To me, much of what makes photography fun and interesting is dealing with the trade-offs and limitations encountered while shooting; including wanting but not having much depth of field, or even wanting no depth of field (bokeh) but not being able to obtain it. What do you do in such situations? With digital you can crank the ISO up or down, but with film you have to grab a different camera with a slower or faster speed film, or maybe you might even have to wait until the light changes. Technology like this, while impressive in its own right, takes away part of the challenge of shooting, and that's not necessarily a good thing for someone like me.
I want stop motion with dynamic refocusing. As the video plays, it focuses on whatever you click. Throw in some motion tracking, and it could automatically change the focus to follow an object.
Very interesting. It's exciting to realize people are still working on the next big step on photography technology. Here's what I would personally love to see happen next: 1) A finished display medium - the actual photograph - that *directly* uses the vector information. The first interactive-focus photos shown are super cool for sure; at the same time, you can make the same thing with any old camera and a tripod. You could even automate it with an on-camera app. Prompted by your 3d type demonstration, I'm imagining a new kind of photograph that both has that wide aperture, Chuck Close, ultra-present look AND the DOF of a landscape photo. Is there a way to combine that 3D tech with eye tracking, so that the viewer literally focuses regions of the photograph with eye movement? I guess the photograph would be VR headset? 2) Put the camera in the hands of serious, advanced photographers. Apropos of the subject of depth, there is a whole universe of variation within the idea of *what you can do* with any camera. Some photographers *do* more, and at first it can be hard to jump onto the merry-go-round of understanding. Putting the tech in the hands of serious, advanced lifers - i.e. wall photographers with careers - would give you a better idea of what the tech can *do* - plus obvs it would go further in promoting the consumer product. 3) Some varied panel of experts to help you with artist relations. E.g. a fine arts person, a reportage person, a fashion person, etc... The famous Philip-Lorca DiCorcia quote comes to mind. Ask any BFA which quote I'm thinking of and they will instantly know, and then proceed to explain to you what I'm trying to articulate in a TH-cam comment. Also ask any advanced photographer or critic about the history of stereographs - very interesting and informative to what you are doing. Also someone in the comments mentioned the need for an open camera. Very much YES. The code doesn't have to be open source - it's the control of the camera that needs to be open and accessible externally. That could be as simple as making all interface elements assignable to literally anything variable within the camera system, plus a single flexible bridge to the outside world, e.g. Bluetooth. People currently doing projects with ugly Rasperry Pi hacks would buy your camera just for that, and discover the new stuff afterward. I don't grok why camera companies don't do this. Doesn't seem like it would suck resources too bad to simply include an unsupported, hidden interface page for assigning controls and turning on a wireless bridge - there for hackers who want it and hidden for the rest. Don't mention it in the main manuals, and don't publish any documentation on it on the main product page. Void the warranty if the hidden page is accessed. My first take on this presentation is that you've brought something into the world that has great potential for visual art. I hope you will keep developing it and bring it into wide usage. Good luck!
It would revolutionize macro photography. In macro photography, the depth of focus is so tight because the subject is so close to the lens. To fix this the macro photographer takes many images, each at a slightly different focus, then combines them in post in what's known as Focus Stacking. I believe (but don't quote me) some macro photographers can as many as 100 images to do this. A usable lightfield macro camera would only have to take one photograph. Software would then combine all the focused elements from the lightfield and produce one in focus image. The time saved would be immesurable.
I would be interested to see a movie filmed this way, much more than traditional 3D filming as you have some control over the camera position which would add a new dimension when watching films back making them more immersive. I wonder how much of a step it would be to combine several of these to film a scene and allow you as the viewer to actively move around the scene, this is really exciting.
Quite impressive, cant wait for the full motion video cameras that use this technology. I wonder if they have tried using 2 Lytro cameras to take a stereo shot then merge the pictures for even more depth in 3d ie mimicking human sight but in a single image.
