Any experience with these?

>>2709188
I don't use them myself, but sometimes we use one with my girlfriend when she feels a bit kinky.
She has the one with vibration and perl massage function.

>>2709189
Any pictures?

>>2709197
Only for private uses, friend

>>2709188
>Worth fucking around with? or total crap?

They're mostly crap. The whole 'refocussing' thing only works when you're shooting at macro distances, for anything else it does nothing because DoF is so big.

File: lytro depth map.jpg (8KB, 582x583px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 582x583px

This is a depth map from that thing, looks pretty shitty IMO and I get the feeling it's mostly just a post processing trick.

>>2709188
>post focus
>but everything is in focus because tiny sensor
>worse image quality than your telephone.

you are ignorant morons.

of course this cam is shit. yet. wait till quantum sensors overscanning light field information with frenesel lenses. 4D-sensoring is definitely the future.

and - just to display how idiotic you are - on a light field sensor it doesn't matter how big the sensor is (for dof). the whole point is that the sensor samples directional information (that's why it looses resolution). once you have this, you can calculate any focus/dof/etc. there will be cams in phones smaller than todays, producing pictures betzer than a medium format camera with a 200mm/1.4 (does this even exist for mf? lol) lens. pictures will be made which aren't even possible with todays technology.

but as always dumb people (especially "pros") are ignorant and rennitent and deny any new technology, because their fear of their "skills" are useless suddenly. .. well, they are and for most WILL BE.

so, you better start to know about and work with new developments as soon as possible, instead of your "lol man will never fly"-attitude.

>>2709266
OP asked whether one particular light field camera is any good. People responded with experience/opinions about that one particular camera. Nobody in the thread had said anything about how viable the concept of light field & its future developments are.

So get off your high horse & stop calling people dumb, ignorant morons for a misperceived slight.

>>2709291
let me quote this sooo not indiscriminate thread:

>They're mostly crap. The whole 'refocussing' thing only works when you're shooting at macro distances, for anything else it does nothing because DoF is so big.

>I get the feeling it's mostly just a post processing trick.

>post focus
>but everything is in focus because tiny sensor
>worse image quality than your telephone.

Seems like you are not able to read, so I won't get off my horse and will just state that one more stupid moron joined the conversation.

>>2709293
I kek'd. Good one.

>>2709291 #
I strongly disagree with you, anon. I AM an ignorant moron and would prefer you didn't decide that for me. Get off your high horse & stop defending dumb people like myself.

>>2709266
>and - just to display how idiotic you are - on a light field sensor it doesn't matter how big the sensor is (for dof)

This. I kek every time I see faggots complaining about small sensor and small aperture, because that won't give them shallow dof. It's the depth perception that needs improvements. Blur is added in post anyways, for fuck's sake.

>>2709189
hi kai

>>2709326
Who adds blur in post?
Apart from retards on facebook?

>>2709361

scientists working on improving a new type of camera

File: bugs_doing_a_facepalm___remake_by_super_marcos_96-d7b5rh9.png (170KB, 1024x869px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1024x869px

>>2709361

>>2709294
those were all points directed at this particular model though

>>2709489
>They're mostly crap
>The whole 'refocussing' thing
>it's mostly just a post processing trick
>everything is in focus because [generally] tiny sensor

please stop being so stupid it hurts.

>>2709501
Yes, those were all valid points directed at the original Lytro that the OP asked about.

>>2709188
OP here

every single photo i looked at looked like complete trash.
i was just excited for a $60 fixed F2 aperture lens camera. Nevermind, this thing is dicks apparently.

>>2709266

how long did it take you to fill this post with all those buzzwords

>>2709266
Has there been an outbreak of Down's Syndrome in your neighborhood recently?

>>2709553
>>2709554
you'll be left behind.

the moment you'll read about the first phone with quantum light field sensor, you'll remember my words, and you'll see that you're old. and outdated. and old.

>>2709501
>>it's mostly just a post processing trick
what >>2709538 says. I meant to say since it samples only like 8 levels of depth and has lots of glitches it will have to rely on very heavy post-processing to get the adjustable focusing that it's all about.
I hear the Lytro Illum is great and maybe you could see OP's cam as a sort of demo teaser of that.

>>2709579
And how does that apply to even one single light field camera available currently? Or are you suggesting that we should all go out and buy something that is absolutely terrible, because someday, someone might release a different version of it that is less terrible?

>>2709266

Holy fuck 4D sensor?


Go ahead and explain to me what you think the fourth dimension is, and then I'll explain to you why you're fucking retarded and you'll never take a picture in 4D.

