To buy or not to buy, Lytro Light Field camera.

[Jamie Cottle]

Apparently the rez on this thing isn't great, but its a sign that things are possible in such a small package...

but given what Jannard just posted above, think RED will be able to push this and if it lands in Scarlet in the future...wow...i hope to god that Canon have a game plan to compete because given the stuff from Adobe then you mix it with RED...I think you get a drug that youll never want to stop using

Put that in a Scarlet and you'll have a 3k, camera with HDR, no need to focus or check white balance and only moderately control the iris. Next I'd expect for the wizards to find a way to shoot video without LENSES! Seriously though the awesomeness of that camera would make me go blind, or insane, I already talk too much about Red to people. What remains of my friends would abandon me to the sanitarium.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I should say that my idea above would give a fairly fine depth resolution on a depth map. So there are ways to get this including on the Lytro. Jim is right, you can get more resolution in other methods, but I prefer sampling from multiple points, though less than Lytro us using. The lens on my camera concepts ideas are several centimeters in diameter rendering to a several centimeter format, in a flat pocketable cheap camera. I have this to emulate the natural perspective of the human vision as the Lytro and others still have this limitation unless their lens is also wide enough.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Put that in a Scarlet and you'll have a 3k, camera with HDR, no need to focus or check white balance and only moderately control the iris. Next I'd expect for the wizards to find a way to shoot video without LENSES! Seriously though the awesomeness of that camera would make me go blind..

..

 

[Gabe Conroy]

It's a fun toy, but I can't think of any useful applications for it. Take a look at the analysis by other engineers and camera designers, for example:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=39633412

If they designed it to allow two stops of DOF adjustment (from f/11 to f/45 in FF35-equivalent DOF), then the resolution is only 0.7 MP. If they designed it to allow only one stop of DOF adjustment (which is unlikely, since that makes the difference from a normal camera incredibly small), then the resolution would be 2 MP.

It's a novelty item.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Lytros generate the DOF blur in post based on the depth it measures? So the magnitude of the DOF blur will be as much or as little as is decided in post, and doesn't have a lot to do with the actual lens and sensor (so long as the depth information can be determined). Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?

 

[Daniel Browning]

So the magnitude of the DOF blur will be as much or as little as is decided in post, and doesn't have a lot to do with the actual lens and sensor (so long as the depth information can be determined).

No, that's not how Lytro works. There is still a maximum and minimum DOF, and you only move the focus forward or back by the same amount that DOF would be increased by stopping down two stops (in both directions). For example, at the Lytro's maximum focal length: 52mm f/2 (FF35-equivalent would be 280mm f/11), focused at 2 meters, DOF on a normal camera would be 0.5 meters (using a generous 0.08mm CoC). On the Lytro, you can refocus that 0.5m DOF up to 2m forward or back, but that's all.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

No, that's not how Lytro works. There is still a maximum and minimum DOF, and you only move the focus forward or back by the same amount that DOF would be increased by stopping down two stops (in both directions). For example, at the Lytro's maximum focal length: 52mm f/2 (FF35-equivalent would be 280mm f/11), focused at 2 meters, DOF on a normal camera would be 0.5 meters (using a generous 0.08mm CoC). On the Lytro, you can refocus that 0.5m DOF up to 2m forward or back, but that's all.

I guess I'm confused, are you saying the DOF blur is not computer generated based on a depth map?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I guess I'm confused, are you saying the DOF blur is not computer generated based on a depth map?

Yes and No. It's computer calculated but it's not just a DOF post-effect on a depth-map, that would be far glitchier. It can selectively choose which focal samples it wants to use and then interpolates between them. So there's still a lot of computer generated interpretation of the data... but it's using real 'out-of-focus' samples.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Yes and No. It's computer calculated but it's not just a DOF post-effect on a depth-map, that would be far glitchier. It can selectively choose which focal samples it wants to use and then interpolates between them. So there's still a lot of computer generated interpretation of the data... but it's using real 'out-of-focus' samples.

Ah, okay I guess I got confused because of some the depth map things Raytrix has shown off. I'm used to After Effects and working with depth maps to generate bokeh, so I put it together to mean something like that.