyes:

I wish I understood what you were trying to say. How can I not be condescending and yet define condescension? Isn't condescension the exhibiting of behaviour that is condescending? I'm very confused.

In any case, I made a point in good faith, attempted to apologise and move back on-topic and have no desire to get involved in any spat/quarrel with you. Once again, if you interpreted what I said in a way that caused you offence then I apologise wholeheartedly. You appear to have missed the sarcasm contained within much of what I said and I endeavour to express myself more clearly in the future. Can we now please kiss & make up?

PS. My question from my previous post still stands. If anybody has more information than I can find on the Lytro webpage around international release and Windows Compatibility, I'd be very grateful. I'm actually pretty interested in having a play with one of these but would prefer not to import (and would like the freedom of editing on PC as well as Mac). Thanks in advance.
 
...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.

Then you probably don't know how to use a camera properly.

The iphone4 camera is just slightly better than a modern low end (~$100) ultra-compact point and shoot camera.

$150 will buy you a considerably better camera. You know... one that has optical zoom, removable storage, a flash that can illuminate subjects farther than ~6 ft away. Then there's the optical clarity that a larger objective lens and larger sensor deliver..... I'm sorry... what exactly in photography did Apple revolutionize?

This ( http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_elph_310_hs ) will easily beat the pants off of any camera Apple manages to cram into an iphone, and it only costs $200.

Don't even get me started on the really nice ultracompacts... ( http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professio...cameras/pro_ps_digital_cameras/powershot_s100 )
 
Then you probably don't know how to use a camera properly.

The iphone4 camera is just slightly better than a modern low end (~$100) ultra-compact point and shoot camera.

That's not really his point.

Most of us don't have pockets to accommodate a bulky camera everywhere we go (even the smallest compacts are inconvenient to carry around in addition to wallet, keys, phone etc.) and the real triumph of the iPhone 4/iPhone 4S is that the included camera is of the quality that the convenience of device convergence has outweighed the benefits of carrying around an additional dedicated camera.

I'm sure mdelvecchio is perfectly capable of using a camera, but now that the cameras inside phones are of a level that they can compete with most compacts...the decision now is whether he wants to drag that expensive SLR out to the park, or to a bar etc. on the off-chance that he might want to take a photo...or whether to save his bulky dedicated camera for special occasions like Holidays, Weddings, Baby Photos etc. and do the vast majority of his picture-taking with his phone.

Call me sad but I actually skimmed Lytro's CEO's Stanford dissertation last night and found something particularly intriguing. The technology relies on ray-tracing and as such does not require the optical zoom element to capture the necessary information to allow for post editing of focus (although zoom is included in this first model). To use his words:

"The light field sensor comprising the microlens array and the photosensor can be constructed as a completely passive unit if desired"

The camera effectively focuses on the "infinity point" at all times, negating the need for zoom. So to my mind...in these cameras the zoom is not for focussing and more for determining what resides in the frame. So...from what I can see from the engineering diagrams for the prototype units and this 1st Release, there is NO reason why the iPhone's existing microlens array couldn't be used and I see no reason why the processing couldn't take place on the main CPU. From the diagrams on the site, it appears that almost half of the length of the camera is taken up by the Optical Zoom element, while the Light Field Engine takes up most of the rest of it's size. All you would have to do is to incorporate the already very thin Light Field Sensor behind the iPhone's Microlens array and we're talking about this technology being viable TODAY.

Where the problem lies is in the technology's dependence on Directional Resolution (which affects overall Spatial Resolution). In order to maximise the effect of the focus-editing in post...you need high Directional Resolution. Essentially, how this light-field photography works is that there's a trade-off in pixels if you want the advertised depth-of-field effects. The dissertation talks about 4x6 being the most common photo size today and that anything above 2MP is essentially wasted. All of the theory he talks about is dependant on a final goal resolution of around 2MP (although this was written in 2006)

I don't think this tech in it's current form is designed to replace SLR Cameras. Photographers will not want to compromise on pixels to gain flexibility of focus in editing. I think it's more to bring some of the freedoms and features of an SLR to a smaller device...for those point-and-shoot moments where the person taking the photo didn't quite get it right at the time. It's for snapshots rather than professional photography and I for one like the idea of having a Light Field Photo as a toggled option in future Apple devices for those moments when you CAN sacrifice a little resolution for the sake of ending up with a usable final image.

Apologies for the length of the post. :)
 
That's not really his point.
Yes, that was exactly his point. Have you read the thread?

Most of us don't have pockets to accommodate a bulky camera everywhere we go (even the smallest compacts are inconvenient to carry around in addition to wallet, keys, phone etc.)
The Canon 310HS is certainly not bulky. You obviously haven't ever seen one.
iPhone4s: 115 x 59 x 9.3mm
Canon 310HS: 96 x 57 x 22mm

The Canon is a tad shorter, less than 1-inch thick vs 3/8-inch thick. Thicker than the iPhone but thinner than your average wallet/bill fold.

