There's a lot of buzz today about how Lytro's shoot-first, focus-afterwards camera technology could appear in a new Apple iPhone, and while there hasn't been any confirmation of that idea, a new nonfiction book, Inside Apple, revealed that Steve Jobs did indeed meet with Lytro CEO Ren Ng and discuss how the two companies could work together in the future. Here's the relevant excerpt:
The company's CEO, Ren Ng, a brilliant computer scientist with a PhD from Stanford, immediately called Jobs, who picked up the phone and quickly said, 'if you’re free this afternoon maybe we would could get together.' Ng, who is 32, hurried to Palo Alto, showed Jobs a demo of Lytro's technology, discussed cameras and product design with him, and, at Jobs's request, agreed to send him an email outlining three things he'd like Lytro to do with Apple.
Right now, Lytro's first camera features an "11-megaray" sensor and microlens array inside a small flashlight-like case (see the microlens on video right here), but those components would need to be shrunk quite a bit further to appear in a standard Apple device. Lytro has publicly discussed future possibilities, though: director of photography Eric Cheng told us there was nothing stopping Lytro from building a video camera, and executive chairman Charles Chi actually spoke to the cellphone camera sensor market specifically in an interview with PCWorld.
If there's actually a budding relationship between Lytro and Apple, though, the company isn't telling, though it did confirm a meeting with Steve Jobs. Lytro provided this statement:
We have always admired Apple and share their dedication to innovation. It’s in that spirit that we had the pleasure to meet with Mr. Jobs prior to his passing and to show him what Lytro was working on as a result of his interest in the technology. We cannot provide comment on any past, existing or pending business relationships.
Take a look at what Lytro's camera is capable of in these three videos (we've embedded one below) and keep an eye on The Verge for our full review in the coming weeks!
There are 81 Comments. Add yours.
Interesting. But at present I don’t think the technology will work well with the iPhone (or other iDevices). It’s simply too large and clunky. Maybe in some future iteration a few years down the road it’ll be suitable.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You keep thinking small. There is no law that iOS must run on phones. Think of all the crappy ui you’ve used. I love canon and nikon like children but they have the worst ui.
Imagine if you could photoshop directly in the camera.
No reason apple cant make a great camera. In fact the Lytro is exactly the sort of disruptive technology that apple likes and can excel
At.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:45 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (38) Flag actions
If only I could recommend your comment twice.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:48 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I see no reason for Apple to make a stand-alone iOS based camera when the most popular consumer camera (according to Flickr uploads at least) is already the iPhone.
What would this device be exactly? An iPod Touch with a better lens/sensor? Any other improvements would be software based and wouldn’t warrant another separate device. Consumers would be faced with the choice of: fat iPod Touch (aka iCamera?), or a current Touch with an already decent camera that fits in your pocket easily.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It would be the Apple 3D video/still camera.
Just a camera. And it would be pretty cool.
As people get addicted to it eventually they’ll
scale it down and put it in phones.
I’d probably buy it. I thought about getting the Lytro but the exported JPEG isn’t really enough pixels and it’s a bit expensive. Also 1st gen.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:18 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No actually, it’s a camera that you can focus AFTER YOU SHOOT, but you STILL have to focus somewhere and the stuff out of the focus range are … uhh, out of focus!
Take a look at the pix. They’re pretty neat but not what some wish it to be.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you’re asking for a camera with infinite depth of field (nothing out of focus), that already exists. It just takes the right settings, lens and lighting conditions. That blur is actually very desirable among professionals.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not completely true…. The lytro can show everything in focus at the same time although this is not shown on their website because that style of picture doesn’t have the same wow/cool factor. Since the Lytro is focused with software not lenses the f can be changed from an f style of f2 to f60 after the picture is taken meaning f2 small portion in focus, f60 everything in focus.
The lytro will also allow for 3d images through software later in 2012 along with a host of other features including view shifting and many other editing options.
Posted on Feb 07, 2012 | 11:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it could be a dockable lytro lens, allowing you to use the iphone/touch ui and an awesome lens.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not an iPod touch with a better camera, it’s a Lytro camera with a better screen and operating system.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:18 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You’re mincing words. You said the same thing twice, you just worded it to fit your case the second time.