>>2709586

This anon makes a good point. I was recently reading an old article from the early 2000's (like 2001) about digital cameras becoming the mainstay in news photography.

Digital cameras from 2001 took photos that looked like shit even in comparison to 135 film. Pretty close to 110 film quality, yet was adopted rapidly, even though it was inferior in almost every way (including cost lol) except convenience.

It would be ignorant to assume that current DSLRs will be what 'professional' cameras look like in the future, and lytro might very well be the next step, but for right now the adoption rate is very poor, especially considering comparison to the uptake of inferior formats in the past.

Maybe because adjusting the DOF in post isn't really all that great a benefit.

>>2709579

my main camera is a an old rebel, i'm already old. i'm not a luddite either, its just funny to me that you're raving about this technology that isn't useful to anyone right now except as a toy

>>2709596
Focus isn't what will be the best big thing. Selectable exposure will. We can actually mostly do it now, but files would be ridiculously large, and impulse light (strobes/flashes) would fuck it up.

>>2709596
These aren't really comparable.

Digital took over in news photography despite it's quality being worse because it was quicker and easier.

The lytro offers nothing really that would make a professional choose it over a DSLR. Why would a professional now choose lower quality images with basically 0 benefits?

>>2709596
>Digital cameras from 2001 took photos that looked like shit even in comparison to 135 film.
not true man I recently took some snaps with an early casio (i think) digicam and its v. charming. who needs more than 1 megapixel anyway

>>2709609

Next time read more than a fucking sentence before you post

>>2709188

What the fuck is it?

>>2709646
>It would be ignorant to assume that current DSLRs will be what 'professional' cameras look like in the future, and lytro might very well be the next step
This seems to be your main point. And it's wrong.

Why sacrifice quality for something you yourself said isn't really all that great a benefit.

Your initial statement about the switch from film to digital and the resulting loss of quality because of how new digital is doesn't apply to this situation.
At the time digital might not have been so great, but it gave news photographers the extra speed needed to get images out there first, so it was adopted.

So the comparison to uptake of inferior formats in the past doesn't hold.

I dont know what that is.
I will smash your face with a hammer.

>>2709587
... oh dude ... you're pathetic.

4d refers to that a normal sensor catches 2 dimensions. and no, that is not x+y but intensity and position. a light field sensor additional samples direction and polarization.

why are you all so dumb and stubborn?

just be open-minded and deal with new developments. btw "it's shit now so i won't use it" is a shit argument. think about first cameras .. weren't they shit also? wasn't it necessarry that open-minded people used them nevertheless and were part of the envolvment of this art? .. nooo, but you say "meh, i'll wait till other people make the pioneer steps, then i can jump on the train and be artsy".

pathetic to no end ..

>>2709933
this sums it up perfectly

I want to add one more point;

maybe your problem is you lack of imagination. so try e.g. to imagine that you will work in future with more channels than just rgb/yuv/hsv. you will have a Depth-Map channel and a Pol-channel in addition. think about how you can use the DM and use a value-ramp to get an alpha-channel for a specific distance. then you 100% accurrately can cut out the front-object, or apply any filter on it or the background. you know ... it has not necessarrily to be a blur/bokeh filter.
with motion picture you don't need any green-screens anymore. you can calculate and seperate moving objects just by their distance. with a second cam you could use this to even generate 3d-objects with photographic textures and motion captured moving algos.
the P channel can be used e.g. to hide specific control-/meta-data in the scene. e.g. tracking points which will be invisible after remasking the P on the visible layers.

this is even just the beginning. i can see that your minds are numb because of your frustrating reality or your genes or whatever. but please try to be open-minded one single time in your mind and accept, that this technology is superior and will be the future. (also try to buy stocks of companies developing it.)

>>2709894

>being this fucking dense

DSLRs will not be top dog in even 50 years. Probably not in even 25. To think that we've reached the end of camera format evolution is comically close minded and ironic.

That is my main point. If you can't accept that, then I don't know what to tell you.

The comparison of modern cameras to legacy formats is apt. If we cared about image quality we'd still be shooting 8x10s, but image quality has, except for small blips, gotten worse at each step as a trade in for convenience.

If you think that I was asserting that lytro is hands down 100% the next big thing, you have misread my post and are searching for an argument. As it stands, it is an immature technology. It may be a dead end and a waste of money, like CEDs, or it could have a practical use in the evolution of the camera. If it was so easy to see the future from here, we'd all be a lot better at investing.

Also, I can tell you've never developed a roll of film before. There's a little bit more to the switch than just the extra speed.

