Amazed at news penetration of that infinite focus camera theLytro

On 25/10/2011 2:39 a.m., RichA wrote:
Did they pay journalists to spread this story far and wide? Sure
looks like it. It's been everywhere.

http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2011/1...available.html

Did they pay you to spread it too?
It is actually pretty interesting (IMO), so reasonably newsworthy.
Sample pictures he
https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/282
click on image to set focus point, double click to zoom... slightly.
So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.

Me wrote in :

On 25/10/2011 2:39 a.m., RichA wrote:
Did they pay journalists to spread this story far and wide? Sure
looks like it. It's been everywhere.

http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2011/1...camera-now-ava
ilable.html

Did they pay you to spread it too?
It is actually pretty interesting (IMO), so reasonably newsworthy.
Sample pictures he
https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/282
click on image to set focus point, double click to zoom... slightly.
So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.




I wondering if you can't get a similar result using a hyper-small 0.3mp
sensor?

On 25/10/2011 2:32 p.m., Rich wrote:
wrote in :

On 25/10/2011 2:39 a.m., RichA wrote:
Did they pay journalists to spread this story far and wide? Sure
looks like it. It's been everywhere.

http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2011/1...camera-now-ava
ilable.html

Did they pay you to spread it too?
It is actually pretty interesting (IMO), so reasonably newsworthy.
Sample pictures he
https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/282
click on image to set focus point, double click to zoom... slightly.
So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.




I wondering if you can't get a similar result using a hyper-small 0.3mp
sensor?
No you can't. Despite you posting the link, I don't think you "get it".
"Infinite Focus" is a poor description.
This allows relatively shallow DOF, where you can select focus distance
/after/ the shot has been taken, retaining shallow DOF if desired,
rather than making everything in focus, as in deep DOF from a small
sensor and small F-stop. Sure you could use it to output very deep DOF,
but what's the point when your iPhone does a better job?
Did you look at the examples in the link I posted?
If it's possible that this concept can be scaled up so that it gives
reasonable output resolution, then it would be pretty nifty. Completely
getting rid of the need to focus HD video (as you can select the focus
point later), yet retaining shallow DOF (or deep - you could get to
choose when editing) would be quite a trick. Of course it can also
output 3d.

On 26/10/2011 2:37 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:48 pm, wrote:
On 25/10/2011 2:32 p.m., Rich wrote:







wrote :

On 25/10/2011 2:39 a.m., RichA wrote:
Did they pay journalists to spread this story far and wide? Sure
looks like it. It's been everywhere.

http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2011/1...camera-now-ava
ilable.html

Did they pay you to spread it too?
It is actually pretty interesting (IMO), so reasonably newsworthy.
Sample pictures he
https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures/282
click on image to set focus point, double click to zoom... slightly.
So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.

I wondering if you can't get a similar result using a hyper-small 0.3mp
sensor?

No you can't. Despite you posting the link, I don't think you "get it".
"Infinite Focus" is a poor description.
This allows relatively shallow DOF, where you can select focus distance
/after/ the shot has been taken, retaining shallow DOF if desired,
rather than making everything in focus, as in deep DOF from a small
sensor and small F-stop. Sure you could use it to output very deep DOF,
but what's the point when your iPhone does a better job?
Did you look at the examples in the link I posted?
If it's possible that this concept can be scaled up so that it gives
reasonable output resolution, then it would be pretty nifty. Completely
getting rid of the need to focus HD video (as you can select the focus
point later), yet retaining shallow DOF (or deep - you could get to
choose when editing) would be quite a trick. Of course it can also
output 3d.

The articles so far are woefully lacking in specifics. Like how does
it work, why does the "sensor" have such a low effective pixel count
(and near worthless resolution at this point) and how long does it
take to acquire each shot, what is sensitivity like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_photography

Time to acquire each shot is a claimed advantage - as it doesn't need to
focus, then there's no focus lag. Sensitivity will depend on the sensor
sensitivity, but there's also a potential advantage, as deep DOF can be
achieved (if desired) at large aperture settings.
The resolution isn't very good. The first digital camera I bought (in
the '90s) was also a toy, with about the same output resolution as the
Lytro. Only a few years later, consumers could buy cheap digital
cameras (at about the same US$200 as I paid for a toy) with plenty of
resolution.
I'm not going to rush out and buy a Lytro camera, but the technology is
very interesting - I'd even say revolutionary - especially if resolution
can be improved while also keeping size and price under control.

Me wrote:

So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.

If you looked at Lytro's claims, native resolution is HD, IIRC
full HD, i.e. 2 MPix.

-Wolfgang

On 2/11/2011 4:42 a.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

So native "still" output resolution is about 0.3 mp, from an 11
"mega-ray" sensor.

If you looked at Lytro's claims, native resolution is HD, IIRC
full HD, i.e. 2 MPix.

I missed that:
"Produces HD-quality interactive, living pictures".
I suspect that there's a bit of ambiguity there.
The samples in their on-line viewer can be "zoomed in" on, but looks
like it's zoomed beyond native output resolution. If they could output
1080 x 1920 stills - or close to it, that would be terrific - in fact at
the price, I'd buy one now - just to see for myself.
HD res is plenty / useful for snapshots and web use.