“Device with a lens and camera sensor running iOS”
“Device with a lens and camera sensor running iOS”
The three current iOS devices are essentially blank slates with certain hardware features, one being a camera. What you’re asking for is a fourth iOS device that takes one specific hardware feature present on all the rest, and improve just that. Why in the world would they not just make the camera better on the existing devices? I’d be pretty unhappy if I bought a Lytro/Apple camera and an iPhone—two essentially identical devices—with the only difference being one has a better camera and the other has a cellular antenna.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No man, you’re thinking “blank slates”. That’s what’s wrong. Because the Lytro camera is kind of a brick or a perfume box, it is not a slate because the technology wouldn’t fit in a slate (even one thicker than the current Touch).
Basically, we would have an iPod touch for apps and fun and music and possibly a Lytro camera with an OS taylor-made by Apple and of course a better hardware and improved look-and-feel. Because the Lytro camera is an awesome new technology and it simply can’t be put in a smartphone these days.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
In wwert’s original comment that I replied to he asserted that it could be an iOS based camera. I think what you’re getting at is a camera with a touch-based interface similar in appearance to iOS, but not actually iOS (similar to the Nano’s OS).
So now it’s an entirely different question: Would Apple want to make a stand-alone camera? I don’t think they would. I think they’re content to make small but noticeable improvements to the cameras in their current lineup of products. I still think it’s more likely that they’d wait until the Lytro tech is small enough—and of high enough quality—to include in the iPhone, etc.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s why I said “a better screen and operating system”, which you would know as you quoted it. I never said iOS. You just misunderstood me and then accused me of “mincing words to fit my case”.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 10:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s the original message I was replying to, and since you replied to my reply (there had to have been a better way for me to word that) I assumed you were in favor of wwert’s iOS camera concept. “Better operating system” easily could have meant iOS, since it is better than whatever operating system any current camera runs.
It is my belief that Apple views cameras as components they can integrate into their hardware, not a standalone product. Any push into the camera space by Apple will be heavily casual user focused (rather than professional). Most people have a camera on them already in the form of a phone, so it makes sense to just make that product better over time.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Ok, you assumed so, but my comment didn’t mean that. When I replied to your comment, I was solely pointing out that you, from the start, were thinking about a fat iPod touch, a slate, kind of like those cheap Kodak point-and-shoot. You were probably unfamiliar with the Lytro camera, and that’s what I meant about “a better screen and OS” – although the poster you replied to shouldn’t have said “iOS”, you misinterpreted him, as no one was thinking about slates. You can see in the image the Lytro is a “perfume box” with a nano-like screen (and ground-breaking new technology inside), and with Apple involved, we could see a Lytro with improved hardware and technology, as well as a Nano-like operating system.
Now of course Apple could only integrate Lytro’s technology in an iPhone within the next 5+ years; it is the other option and more Apple-like. But considering that that tech could be hard to be put in a tablet-like device and Apple’s recent history of trying to enter various markets to make them better, it would be a good bet for the next years that Apple will just launch a new product altogether (a camera with innovative tech) or simply not launch anything Lytro until the tech evolves enough to get in a phone.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You keep assuming my comment about a “blank slate” had something to do with the shape of the device. It didn’t. That’s not what blank slate means.
It just means a device that has no intrinsic purpose. You can’t look at any of the three current iOS devices and say what any one does in one phrase like you could with most other consumer tech, i.e. a watch, ebook reader, gps device, camera, etc.
I’m not at all unfamiliar with the Lytro, and your assertion that that’s the case seems to be coming directly from this assumption that I don’t know the difference in shape of it compared to what you call a “slate”.
I just…we’re getting away from ourselves. I haven’t hear one argument from anyone that a standalone Apple branded Lytro camera is a better option than investing in perfection the tech to work within Apple’s existing technology.
Lytro remains an independent company, refining and perfecting their camera. All the while Apple is funding their advances, in return receiving exclusive access to miniaturized Lytro components when they become available.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 1:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i’m going to focus on your blank slate. while i agree that you can’t say that any of the 3 iOS form factors are dedicated devices—they are obviously convergent devices—they do have a PRIMARY purpose.
iPhone — communicates.
iPod Touch — Music.
iPad — Reading. Movies. Visual Stimulus.
You can watch movies on the iPhone or iTouch but the iPad will be the best experience.
Taking a picture and easily doing the depth of field dynamically, on the fly, with very little processing power would be a great Apple product. It’s primary goal would be to take great pictures.
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 2:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I know. That’s just silly.
That’s almost like Apple having the #1 selling media phone and then selling a standalone music player.
Wait.
What I mean is, that’s like Apple having the #1 Music player and then being dumb enough to let people use the same tech in their mobile phones.
No. GAH. You know what I mean!