>>2709974
Are you fucking blind?

OP asked whether a particular lightfield camera is any good. We told him that it's not. Because it's not.

Nobody made any remarks about the future of lightfield. But you chose to imagine that they had and went on a rant. Then even after we pointed out that nobody had made any remarks about the future of lightfield... you continued ranting?

And now? You're still. Fucking. Ranting. Over something that nobody. Fucking. Said.

You're either a complete fucking moron, or a relatively good troll. It's more likely the former though.

the future is looking gay as fuck.

>>2709977
dude, this lytro crap will become legendary as the first consumer lf-cam ever ..

>>2709553
you think of buzzwords because you have no clue about the material (of course, old man).
light field is a technique where small lenses are put in front of an array of "pixels" which scatter the light so the underlaying array can be used to calculate the direction of the light. this is why you lose resolution. an array of pixels sums up to one pixel (with directional information) in the end. to compensate this you need a sensor with a fuckton of pixels. this is what quantum sensors can deliver. so in the end you will have something like a 1/2" or 1/4" q-sensor with like 500mp and 50m lf-units. combined with an overscanning process from 50 to 16mp or the like, you get an insane image-quality with a pixel-accurate! depth-map.
nano-coated frenesel lenses are anyway the future, since they redirect light absolutely perfectly. no common lens could do it that perfectly. forget about any CA, distortion, vignette and soft edges. wide (and small) apertures will be possible like never before. this matches perfectly with qlf-sensors, especially in small devices. you can develop adjusted frenesel lenses for a specific qlf sensor, which better the capability to read direction and polarization.

so your "muh buzzwords" are actually technology you just have no clue of.

>>2709980
No, it won't, in the same way that probably nobody on /p/ could tell you what the first consumer digital camera was without googling it.

I've actually owned this camera--not only that, I also own a Lytro Illum.

I'm totally on board with the idea of the Lytro. The 3D effect you get with the Illum is great, and it lets you take a kind of photo that's simply not possible with other cameras. It feels like you're capturing a chunk of the scene rather than just capturing a photograph of it.

That being said, the original rectangle Lytro is shiiiiit. The image quality just isn't there to demonstrate the potential of light field. Significantly worse than any recent cellphone camera. But hey, for sixty bucks, why not?

But if you really want to play around with light field, the Illum has dropped to $450 on Amazon.

>>2709990
maybe, but they are legendary tho.

>>2709992
post some pics, pls. do you use it for working?

is there any photography review of Lytro Illum? I can only find gadget review... it'd be very interesting to see how it works on field or in a studio.

the lytro illum already has a 40ma sensor (which becomes 4mp in the end). also a 30-250mm at constant f/2.0 lens.

the startup-company got 50mio $ venture capital to develop a movie lf-cam.

this gonna be so huge. even before q-sensors and ncf-lenses.

>>2709997
http://www.akcrain.com/tess-light-field-urbex/

>do you use it for working?

Nah, photography's just my hobby I spend too much money on.

>>2710007
>q-sensors and ncf-lenses
what are those?

>>2710018
thanks!
>I spend too much money on
we all do...

>>2709996
Technology doesn't work that way. The first step towards a new tech isn't some brave explorer pushing the bounds of what humans know, or can do. It's always a steaming pile of shit that nobody likes or can use, but some manufacturer says "Oh, hey, maybe I should sift through that puddle of diarrhea and try to pull out a few things and try to make it useful."

There may be a legendary light field camera some day, but if there is, it will be the first one that people buy, and the first one that doesn't suck.

Right now, the LF cameras that are available are a gimmick, and the only benefits they provide aren't even usable in the end result photo. You can't post a "re-focusable" photo to your flickr, or your instagram. At the end of the day, it's a camera built around, and entirely supported by, an expensive bizarre inconvenient solution to a problem that nobody has.

>>2710024
>You can't post a "re-focusable" photo to your flickr, or your instagram

You can post them on 500px, though, and any website where you can do an embed (e.g., if you have a Wordpress site to host your gallery).

>At the end of the day, it's a camera built around, and entirely supported by, an expensive bizarre inconvenient solution to a problem that nobody has.

You need to stop thinking of it in terms of "This is like any other camera, except shitty and you can change your focus point in post". It's gotta be thought of as its own thing, just as motion pictures aren't just a shit-ton of still images, a light-field photo isn't just a still photo you can change focus in.

>>2710029
>light-field photo isn't just a still photo you can change focus in.
Yes, it is. In every other respect, it is a photo, and it has YET to be used in a single photo that isn't a gimmick, even by the company that is making it.