Multiple focus images can be helpful for artistic values. Though can be off putting. Quick fact, they experimented with wide focus cameras in old black and white films, but found the "everything is in focus" images to be "weird" to the audience. So this device is a go between, and as it simulates our natural visions ability to change the focal point, actually provides an additional benefit in an image.
Where is the creative side off it? Is not photography about the instant composition instead of post production? It is not the point of practicing photography to the point of mastering the tools to get what we want like any other artistic activities? This seams to me the perfect tool for digital images nothing to do with photography
This camera technology is also applicable for the 3D movie industry. Now the 3D cinema footage is limited by the depth of field because the size of the 2 lenses are limited by the pitch of the humans eyes. Now they can make a camera lens size much bigger and limited by other thingies :)
Normally I would agree, and the first time I heard about this camera I thought "well just focus correctly the first time". The extrapolation of a 3d image at the end of the video, however, is mind blowing. "3d" as they sell us in the theaters is simply stereoscopic - as I am sure you realize - but this is real, honest-to-goodness 3d. Useful today? meh - we'll see, but talk about future potential and the presentation's title is justifiable.
Some of these Ted talks really are a form of infommercial. This isn't necessarily the future of photography by photographic technology. And, of course, the two things overlap in profound if not exact ways. Interesting nonetheless.
Any hope of getting this in to a DSLR body and with a hotshoe to trigger flash? If not, then I guess it's just a "instagram iPhone camera"-trickery, not a real tool for the pro-photographers.
Nice toy but what would impress me is if it could take a picture from the light of a subject in 360 degrees and create a 3D image from that. I don't think that would be impossible just need the right technology. Look up 1 trillionth frames per second on TED.
With out a 1:1 viewfinder, ability to use a lens of choise, triggering flashes, syncing the shutter with anything that resembles a flash. There's just no way THIS PRODUCT is going to make it in the real world. The processing and the fileformat are intreaging. Who hasn't taken an out of focus shot at a wedding etc. I guess you can shoot a wedding with an iPhone nowdays, but come on. That's not a TOOL either. Just novelty + convenience.
Hello from 2022. Would be better if this guy invented a covid vaccine that works) Nobody needs a new way of photography today) And history of Lytro proves that fact.
This guy is arrogant indeed. He think he has a great camera that will transform photography when nobody has asked for it. Nobody wants it as a consumer product. There may be applications in medical or security screening. It is a bad idea for general photography. This guy is clearly a non-photographer, I do not care how he claims otherwise.
Nobody asked for a touchscreen smartphone either. In fact, I would guess that nobody asked for the original silver iodide camera. People blindly content and even complacent with the status quo will never push forward boundaries. This guy has the technical ability and will to pioneer technological breakthroughs and, sooner or later, even the myopic ones will eventually follow.
just wait and see how many Illum they will sell (or not sell) before they start their fire sale...as they did on their mark 1 camera... just wait and see
The future of photography is an open source camera. A camera that can be re coded... hacked. exploited and exerimented with by the ARTIST. not engineers that THINK they know what photographers want. We all want different things. So give us a blank canvas not a canvas with guidelines. we hate guidelines.
To me, much of what makes photography fun and interesting is dealing with the trade-offs and limitations encountered while shooting; including wanting but not having much depth of field, or even wanting no depth of field (bokeh) but not being able to obtain it. What do you do in such situations? With digital you can crank the ISO up or down, but with film you have to grab a different camera with a slower or faster speed film, or maybe you might even have to wait until the light changes. Technology like this, while impressive in its own right, takes away part of the challenge of shooting, and that's not necessarily a good thing for someone like me.
Is this an add or a talk?
An add or an ad?
An add?
I want stop motion with dynamic refocusing. As the video plays, it focuses on whatever you click. Throw in some motion tracking, and it could automatically change the focus to follow an object.
Very interesting. It's exciting to realize people are still working on the next big step on photography technology.
