Light field photography
Forum rules
- This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
- Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
- Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
- Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
-
- Posts: 3538
- Joined: 6/17/2009
- 14ers: 34
- 13ers: 12
- Trip Reports (3)
Re: Light field photography
There are some examples from Stanford online which include the raw images, and synthetic images at arbitrary points of view, DOF, and aperature:
http://lightfield.stanford.edu/lfs.html
This worked in IE but not my Firefox browser.
http://lightfield.stanford.edu/lfs.html
This worked in IE but not my Firefox browser.
- Jon Frohlich
- Posts: 2610
- Joined: 10/14/2005
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 162 3
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Light field photography
Not really the same thing.peter303 wrote:There are some examples from Stanford online which include the raw images, and synthetic images at arbitrary points of view, DOF, and aperature:
http://lightfield.stanford.edu/lfs.html
This worked in IE but not my Firefox browser.
http://lightfield.stanford.edu/acq.html
I don't think the Lytro version has the same capabilities as the rig they used to capture these images.
Re: Light field photography
It's the entire point of the technology. It captures all the visible light, the DOF shown in the online images is purely a function of post-processing settings. It may or may not be available at this time but that's purely a software limitation, not hardware.JayMiller wrote:.Bean wrote
You can set DOF in post
Could you tell me where you found the information? I have checked their website and blog carefully and have only found references to focus and being able to switch beween 2D and 3D. Nothing about Depth of Field. Depth of Field would be a game changer.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
Re: Light field photography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Jon Frohlich wrote:Not really the same thing.
http://lightfield.stanford.edu/acq.html
I don't think the Lytro version has the same capabilities as the rig they used to capture these images.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
-
- Posts: 3538
- Joined: 6/17/2009
- 14ers: 34
- 13ers: 12
- Trip Reports (3)
Re: Light field photography
As I said in my verbose earlier post this can now be implemented in a single camera with a clever lens system.Jon Frohlich wrote: http://lightfield.stanford.edu/acq.html
I don't think the Lytro version has the same capabilities as the rig they used to capture these images.
The one I saw replaces the main lens with a grid of bead lenses.
- JayMiller
- Posts: 542
- Joined: 5/8/2006
- 14ers: 28
- 13ers: 5
- Trip Reports (3)
Re: Light field photography
JayMiller wrote:
.Bean wrote
You can set DOF in post
Jay wrote: Could you tell me where you found the information? I have checked their website and blog carefully and have only found references to focus and being able to switch beween 2D and 3D. Nothing about Depth of Field. Depth of Field would be a game changer.
It may be a problem with software (i'm not convinced of that), the fact remains that apparently you can't currently change DoF with the Lytro and the Lytro is what is under discussion.Bean wrote: It's the entire point of the technology. It captures all the visible light, the DOF shown in the online images is purely a function of post-processing settings. It may or may not be available at this time but that's purely a software limitation, not hardware.
My Philosophy on Life: If you wake up alive and well ... Shut the heck up.
- Jon Frohlich
- Posts: 2610
- Joined: 10/14/2005
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 162 3
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Light field photography
I'm impressed. You found a wiki link. I'm familiar with the term.Bean wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Light field photography
So where's the confusion? The Lytro essentially takes the large array and puts it in a small form factor with some lens trickery.Jon Frohlich wrote:I'm impressed. You found a wiki link. I'm familiar with the term.
Not having actually used the software, I don't think either of us are qualified to make any definitive statements about the Lytro. In doing some reading, it seems that the DOF adjustment has been demonstrated in the past by the people who are making the Lytro (in a lab setting). I doubt that such functionality would be left out of the provided software package; if it has been, that's a crying shame because no one in history has ever made a 3rd party image processing program independent of a camera manufacturer.JayMiller wrote:It may be a problem with software (i'm not convinced of that), the fact remains that apparently you can't currently change DoF with the Lytro and the Lytro is what is under discussion.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
- Jon Frohlich
- Posts: 2610
- Joined: 10/14/2005
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 162 3
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Light field photography
There's no confusion. I'm criticizing the product they are selling commercially. They aren't marketing this as a POC.Bean wrote:So where's the confusion? The Lytro essentially takes the large array and puts it in a small form factor with some lens trickery.Jon Frohlich wrote:I'm impressed. You found a wiki link. I'm familiar with the term.
- roguejackalope
- Posts: 239
- Joined: 7/11/2011
- 14ers: 39 6
- 13ers: 25 2
- Trip Reports (1)
Re: Light field photography
No, they're not. But it's just version 1.0.Jon Frohlich wrote:There's no confusion. I'm criticizing the product they are selling commercially. They aren't marketing this as a POC.Bean wrote:So where's the confusion? The Lytro essentially takes the large array and puts it in a small form factor with some lens trickery.Jon Frohlich wrote:I'm impressed. You found a wiki link. I'm familiar with the term.
It's a cool technology, and it's pretty exciting to imagine what it could mean for the future of photography. Thanks for sharing.
"Hiking is just walking where it's okay to pee" - Demetri Martin
Re: Light field photography
Can you be specific about what feature or lack thereof you're criticizing?Jon Frohlich wrote:There's no confusion. I'm criticizing the product they are selling commercially. They aren't marketing this as a POC.
Edit: I just went and played with the Stanford samples a bit more and I'm making a guess (which could be wrong - let me know if it is) that your criticism is an inability to perform a parallax shift. This gif was made from a single shot from a Lytro. It appears to not be a feature currently supported in the software, but it demonstrates that the hardware is capable.
"There are no hard 14ers, but some are easier than others." - Scott P
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
http://throughpolarizedeyes.com
- Jon Frohlich
- Posts: 2610
- Joined: 10/14/2005
- 14ers: 58
- 13ers: 162 3
- Trip Reports (29)
Re: Light field photography
1) Terrible form factor and ergonomic designBean wrote:Can you be specific about what feature or lack thereof you're criticizing?Jon Frohlich wrote:There's no confusion. I'm criticizing the product they are selling commercially. They aren't marketing this as a POC.
2) Touchscreen only and tiny LCD (I personally hate this in a camera)
3) As far as I can tell little in the way of shutter speed control or manual control of any kind (no mention of max/min shutter speeds at all)
4) No ability to expand memory (no SD card slot)
5) No flash
6) No mention of metering modes and how it exposes a scene
7) No mention of what they mean by HD quality but if the examples are any indication your resulting image is very low-res
I could go on and on.