See how it looks when I say it? Silly, huh?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When was the last time the iPod Classic got a revision? It’s still around because they can’t offer a 160GB Touch in a cost/form effective manner…yet. I don’t know anyone choosing a Classic over a Touch for any reason other than capacity. The rest of the iPod line is a different story, because I do think there’s still a market for the smaller form factor.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While I haven’t purchased one cause I can’t quite justify the cost, I would love to get a Classic, not only for capacity, but because I can operate it without looking. I can skip songs without looking, which is very handy when I’m walking around or driving. That being said, I’m kind of addicted to Spotify so that might be an issue.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You can skips song without looking using the headphones too.
Ok ok that was a weak argument from me. Apple headphones suck. Still, I’ve found it much more convenient than using the click wheel without looking.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Touche. Sorry I’m an Android man (at least until my contract is up) so I didn’t even think about headphone controls. Though there’s absolutely no way I’d be rockin Apple’s earbuds, I know other companies make compatible headphones.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 11:06 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed. My roommate a couple of years back bought a Classic, simply to replace his previous Classic that broke. He could’ve gotten an iPod Touch, as his music collection wasn’t that large and there was little/no price difference, but it was the only type of iPod he’d ever owned and he was happy with it, so why change?
Sometimes, people just appreciate the simplicity of a single-purpose device that just does its job, nothing more, nothing less. I imagine there are tons of people like him, who are either happy with the original iPod design, or just want a simple music player, period, due to either personal preference, reluctance to change, or both.
It’s why I still cling to my 16 GB Nano from 2008 despite owning a 32 GB iPhone 4 (though for me, it’s mainly just for exercise- I hate dealing with a lock screen, texts, e-mail notifications, and Facebook status updates while jogging, not to mention the click wheel is easier than a touchscreen/headphone controls in winter, when I’m wearing gloves).
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 2:05 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
iCamera
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 11:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Is it really bad UI or is it just that people don’t understand some of the basic’s of photography?
B/c with my friends, things like Aperture and ISO are unlearnable concepts.
Plus, as “Sam I Are’s” put it, the iPhone is Apple’s Camera and I don’t see them going after professionals anytime soon since lately they’ve been distancing themselves from that market.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you have the folks at dpreview.com complaining about your UI, it’s because it’s bad, for sure.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? I thought there was? The point is that the technology is still not ready for the masses. It’s a niche product until it can be marketed to everyone. Right now it’s a rectangular box full of sensors. The problem for now and the foreseeable future is that the technology needs that much space to fit inside (and that’s just for a what, 1.3 megapixels’ worth of sensors?). So camera or iPhone will have to be enlarged to fit everything. That won’t happen any time soon since last I checked Apple is constantly trying to shrink products, not double, triple, or quadruple their size.
I wasn’t trying to say that some sort of iCamera will never happen. Obviously Jobs had plans to reinvent the photography industry. This could be the puzzle piece for that. It’s just not going to happen straightaway. This is exactly like Apple deciding to wait a year or two to implement GSM/CDMA into the iPhone. The technology wasn’t ready yet to be Apple primetime.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:24 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Haha, you’re a business major aren’t you?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe Apple doesn’t have to make a great camera. Use this as a peripheral, and let it wi-fi direct/Apple Talk the image to the iPad/iPhone for editing and exporting, until they can shrink the device down to a reasonable size for inclusion in a phone. Apple created the iPhone because people were carrying less items that did more, not the other way around. It protected their iPod market in the age of smart phones.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yep, I still have the firewire iSight, and it’s still awesome. Think of what they can do now?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I disagree that they have the worst UI’s…. They are extremely practical and they aren’t pleasing to the eye… but who cares… at the end of the day, on a camera at least, you want to be looking at just the picture and you want the camera to work out the rest. That is unless it is a DSLR, which at the end of the day, works very well. I don’t see anyone complaining at all about them.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:00 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“There’s no law that iOS must run on phones.” Very true. In fact it does runs on tablets too.
But “Apple making a camera” is not gonna happen. As far as I understand Apple’s way of thinking, they will, somewhere down the road, announce the photoshop-directly-in-the-camera sorta thing you talked about in the iPhone.