Here's what I would personally love to see happen next:
1) A finished display medium - the actual photograph - that *directly* uses the vector information. The first interactive-focus photos shown are super cool for sure; at the same time, you can make the same thing with any old camera and a tripod. You could even automate it with an on-camera app. Prompted by your 3d type demonstration, I'm imagining a new kind of photograph that both has that wide aperture, Chuck Close, ultra-present look AND the DOF of a landscape photo. Is there a way to combine that 3D tech with eye tracking, so that the viewer literally focuses regions of the photograph with eye movement? I guess the photograph would be VR headset?
2) Put the camera in the hands of serious, advanced photographers. Apropos of the subject of depth, there is a whole universe of variation within the idea of *what you can do* with any camera. Some photographers *do* more, and at first it can be hard to jump onto the merry-go-round of understanding. Putting the tech in the hands of serious, advanced lifers - i.e. wall photographers with careers - would give you a better idea of what the tech can *do* - plus obvs it would go further in promoting the consumer product.
3) Some varied panel of experts to help you with artist relations. E.g. a fine arts person, a reportage person, a fashion person, etc... The famous Philip-Lorca DiCorcia quote comes to mind. Ask any BFA which quote I'm thinking of and they will instantly know, and then proceed to explain to you what I'm trying to articulate in a TH-cam comment. Also ask any advanced photographer or critic about the history of stereographs - very interesting and informative to what you are doing.
Also someone in the comments mentioned the need for an open camera. Very much YES. The code doesn't have to be open source - it's the control of the camera that needs to be open and accessible externally. That could be as simple as making all interface elements assignable to literally anything variable within the camera system, plus a single flexible bridge to the outside world, e.g. Bluetooth. People currently doing projects with ugly Rasperry Pi hacks would buy your camera just for that, and discover the new stuff afterward. I don't grok why camera companies don't do this. Doesn't seem like it would suck resources too bad to simply include an unsupported, hidden interface page for assigning controls and turning on a wireless bridge - there for hackers who want it and hidden for the rest. Don't mention it in the main manuals, and don't publish any documentation on it on the main product page. Void the warranty if the hidden page is accessed.
My first take on this presentation is that you've brought something into the world that has great potential for visual art. I hope you will keep developing it and bring it into wide usage. Good luck!
Future of photography: Ren Ng at TEDxSanJoseCA 2012
Increible!!
It would revolutionize macro photography. In macro photography, the depth of focus is so tight because the subject is so close to the lens. To fix this the macro photographer takes many images, each at a slightly different focus, then combines them in post in what's known as Focus Stacking. I believe (but don't quote me) some macro photographers can as many as 100 images to do this.
A usable lightfield macro camera would only have to take one photograph. Software would then combine all the focused elements from the lightfield and produce one in focus image. The time saved would be immesurable.
I would be interested to see a movie filmed this way, much more than traditional 3D filming as you have some control over the camera position which would add a new dimension when watching films back making them more immersive. I wonder how much of a step it would be to combine several of these to film a scene and allow you as the viewer to actively move around the scene, this is really exciting.
Quite impressive, cant wait for the full motion video cameras that use this technology. I wonder if they have tried using 2 Lytro cameras to take a stereo shot then merge the pictures for even more depth in 3d ie mimicking human sight but in a single image.
Multiple focus images can be helpful for artistic values. Though can be off putting. Quick fact, they experimented with wide focus cameras in old black and white films, but found the "everything is in focus" images to be "weird" to the audience. So this device is a go between, and as it simulates our natural visions ability to change the focal point, actually provides an additional benefit in an image.
Where is the creative side off it? Is not photography about the instant composition instead of post production? It is not the point of practicing photography to the point of mastering the tools to get what we want like any other artistic activities? This seams to me the perfect tool for digital images nothing to do with photography
This camera technology is also applicable for the 3D movie industry. Now the 3D cinema footage is limited by the depth of field because the size of the 2 lenses are limited by the pitch of the humans eyes. Now they can make a camera lens size much bigger and limited by other thingies :)
Anyone thought of the photograph scene in blade runner?
Totally.
Enhance 15 to 23 (sips whiskey)
Thank u all very much
Well that is 30 minutes I will never get back.
The plate wasn't optically sensitive? It was light sensitive?
A new tack on photos ..love the idea of fixing focus. Are they coming to Canada?
