Lytro just just published a brief Q&A session and it seems that we should expect to see the first light field camera by the end of the year:
“How much?… Specs?... When?... Zoom?… file size?”
Since you registered to reserve a camera we’ll share the juicy details with you as soon as we can. Of course, we'll have more specifications to share when we invite you to buy one later this year.
“Is this a point-and-shoot camera or a DSLR?” from Wayne, Jermaine, Kristy, David, Jeffery…
Our first light field camera is designed to make taking great pictures effortless. With instant shutter, low light sensitivity, portability, and focus after the fact, our camera will deliver ease with a dose of magic that takes traditional point-and-shoot cameras to the next level.
“How is this an improvement?…trying to get a better grasp of the technology?" from Jeff, David, Kent…
Our light field sensor is one of our key innovations that makes these new capabilities possible. You can read more about it in the Science Inside, check out Ren’s dissertation (folks have told us it is a much easier read than they expected), or keep reading to learn more about the team who helped start Lytro.
Related posts:
11 Comments
Sample pics look a bit too noisy.
Guess my comment was deleted
Wonder if I need to advise anyone to ignore the above post
The only way I can see them meeting that deadline is if they’re planning on releasing module to attach to a digital medium format back. And the prototype they used was also made for an existing DMF back so I guess this is what they’re planning to do at first. If I’ve not mistaken, one of the requirements of the system to enable the focus control later in software is to have differences in parallax between the microlenses. So the system might not even be effective on format less than medium format.
Their work also noted that there’s very little clearance (less than 1mm?) between the microlens grid and the sensor, which is expected because… we’re talking about microlenses. They had to remove the protective glass in front of the sensor to get close enough. It’ll be interesting to see how they can incorporate the all these things/requirements to mass produced body+lens that’s also ergonomic and easy to use.
But one thing’s for certain… it’s going to cost quite a bit. And this will be aimed at pros and photo-agencies… but those guys aren’t bothered with groundbreaking new photo-acquiring techniques or shallow DOF… all they need are the shots in an easy and fast way and they want everything in focus. So this Lytro camera (if it materialises) will need to compete head to head with PhaseOne, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc. which are going to be shot at ~f/16 and below with ample DOF anyway.
I know I sound a bit negative but enough with the media-BS hype Mr/Dr. Ren Ng… just get the product polished and out and if it’s any good you won’t need to try this hard to convince people.
Lytro’s Ren Neg’s PhD Thesis on the technology is online:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2011/06/lytro-put-ren-ng-2006-thesis-on-line.html
There are several draw-back to this technology. Basically, Lytro uses a microlens array on the sensor so that each area of the sensor captures a different focal area. This technique is very similar to what Adobe has shown in the past.
The drawback is that you are using a large sensor, then breaking it down into smaller sensor areas to focus different DOFs, so instead of having one large sensor, you have dozens of smaller sensors. This means less light sensitivity, less dynamic range, and a much lower resolution.
For most folks, it would be better to merely get a camera that uses 100% of the sensor area to make a single image and focus it right, or use a small sensor with a wide DOF.
Quite the opposite…
I don’t think they’ll be able to do this for December but if they choose to go for multiple sensors instead of using one big one, I see it making this whole thing a lot more practical:
1. It’d be cheaper to buy small cheap sensors at bulk prices than one large sensor. E.g. Vivitar V25 is a complete P&S with a LCD and lens at $20 each and has a sensor that’s 1/124 the size of a PhaseOne P65+ sensor. Even if you pay the full price of the camera (instead of just for the sensor), it’s only going to cost you $20 x 124 = ~$2500 but have you checked the prices of a P65+ lately?
2. Smaller sensors can be spaced apart to the designers liking… possibly reducing the production costs of the microlens grid as well.
3. The signal to noise ratio is proportional the total sensor area, and although I didn’t look in to the image processing they use for image generation, I’m guessing the final SNR and the resolution of the image is not that of a single image from a micro lens. That just doesn’t make sense.
4. Also, can’t see how the guy might have missed the concepts of super resolution etc. in the process.
I wasn’t saying this was really being made up for dozens of smaller sensors, but rather figuratively having the one sensor broken down into dozens of smaller regions.
This obviously has the impact where the DOF will not be dSLR-like and you are only getting the sensitivity and resolution of the smaller region and not the whole sensor.
Also I’m not sure if this is going to be a medium-format sized sensor, though it wouldn’t make much sense on smaller sensors as DOF will be too wide. However, having a dozens of smaller sensors would be a nightmare optically, adding a ton of unnecessary complexity.
Good in theory, except I don’t think I suck that much at focusing my camera lens on my Full frame DSLR. And if you cannot focus your camera in the first place, I’m not sure you will have a good picture to begin with!
YAWN… I don’t think I will be jumping on the Lytro bandwagon anytime soon!
Strange that the ad went for such a consumer market, I assumed they’d be aiming for semi-professionals at least. I mean, most photos taken at parties are on point & shoots, which have a huge DOF anyway.
a totally unnecessary product ! , just another step in the degredation of the photography profession , stupid and uncalled for , technology doesnt make you a better photographer your eye does
You could also say… if technology (a computer) can do it for you, then it was never all that special anyway.