Posted on Jan 29, 2012 | 5:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think its safe to say if the iphone had this in it, i would want it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:23 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
The most innovative product of 2011 for me, personally.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:25 PM EST reply Recommend (24) Flag actions
Hands down the most awesome thing I saw for the last year.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t know, seems like a gimmick to me. They brag about all this innovative technology, but to me it seems all software-based. It’s as if it’s a camera with a smaller sensor taking images at a smaller-than-normal aperture to obtain and deeper depth-of-field and then using Lytro software to apply a blur-effect to any part of the image that wasn’t clicked on. I have yet to be impressed by this companies “innovations”, but that’s just me.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’d suggest reading up about light-field cameras then, because this is far from a gimmick. Each lens on the micro array is capturing light rays from different angles, which means that much more information is being captured than just the image, but relative depth and positional data.
The software isn’t applying a blur effect, it actually is allowing to refocus the image at any depth with a single click. It allow allows for slight reframing and extraction of 3D information.
If you’re working in Photoshop/After Effects and have a photo with someone standing in front of a wall, it would be possible to insert a layer between the foreground subject and the wall, and have it appear natural, without making masks etcs.
Since the camera is capturing rays from all directions, it would also be theoretically possible to extract a normal map much like what’s currently used in 3D rendering programs, and do colour adjustments based on the direction.
Of course, someone would have to write the plug-ins to do this, but if the lens tech becomes cost effective it really does change the way photos (and video) can be manipulated in the future.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:01 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Secondly it allows for this all to occur without the need for a focusing assembly. This allows for miniaturization of the Camera beyond what is currently possible. Putting this in a phone is not going to be overly complex in the not to distant future.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The last thing I want to see near any interesting tech is Steve Jobs/Apple. Cool tech should be free like a bird not shut up in an Apple cage.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yah, screw Apple. Making money and selling products! Assholes! Now let’s all go pick fruit at a commune!
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:32 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Yea, screw Apple for popularizing cool tech.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:34 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
That’s not what he said…also since when is making money and selling shit all that matters when it comes to technological progress?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple hasn’t forced technology to progress? Like really? Where do you guys pull this bullshit from?
Or are you one of those blind fanboys that thinks innovation is equal to stuffing massive spec’s, GHZ’s, memories, and megapixels into hardware that will still run like garbage?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:47 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Agreed. Innovation is changing how we interact with technology. Everything else is just **** measuring. Apple has excelled at the former over this past decade.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Apple’s magic is more in taking in existing ideas and products and then refining them and focusing on an end-user experience.
Building infantile tech from the start has never been there mojo.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then no one is currently innovating? In fact if thats the case, no cell phone manufacture has ‘innovated’ probably since the inception of the smartphone.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Correct.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Incorrect.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Your sarcasm meter is broken.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 1:57 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m supposed to derive sarcasm from a single word?
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 9:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
there is creation and innovation. Innovation improves dramatically on existing ideas (what Apple does).
Creation is what Lytro did. Eventually, someone (maybe Lytro themselves) will innovate on their product make it appealing to regular consumers.
Posted on Jan 26, 2012 | 3:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Good point. My personal take is that the Lytro tech needs a LOT of this, because each picture needs to be focused separately — converted to an ordinary JPEG, more or less — before it’s printed or a person will want to view it on the web. And then, the results today are pretty un-spectacular.
This tech has an immediate appeal — Jobs sure must’ve wanted to grok it — but seems to have a ways to go before people will want it enough to put up with its shortcomings.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Other than the final result JPG being only a 1.2 megapixel square, I don’t see where the shortcomings are.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, metering shit like megapixel count to have a pathetic bullet point for another yearly iphone turtleneck hitler presentation is surely a better thing.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Read what was replied to…then read the reply again…then realize how unfounded your reply was.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because that’s theaolway?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I agree…
Apple is a great friend for innovation…but absolutely horrible for progress.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I was gonna leave a sarcastic response but that seems to have been covered. It’s one thing if Apple were to buy Lytro—then the tech likely wouldn’t appear anywhere else—but it seems more likely that they would partner with them to develop a version small enough to fit in an Apple device (and maybe they’d lock down that specific version for themselves if Apple engineers helped in the miniaturization).
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Why do you think they are more likely to partner than buy?
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple isn’t in the habit of buying up hardware companies. Nearly every acquisition they’ve made has been software, and the few hardware companies they’ve bought have been to ensure supply, not block competitors out of exclusive hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
Certainly there’s no reason that this couldn’t change, but I also don’t think Lytro is looking for an exclusive relationship like that. If they were, they wouldn’t have released a consumer product but would have rather focused on showing off the tech and partnering already.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:53 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
i’m sure Apple wouldn’t force Lytro into some sort of exclusive agreement. #DealWithTheDevil
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well I don’t think they would force anybody.
