I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense. The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level cameras are being fazed out obviously).
For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.
I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.
Maybe that's why this change is happening.
I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for professionals.
This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.
The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it time.
Currently, in video, we're chasing higher and higher output resolutions, and a 10x drop in pixel count isn't feasible. Once the sensors reach 10x the pixel count we need for output, then we can take the resolution hit for the focal effects.
1080p-capable light field capture seems possible now, but 4k light field capture might need a 300 MP sensor.
For artistic photographers, capturing the moment as seen in the mind's eye will continue to be critical, so this won't be useful.
The nice thing about the first group: they have the financial backing of large media companies (or contractors looking for ways to differentiate themselves). Seems like it might be a reasonable direction to go.
2) Design - The traditional DSLR's give you a sense of satisfaction, completion and pride when you hold them, because when someone else sees you holding them, they know you are putting in some effort to capture good photos.
The Lytro on the other hand looks like a traditional Kaleidoscope and when someone looks at you holding them - 1) They think its some toy, if they've never heard or seen a Lytro before or 2) They know its a device that lets anyone capture beautiful photos, so its no big deal.
There is very little pride of ownership in owning a Lytro, with contrast to a DSLR.
The Lytro needs some design elements from the traditional DSLR, to make it more appealing to the Masses. Had the Lytro been pitched in the form-factor of a DSLR, but with all the features that Lytro has now, it would have caught up like forest fire.
Lens compatibility. When people buy DSLR's, MOST of them buy the body because they know its from a company that manufactures great lenses (Eg: Canon). With Lytro, I'm not even sure if there are plans to manufacture external Lenses. Even if Lytro does manufacture them, it won't matter because companies like Canon/Nikon have a great array of Lenses, proven with the test of time. Lytro should in the least add support to fix lenses from 3rd party companies.
Just my 2 cents.
1) Your first point is exactly why Lytro is exciting—it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.
Everything you said about Lytro could be said about auto light metering, auto focus, digital cameras, lcd viewfinders, Photoshop, etc... you have a bizarre, unproductive pretentiousness. Have you had the joy of carefully metering and focusing a film camera for the pride of seeing a print days later? Does that mean we shouldn't use digital cameras?
2) Why the hell would you create an easy-to-use camera for amateurs and give it interchangeable lens? The target audience of a Lytro isn't going to shop for a 28mm f/1.4 prime. More importantly, the focal length and aperture are fixed to a specific configuration for the microlens array, and that's a constraint of these plenoptic cameras that isn't going to change for a while.
I think you've posted the perfect cover letter for why you should never be CEO of Lytro.
Next, I don't think you read my comment fully either. I am talking about why the Lytro will not be adopted by the professional photography community ,which is WAY huge than the number of starters.
>it could disrupt photography by making it easier than ever for beginners to take good photos.
I thought that's what Point and shoots are for and they do a really good job. Look at the sales. The only problem that Lytro seems to solve is the focusing issue. Honestly, people don't care about the focusing issue. disagree? Go check your Instagram/Facebook feed. No,I am NOT under-estimating Lytro - Its a marvel of an invention. But, its implementation is not that great, which is my point.
>This is one of the more ignorant comments I've seen in a while.
Like I said, I have clearly stated its PURELY my personal view. You are no one to judge me based on my personal views. If I were to judge you based on your comment, then you sound like some random noob, with a fake profile of some random guy who doesn't even have the guts to show up his real identity. With just 10 karma, this is probably expected.
These cameras do not help beginners, or anyone else take good photos. In much the same way that instagram doesn't. Sure, it might be a fad, like HDR is, but nothing short of learning about composition and lighting will make anyone take good photos.
I don't see anything disruptive about lytro photography. Being able to pick the focal point arbitrarily after the photo has been taken is a cool gimmick, but what's the point? How many times have you really wanted to do that with a photo? Beginners seldom take photos that are out of focus because autofocus systems have improved so much. Most blurry photos are due to low light and camera shake, poor handling of the camera. Lytro does not solve that problem.
I hope it succeeds and becomes a viable alternative, just as foveon sensors were/are, and I hope the company do well, this is an exciting time for photography.
(Apple would be a great place to look)
How about security cameras that can be focused onto various parts of the scene and stored for posterity?
i'll refrain from saying more.