You sure sold me, Mr. Ng! I'd buy one.
Especially for people like me, who cannot fully experience the "3D" of today, because of a focus problem in my right eye.
Normally I would agree, and the first time I heard about this camera I thought "well just focus correctly the first time". The extrapolation of a 3d image at the end of the video, however, is mind blowing. "3d" as they sell us in the theaters is simply stereoscopic - as I am sure you realize - but this is real, honest-to-goodness 3d. Useful today? meh - we'll see, but talk about future potential and the presentation's title is justifiable.
Some of these Ted talks really are a form of infommercial.
This isn't necessarily the future of photography by photographic technology. And, of course, the two things overlap in profound if not exact ways.
Interesting nonetheless.
Where is it now?
Is that the guy from Harald and Kuma?
I guess that's exactly what they said at Kodak when that guy came up with his silly newfangled thing... what was that? digital camera?
Any hope of getting this in to a DSLR body and with a hotshoe to trigger flash? If not, then I guess it's just a "instagram iPhone camera"-trickery, not a real tool for the pro-photographers.
Thought this was TED. Sounds more like a press conference or infomercial.
Bad that such a good concept of lytro got shelved due to competition
Nice toy but what would impress me is if it could take a picture from the light of a subject in 360 degrees and create a 3D image from that. I don't think that would be impossible just need the right technology. Look up 1 trillionth frames per second on TED.
Interesting!
Wonder if this is what fly does.....
Great talk - but he's gotta work on the pronunciation of foto pioneer Daguerre.
or you could just learn how to focus a camera...
With out a 1:1 viewfinder, ability to use a lens of choise, triggering flashes, syncing the shutter with anything that resembles a flash. There's just no way THIS PRODUCT is going to make it in the real world. The processing and the fileformat are intreaging. Who hasn't taken an out of focus shot at a wedding etc. I guess you can shoot a wedding with an iPhone nowdays, but come on. That's not a TOOL either. Just novelty + convenience.
Wild!
It might be possible, but it will be expensive for a while. :P
Greetings! Have you had any luck with photo sfxart tricks (just google it)? My cooworker Phil made some amazing photos with their video tutorials.
lmao was hoping this would be ren hang and that there was a typo
? really not a tool? to change the focus even after the photo has been snapped? I'm going to assume you're a pro but then I can't be certain..
this is a promo video and got nothing to do with "Future of Photography"
OMG Great idea. Patent it! Be like apple! :D
Hello from 2022. Would be better if this guy invented a covid vaccine that works) Nobody needs a new way of photography today) And history of Lytro proves that fact.
Well, this all turned out to be an overpriced lie. Kinda explains why Lytro has been such an abysmal failure. Apart from that, interesting talk.
This guy is arrogant indeed. He think he has a great camera that will transform photography when nobody has asked for it. Nobody wants it as a consumer product. There may be applications in medical or security screening. It is a bad idea for general photography. This guy is clearly a non-photographer, I do not care how he claims otherwise.
Nobody asked for a touchscreen smartphone either. In fact, I would guess that nobody asked for the original silver iodide camera. People blindly content and even complacent with the status quo will never push forward boundaries. This guy has the technical ability and will to pioneer technological breakthroughs and, sooner or later, even the myopic ones will eventually follow.
just wait and see how many Illum they will sell (or not sell) before they start their fire sale...as they did on their mark 1 camera... just wait and see
The idea has been around for decades. It is a bad idea for photography.
You're arrogant! He is not
This is not the future of photography
Nobody wants this
The future of photography is an open source camera. A camera that can be re coded... hacked. exploited and exerimented with by the ARTIST. not engineers that THINK they know what photographers want. We all want different things. So give us a blank canvas not a canvas with guidelines. we hate guidelines.
If you know what you want, go get it... go make it.
Hey, if you want to mess with the raw data from the Lytro camera, go right ahead.
We already have this with canon and Magic Lantern firmware :)
Come on art boy let's see you engineer what you say! Oh yeah, you can't engineer anything.
Nobody wants this