A movie conveys a LOT that a photo doesn't. A LF photo is literally the same as any other photo, except you can move the plane of focus around.

>>2710032
>A LF photo is literally the same as any other photo, except you can move the plane of focus around.

You can also move the perspective slightly. It really conveys a lot more depth than a normal still image, and taking a good lightfield image requires a lot more work than taking a good still image because you need to compose in the background, foreground, and middle at the same time to really do it properly.

>>2709997
>is there any photography review of Lytro Illum?

DRTV have one, but IIRC they only show macro stuff.

>>2709997
>is there any photography review of Lytro Illum?

I'll give you one off the top of my head.

Handling is kind of shitty. The body is all neat and futuristic looking, but ignores the fact that there's a reason pretty much every DSLR looks like it does. It's uncomfortable to hold one-handed, but not too bad if your other hand is on the lens. There's a grip, but it's not molded, and there's also no molding on the rear for your thumb. My Canon (and especially Nikon) DSLRs feel like they're making sweet love to my hand when I hold them. This feels more like a sweaty dry-hump.

You've got two control wheels, but the lens is fixed aperture of f/2, so they're gonna be Shutter & ISO (or EV comp) rather than Shutter & Aperture.

Buttons on the camera:
a. Shutter (obvious)
b. Power (obvious)
c. Depth-assist button (changes the display so it shows visually where the zones of focus are. Really useful to get the most out of the camera, although it doesn't work worth a damn in low light because the sensor noise applies to the light field sensing just as with the RGB sensing)
d. Autofocus
e. Autoexposure lock
f. Infinity (basically, try to focus for the maximum refocusable range)
g. Fn. (set to playback by default)

The last four are in a little block on the back about where your thumb sits. One great feature is that they can all be remapped to whatever function you want.

Other than the external buttons, most interaction (e.g., during playback, manipulating settings, etc) is done with the touch screen. It's a beautiful screen, and it flips up (not enough for selfies, but enough that you can use it at waist height or a little bit above your head pretty easily). No optical viewfinder, so the LCD is also your viewfinder. When you press the depth assist button, everything gets ridged with either Orange or Blue depending on where in the focus field it lies.

>>2710055 (ctd)
There's two rings on the barrel, for focus and zoom. They're both fly-by-wire rather than physical zoom or focus, which kind of sucks, plus it makes it surprisingly difficult to tell which is which sometimes. Lytro could've at least made the textures different. You can swap which ring is which.

It's got a hot shoe that works with standard hot shoe flashes. I think there's a proprietary flash available for it, but I'm not sure (there's certainly some extra contacts on there for a proprietary flash). The shoe is a little bit recessed, which makes it a bit tricky to attach my Radiopopper trigger, but not impossible (like with my Sigma DP2, which makes me find a hot shoe adapter just to give it some height).

Battery compartment on the bottom. Flap for the SD slot and USB port on the side. You know how when there's a little plastic cover, you need a little spot that you can dig in to open it? I don't know what the term for that is. Anyway, it's on the bottom edge of the (tall, sideways-opening) slot, and it's all up in the business of the strap lug, which makes it surprisingly difficult to get that compartment open. Difficult to explain without making a video. But it's just such an obviously stupid bit of industrial design and so very easy to fix that I get the feeling that Lytro doesn't have any competent industrial designers on staff.

>>2710056 (Concluded)

Internally, the camera is actually running Android, which is notably not a realtime operating system. There's serious talk from Lytro that they're going to open the OS up to developers, which could be awesome, but it has some effects. E.g.:

Shutter lag is juuuust on the wrong side of noticeable (but that's a big step up from the version 1.x Illum firmware, where it was waaaaay on the wrong side of noticeable). It's hard to get a shot of someone throwing something, which is really annoying because that's exactly the sort of shit you'd want to take a picture of with an Illum.

Startup time from really-off (i.e., when you first plug the battery in) is more on par with a cellphone startup time than a DSLR startup time. Startup time from sleep is closer to mirrorless startup times. You need to hit the power button to turn it on; you can't just half-press the shutter button.

Overall, it's... very usable, but not great. I'd take the Lytro over a very-old-generation DSLR like the Canon D60 (NOT the 60D), but handling is not on par with modern DSLRs.

>>2710035
>you need to compose in the background, foreground, and middle at the same time to really do it properly.
You need to do this for photography with a normal camera as well... Are you not currently composing your images? We may be coming to the real root of the conversation...

Look, either you have to choose a perspective and focus point while you're on the scene, or you choose your perspective and focus point at home at your computer. There is no extra awesome thing that takes your photos to the next level, in any way.

