[Jasvox]

Lytro Illum camera lets users refocus blurred photos after shooting | Technology | theguardian.com

Interesting, but not cheap at $1500 USd.

Jason

[Steve.Ledger]

Much more advanced than the first square tube Lytro.
Looks like amazing tech, and a F2 lens through the entire 30-250mm range is pretty good.
I like the design too.

[Rob01]

Lytro Illum camera lets users refocus blurred photos after shooting | Technology | theguardian.com

Interesting, but not cheap at $1500 USd.

Jason

Show me the specs ... starting with resolution of the resulting image. Does it do macro for which it would be most useful? etc

[Steve.Ledger]

lytro.com

[VoiceOfReason]

Interesting, but how sharp is it? How pleasing are the pictures from it? What about the dynamic range, colors, and low light capabilities?

[Rob01]

lytro.com

yes... nothing much there, that is what I mean

I'm very curious about the tech to the point I am a potential client... but this lack of specific information and emphasis on *ONE* spec only makes me very cautious about it. Badly played by the company... or the tech is not ready yet.

[osv]

fwiw:

"Rosenthal: It's basically a 4x step up in terms of both number of pixels and underlying resolution, as well as sensor area size ... The sensor in the previous camera was 1/3", essentially a mobile sensor. This is a 1" sensor with an [underlying] 40-megapixel resolution.

It scales in multiple dimensions, so not only are we getting better 2D image quality, but we've also dramatically increased what we call the resolving power, which is essentially... The degree to which you can refocus in an image."
Q&A with Lytro's CEO and founder on the Illum: Digital Photography Review

[Rob01]

So... still cannot find the info, but let's assume that the resulting 2D image will about about 4 Megapixels? THIS is the problem.

[stevebrot]

So... still cannot find the info, but let's assume that the resulting 2D image will about about 4 Megapixels? THIS is the problem.

...or less...


Steve

[JimmyDranox]

4 or 5 Mp looks small, but we must consider that you can see the pictures on a monitor. So, 4Mp is enough for most of us (if you have a 4K monitor, is not). I don't know if or how is posible to print a picture from a Lytro camera, but the 3D like effects that I saw on their site are impressive. Not to mention the possibility to change the focus point, and the DOF.

[K-9]

I believe the first camera was under $400, so this jump in price for something that didn't catch on the first time is massive.

[Imageman]

Why are you so fixated on megapixels.


My camera is less than 5 megapixels so what. I used to print highly detailed 10x8 prints from a 2 megapixel camera. Image quality does not depend on megapixels, it depends on the quality of those pixels and what you can do with them. I can print highly detailed images well beyond A3 from my current 5 megapixels. Who really needs any more than this.


The original cameras produced photographs 5 inches across, for 150 years 7x5 was the largest print most people wanted, a few artists wanted larger 10x8 prints. Professionals wanted larger than that so they used more specialist medium format or large format gear.


Exactly how many wedding albums are 6 feet by 4 feet in size, I haven't seen any. People don't want or need prints beyond A4


So why do we now demand images that can print onto billboards. when did you last print an image 10 feet long


The 5 megapixels images from this camera should be printable up to 3 feet x 2 feet, is there an issue with this?


The technology looks interesting so lets see what its really capable of before consigning it to the dumpster of life.

[Rob01]

Taking photos is not just about printing them. Taking digital photos can mean cropping or simply zooming in to check out some details. If what you said was true, there would be no point to taking gigapixel panoramas.

Of course the number of pixels is not everything. Nobody will argue with this one. However, resolution and quality wise you do need more than 4 megapixels in this day and age (good pixels).

I would be happy to be proven wrong on this one, by time or someone else... BUT my impression from the camera launch and the few details I managed to find out is that the technology is not ready. Why would I buy this thing when I can save my money for a holiday? Or a nice new Sigma Art lens or two? Or a new m43 camera? Or sigma SD1? Your mileage may differ, but there are other things I would get first within limited cash and time to play.

[JimmyDranox]

By now, Litro can look strange, but this technology has the potential to be a game changer. As well as the curved sensor from Sony.

[spade111]

Based on the way the technology works - I'm not sure that this lens is truly F2.0 throughout the zoom range - or really anywhere near F2.0 - and besides - it wouldn't need to be. I thought the image was reconstructed from the incident information in front of and behind the imaging sensor to provide information about the OOF area. Essesntially the sensor records optical information - but in a way that is very different than the traditional. Ie: you cannot look at the light falling on the sensor and see what the sensor sees?