Toronto Photography Meetup Group

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/technology/22camera.html

[quote]With an innovative camera due out later this year from a company called Lytro, photographers will have one less excuse for having missed that perfect shot.
Lytro's camera produces files, like this one, where a user can click on an area to bring it into focus.

The company

that's quite interesting!

I wonder if the quality is any good, since a well built lens is supposed to focus very well on a specific plane. How can a camera affect what your lens is focusing on (multiple targets).

Worth checking out if there's a demonstration about how the technology really works.

The adobe plenoptic lens insert looks more interesting since you aren't tied to a specific camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7usnHm ... r_embedded

lol this will make Sigma's and Tamron's a bit more desirable as their AF accuracty won't be as much of an issue anymore.

Original PDF http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfc ... 150dpi.pdf

The adobe plenoptic lens uses the same microlens technology so still needs a specialized camera.

Not impressed, creative depth of field is one of the things we as artists can use to create photographs that express our vision. Should we be able to go into a gallery click a button and change a painting? Gee let me click this button to change mona-lisas smile.

looks like you lose a TON of resolution to get a single image as the trade off.

And they say you need like 100mp or 200mp sensor to enable to get the effect you want, which means a lot of noise i presume or really basic images at the end.

Sounds more like an expensive novelty for those who like point and shoot. If you can't decide what to focus on while taking the picture, you're probably not paying much attention.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. While Mona Lisa's smile is great and all, it has absolutely nothing to do with depth of field (what's in focus/what's not)

No, i think the point is, the photographer chooses what's in focus as his expression. It shouldn't have to be tinkered with afterward. Although I think the camera let's the photographer change it until he likes it then prints it out for display, not for the viewers afterwards.

But imagine a Van Gogh painting where you decide to bring the stars into focus instead of their swirly masterpiece that they are shown now. ha ha

I know, Ed. Sandeep simply said about changing the content, not changing the focus when that comment was made. Content is different from focusing. Focusing only affects perception of the same content without changing the content itself.

By the way, how much focus/blur ratio are we talking here? If it's complete blur like with a close focused fast aperture lens then it's one thing