Lets not ignore the truth to try to make a point. If you have a pocket to hold an iphone then you have another pocket to hold this camera.

and the real triumph of the iPhone 4/iPhone 4S is that the included camera is of the quality that the convenience of device convergence has outweighed the benefits of carrying around an additional dedicated camera.
Uh, no. People have been using their cell phones to snap pictures for over 10 years already. Nokia had the first phone with a point-and-shoot-quality camera ~ 4 years ago. Again I ask... how exactly has the 4s 'revolutionized' photography? (answer: it hasn't)

I'm sure mdelvecchio is perfectly capable of using a camera, but now that the cameras inside phones are of a level that they can compete with most compacts...the decision now is whether he wants to drag that expensive SLR out to the park, or to a bar etc. on the off-chance that he might want to take a photo...or whether to save his bulky dedicated camera for special occasions like Holidays, Weddings, Baby Photos etc. and do the vast majority of his picture-taking with his phone.
So basically....nothing has changed. People still use their phones to take pictures when/where they don't have dedicated cameras (as they have for 10+ years) and cell phones still take inferior photos to point and shoot cameras (as they have for 10+ years).

There's no revolution. The iphone 4S takes better photos than the 3G, but the Canon 310HS takes *way* better photos than the Canon S410.

Anyone who suggests that Apple has had some kind of breakthrough in photography clearly doesn't know much about photography and certainly doesn't keep up with the latest tech in cameras. Reality distortion field ahoy.

Perhaps fan-boys should actually learn what they are talking about before they make inaccurate posts...? Or would actual facts/the truth contradict their world view too much?
 
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)

You really are missing the point entirely.

Have you never heard of the expression that "the best camera is the one you have with you"? Our esteemed friend was NOT claiming that the iPhone had a better camera than all dedicated compacts or SLRs...simply that the progression that's taken place in the last few years means that the occasions where he feels the need to fall back on his more expensive equipment are becoming fewer and farther between. He has a camera on his phone that will adequately perform to the level that he requires in most situations. It is not the best camera because of its specifications...it's the best camera BECAUSE of the fact that he has it with him (the inference being that his SLR is useless because it's likely in a cupboard at home 99% of the time). I fear you may have taken the expression LITERALLY.

I didn't at any point claim that the iPhone had revolutionised camera technology...What Apple did succeed in doing was putting a good camera in a device that I wanted in my pocket at all times. I'm sure Nokia did attach a decent camera to one of their phones years ago...but unfortunately I'd abandoned them around about the time of their Symbian acquisition due to the fact that they'd forgotten how to incorporate a decent UI and so I didn't have that particular device with me.

The rest of your post was irrelevant rambling & quoting of model numbers I care nothing for...so I'm choosing to let you get angry all on your own and not show you the courtesy of response.

PS. I can fit Wallet, Keys & Phone in my trousers at a push. I REFUSE to wear MC Hammer pants to accommodate a camera that's slightly better than my iPhone 4S (because I'm not a complete idiot)...no matter how small it is.
 
I don't think many have mentioned it but I personally see a limited use for Lytro's technology on an iPhone simply because of physics.

Looking at the focal length, it seems the sensor size is around ~1/2.5", the typical small P&S sensor size. This means at the wide angle, the depth of field is pretty vast - i.e. there'll be very little out of focus background blur in each shot unless you're taking macro shots.

Yes there will be some usage for it on the telephoto end where depth of field is shallower if you can plonk a 200-300mm equivalent telephoto lens into the camera like Lytro but for a phone camera with a fixed wide angle lens, the utility of the camera just isn't there because the depth of field is so limited. Worse when you're talking about 10 times the resolution hit compared to the amount of processing it takes. You could play with macroshots, but I'd bet that will get old fast.

So basically....nothing has changed. People still use their phones to take pictures when/where they don't have dedicated cameras

When the phone camera becomes better, there's less reason to use a separate camera and iPhone offers other advantages. My family use our DSLR far less with an iPhone 4S because 1) it's always there 2) sharing is so much easier with it. One good thing about iPhone's camera is that there are so many apps for manipulating images and videos. Coupled with iCloud Photostream, iPhone really does make things so much easier to manage taken photos. No more fiddling around with the memory card after taking photos.

When I had my Nokia Symbian phone, I didn't feel like manipulating photos on the phone and there was no good Flickr app so it didn't have as much utility. With iPhone & iPad, I rarely use my desktop computer to manipulate photos.
 
Last edited:
Photography is all about controlling depth of field. Choosing what is in focus and what is not.

It has a little bit to do with lighting and composition too. Just a little bit. ;)

I'm sure you're right, but that wasn't my point. Lytro's tech solves a problem most people don't have. It's a gimmick that demos well, but most people won't use it after the novelty wears off. Like video chat.

A gimmick? You've never taken a photo where the subject ended up out of focus and you wished you could fix it?

Man, I'm blown away by this technology. I don't think it's an overstatement to say this has the potential to revolutionise digital photography. It never ceases to amaze me how some people judge a new technology by its current limitations, and lack the imagination to fathom its potential. This, like any technology, will improve over time, and people will come to wonder how they ever did without it. One day you will be explaining to your grandkids how in the old days you had to focus your photos before you took them!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.