Shoot Now, Focus Later

[Tim Schulz]

Hi all —

I just received a new camera to use for some research projects with my students. It is a “light field” camera by Lytro:

http://www.lytro.com/

Here is one of the first photos I took with the camera:

Notice that the focus is on the back part of the fish. Here is the SAME photo with the focus changed to the fish’s eye:

Note that this isn’t another photograph with a different focus. This is the same photograph. Finally, here is the SAME photo with the focus changed to the fly:

One photograph, three different focus settings all attained through post processing. Here are the vitals for this photo:

Shutter: 1/60
ISO: 500
f/#: f/2
focal length: 145mm

The camera is essentially a point-and-shoot with some very special optics and software. Not sure where we’ll ultimately go with this ‘new’ field of computational photography, but I believe we’ll be seeing some important and impressive changes in the way cameras are designed.

[Loren E.]

This trips me out Tim, I wonder if the major DSLR manufacturers will integrate this stuff eventually…that’s if we still have DSLRs and the entire market doesn’t turn to mirrorless in 10 years!

[anonymous]

Is this a simplified lensbaby?

[Mark Sides]

I can’t seem to wrap my head around adjusting focus in a computer rather than using a lens, an f stop and actually calculating the depth of field.
Of course I had a hard time accepting a computer with a lens slapped on the front of it (electronic camera) rather than a mechanical mechanism designed to expose a silver halide based emulsion on a celluloid backing (film camera).
The function of taking a picture certainly has become a very different discipline.

[Ben Cochran]

I have a friend, in Geneva Switzerland, who works for a company that came up with this sort of software. In essence, the camera shoots at a hyper-focal distance and the software brings the chosen subject into focus, while lens correcting the rest for bokeh, if/as desired.

For myself, I hope that it never leaps above the P&S sector and stays out of the DSLR’s. Guess I am just an old school, get it right in camera, forget about all of the plugins, sort of guy. 😉

[dan blackstock]

I just read an article which talked about apple looking at this kind of technology for a potential future stand alone camera.

[bill 93]

I wasn’t worried that this would catch on (in the consumer marketplace) until you mentioned that Steve Jobs was interested in buying Lytro.

That said, my instinct still says that lightfield cameras have a more promising future as scientific and security cameras than for mainstream photography. I don’t think the average consumer wants to “mess with” his or her photo after taking it, the resolution will always be somewhat lower than “traditional” (for lack of a better term) cameras. And while I would hate to use, and even abhor*, the “B-word” (the one that ends in “okeh”); I find it quite unpleasant in these lightfield images. But the biggest and most subjective reason I don’t think it will catch on for consumers, none of the lightfield images really feel like art to me, and I suspect a lot of other people consciously or not will feel the same way, they just feel articificial.

*I would rather use an English word for this concept, especially when “Boke,” simply means “blur.” Not that I have a problem with Japanese, but in this case, I just find it pretentious. . . in fact. . . when the “h” is added –to make sure we pronounce it right– I even find it condescending. I find it especially ironic that the “h” was originally added to “boke” around the same time as Pokemon was introduced to the American public. Millions upon millions of children could figure out how to pronounce “Poke” but no, we photographers are apparently too stupid to figure out it’s Japanese, even when we’re told. Sorry about the rant.

[Author]

Posts