I'd love it if you could give me some specific examples where, artistically, a photo without the LF technology would be a failure, but is a stronger result with the new technology.

>>2710058
>I'd take the Lytro over a very-old-generation DSLR like the Canon D60
So you pay £600 for a camera that is better than a DSLR from 2002? Seems like a great bargain!

File: 1409633195268.gif (731KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 500x334px

>>2710035
>taking a good lightfield image requires a lot more work than taking a good still image because you need to compose in the background, foreground, and middle at the same time

You're just supposed to do that with pictures in general, you idiot.

>>2710075
>You need to do this for photography with a normal camera as well... Are you not currently composing your images?
>>2710079
>You're just supposed to do that with pictures in general, you idiot.

It's not the same.

E.g., normal photography: Isolating your subject is often a good thing. White background portrait, or just very shallow DoF so the background is in bokeh territory. You don't want things in the background or foreground distracting from your subject.

With a lytro, the "distracting" stuff in the foreground and background should, ideally, be just as much a subject of your photo as the stuff in the midground.

>>2710078
>So you pay £600 for a camera that is better than a DSLR from 2002? Seems like a great bargain!

Well, it was $600, not £600, and it's down to $450 now, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is that the files it produces are distinctly *different* than any DSLR. It's like complaining about a 4K video camera because it only has about 8MP resolution and has shitty handling compared to a DSLR. Or like criticizing the Model T because there's no good place to hitch up your horse. It completely misses the point of the camera.

>>2710084
>E.g., normal photography: Isolating your subject is often a good thing. White background portrait, or just very shallow DoF so the background is in bokeh territory. You don't want things in the background or foreground distracting from your subject.

That all depends. It's not that simple.

>>2710084
If your viewer has to wiggle your image around to get your background to stop being distracting, you've failed.

Your foreground, mid ground, and background should all come into play in a normal photo as well.

Let's also not exaggerate the level of perspective control you have, either. It's movement of about an inch, side to side, in the best case scenario. You aren't stepping around the side of your subject to see what's behind them.

>>2710094
>That all depends. It's not that simple.

Obviously. But for the most part, with normal still photography, you've got a subject and then the rest of the composition is in service to that subject. With the Lytro, it's more like taking three full photographs with their own full compositions at the same time.

>>2710101
>If your viewer has to wiggle your image around to get your background to stop being distracting, you've failed.

Obviously. That's not what I meant.

What I mean is that, in a good Lytro shot, the background has to pretty much be *its own image*, and ditto for the foreground. With a normal photo, you're composing in X and Y and you have to make sure that the stuff in the background/foreground (or midground, if your main subject isn't there) supports and doesn't distract from your composition.

In a normal photo, the foreground, midground, and background should all work together, but with a Lytro, they also all need to work individually.

>Let's also not exaggerate the level of perspective control you have

True. It's enough to give you a much greater feeling of 3D depth than is possible with a normal image, though.

This all feels like explaining a tesseract to someone who lives in three dimensions.

>>2710084
>distinctly *different* than any DSLR
Yeah, they are phone camera tier with a pointless gimmick tacked on

>>2710151
>Yeah, they are phone camera tier

I was talking about the Illum, not the original Lytro the Op posted. The Illum has a 1" sensor--not quite as big as APS-C, but miles better than point & shoots and especially better than phone camera sensors. Image quality on the Illum looks a lot closer to DSLR than to to cellphone.

>with a pointless gimmick tacked on

People previously considered things like motion and color to be pointless gimmicks.

Just because you personally can't think of a way to use the feature creatively doesn't mean that it's a pointless gimmick.

File: curious-and-curiouser-IMG_906_380.jpg (65KB, 380x253px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 380x253px

>>2709250
It's not. You can read the paper he put out a few years before the camera came out.

Imagine you've got rack of tubes in front of your sensor.
Each tube is pointing at its own pixel, in goups of 9, middle one pointing ahead, all the others fanned out slightly.
Only the light going straight down each tube hits that pixel, there isn't any stray light coming in from somewhere else.

This means the final image is much lower res than your sensor but you have control over what light included in the image.

>>2710194
> but miles better than point & shoots and especially better than phone camera sensors. Image quality on the Illum looks a lot closer to DSLR than to to cellphone
I have seen the photos on the lytro website, they look like ass.

And it is a pointless gimmick. Keep shilling though, you obviously have to justify your retarded purchase somehow.

>>2710313
ah cool thx for the explanation
>And it is a pointless gimmick.
stfu already