They could say: we give you a couple of 10 millions to fund your project if we get exclusive access to the miniature version of the sensor that we will help to develop.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seems to me like the biggest issue wouldn’t even be the size, but the quality. The 4S’s camera is one of the best smartphone cameras out there today, and it would be very un-Apple-like to sacrifice continued quality improvement for this feature.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This. Looking at lytro sample pics, the current iPhone camera quality compared to what is being produced by Lytro is FAR and away too vast. Lytro’s pics are worse than the first gen iphone cameras.
The tech is cool. The effect is cool. Concept is cool. Image quality is so not cool. And to be able to resolve more detail to get better quality, I suspect they have to scale physically larger, the same way in Cameras where, the larger the image sensor, the larger the lenses have to be. It’s just a physics barrier.
Dropping the lytro into an iphone chasis would probably yield somethign like 0.5 mp size and bad quality images to boot. I just can’t see Apple doing anything with them unless the quality significantly improves.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 5:22 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yah and Apple was also interested in Xerox’s GUI…
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I find Lytro epicly meh
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can tell you from here, he is definitely holding that brick wrong.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
apple is going to get back into the camera market – they’ll probably get all of kodak’s patents.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
interesting….
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 4:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This technology could be integrated in a TV and act exactly like Kinect without the need to emmit IR all around the room and use both an IR and regular camera. Both technology are used to get a depth map but a light field camera is more precise. That fake lens blur software is gimmicky and could be used with any 3D picture, not specifically light field files. It’s a shame that such technology is so underexploited right now. We could see a Kinect killer that’s cheaper, more compact and way more precise.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I might be misunderstanding you…but are you saying light field cameras take 3D images and applies fake lens blur to them? Because that’s not what happens at all. The Lytro is NOT aware of depth in the same way the Kinect is. Rather than recording only the portion of light that is normally filtered through a lens and onto the sensor, it reads ALL of the light and where it came from so that is can pick and choose which directions of light to use for the image after the fact. It can recreate a 3D effect by grabbing the light from two ends of the sensor to use as the left and right “eye” but to turn that into a depth map would take extra processing that isn’t already happening.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 6:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It seems the Lytro camera is too innovative and different for some people to wrap their heads around, so they’ll just pan it and pretend it’s crap.
Can you name a major breakthrough that hasn’t been this way? The naysayers always look very stupid in the end.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I still can’t believe this camera even exists. This is the kind of tech that would be obvious vaporware at CES. Stuff like this makes following technology exciting.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 5:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey Tim, see that 97billion dollars in the war chest? It’s time to use a chunk of it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 7:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
While I wouldn’t expect it in a phone, maybe this is why the dumbed down Final Cut X? They want it easier for the general market before they release some sort of crazy focus-later video camera? Would this be feasible?
Or even just some crazy-big update to iPhoto and an “iCamera” to go with it.
Posted on Jan 24, 2012 | 9:10 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is not an innovation and frankly it’s kinda dumb as the degradation and poor quality far outweigh the benefit.
This concept is over 100 years old(google it) and has never succeeded in takin off in many inceptions.
Let dead ideas r.i.p.
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 6:03 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Let me give you an analogy in the video game space. The first few generations of consoles used 2D graphics. Over time they got better and better. Then 3D graphics came along, and they were crap, but people invested in the technology because they believed in it.
Compare the artwork in Castlvania: Symphony of the Night with the 3D rendering in Final Fantasy VII, both of which came out in 1997. 3D rendering was a newer technology (although by no means new) that was inferior to the quality of 2D, but it improved over time and now it’s very good.
The concept of computers is also very old (hundreds of years) but it didn’t really “take off” until recently, and there were many naysayers. History if full of people saying “it’s not good enough now so it’ll never be good enough.”
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." –Ken Oslon, 1977
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 12:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If Apple had any interest in this technology, they would have bought the company a while ago. Sorry, Lytro
Posted on Jan 25, 2012 | 8:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lytro was offered tons of money by many companies including nikon cannon and many others but didn’t want to sell out. They might of even had offers from Apple but they stuck to their guns about keeping their company. Can’t blame them for taking the risk because this should prove rewarding for them in the long run.
Posted on Feb 07, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why would the iPhone need to be so big? The first cell phone was in a bag and now they have turned into pocket computers. Why couldn’t the lytro style censor be made to fit in a cell phone? If the lenses are needed for this tech to work why couldn’t they run down the side? just some thoughts..
Posted on Feb 07, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.