Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lytro...the evaluation
2 views
Skip to first unread message
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 9:05:36 AM6/2/12
to
I am sure I have mentioned here that a few months back I purchased a
Lytro. Knowing full well that being the first in line with new
technology is not always a prudent choice...I was so curious that I bit.
The price was low enough that it was not much of a gamble. (It turned
out to be a hell of a better deal than the Facbook stock I purchased)
My wife and I have just returned from our yearly excursion to NY
and I have the results.
My background:
I specialize in candid shot of people. Though I never try to hide my
camera...I never like to make it obvious I am using it...I tend to hold
the camera and "shoot from the hip".
Though my 50D does a great job...I don't always manage to aim it right.
I also have an occasional problem in that the auto-focus may zero in on
something other than my intended subject.
My theory was that I would be able to aim the small Lytro better...
and that focus would not be a problem as I could focus the image
after I took the shot.
My results were quite a bit different than what I expected.
First off, I was really no better at aiming the Lytro that I was the
50D...however virtually no one recognized the Lytro as a camera! I found
that I could easily walk up to people and just about point it in their
face and they rarely even noticed. That would of course been impossible
with any other type of camera. I ended up getting a shot of a very
unusual face that I never would have attempted with a recognizable
camera. For that shot alone it may have been worth it.All in all though,
most of my best shots were still done with my 50D.
BTW: Though we spent a full week in the most populated areas of
Manhattan I did not see one other person with a Lytro...
but a handful of people did recognize it and ask me questions about it.
I also found out that I enjoy working with the "live images"
and being able to focus in on different areas. My favorite shots
are of rain through glass...or walking on a rainy day being able to view
distant objects or zero in on the rain on the umbrella I was under.
For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
Lytro. Knowing full well that being the first in line with new
technology is not always a prudent choice...I was so curious that I bit.
The price was low enough that it was not much of a gamble. (It turned
out to be a hell of a better deal than the Facbook stock I purchased)
My wife and I have just returned from our yearly excursion to NY
and I have the results.
My background:
I specialize in candid shot of people. Though I never try to hide my
camera...I never like to make it obvious I am using it...I tend to hold
the camera and "shoot from the hip".
Though my 50D does a great job...I don't always manage to aim it right.
I also have an occasional problem in that the auto-focus may zero in on
something other than my intended subject.
My theory was that I would be able to aim the small Lytro better...
and that focus would not be a problem as I could focus the image
after I took the shot.
My results were quite a bit different than what I expected.
First off, I was really no better at aiming the Lytro that I was the
50D...however virtually no one recognized the Lytro as a camera! I found
that I could easily walk up to people and just about point it in their
face and they rarely even noticed. That would of course been impossible
with any other type of camera. I ended up getting a shot of a very
unusual face that I never would have attempted with a recognizable
camera. For that shot alone it may have been worth it.All in all though,
most of my best shots were still done with my 50D.
BTW: Though we spent a full week in the most populated areas of
Manhattan I did not see one other person with a Lytro...
but a handful of people did recognize it and ask me questions about it.
I also found out that I enjoy working with the "live images"
and being able to focus in on different areas. My favorite shots
are of rain through glass...or walking on a rainy day being able to view
distant objects or zero in on the rain on the umbrella I was under.
For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 10:52:22 AM6/2/12
to
On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>
>
> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The
> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>
>
> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
reflection off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
unexpected).
As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
through rain dotted windows.
--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.
RichA
Jun 2, 2012, 10:59:04 AM6/2/12
to
take surreptitious images! As a spy cam, it might be interesting, but
most of the images at their scale could be duplicated I think with a
small P&S, given their level of sharpness (when focus was selected for
a certain scene). But if clandestine images are your thing, they make
video and still image pens, watches and other non-camera items.
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 11:02:49 AM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 9:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>
>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>
>>
>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>
> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>
> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
> unexpected).
>
> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
> through rain dotted windows.
>
Correct...I did not make any customized depth of field shots.
> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>
>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>
>>
>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>
> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>
> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
> unexpected).
>
> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
> through rain dotted windows.
>
I am still learning. Though it has limitations of course...
I am glad I have one more tool in my "belt"
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 11:04:07 AM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 9:59 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Jun 2, 9:05 am, philo<ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> I am sure I have mentioned here that a few months back I purchased a
>> Lytro. Knowing full well that being the first in line with new
>> technology is not always a prudent choice...I was so curious that I bit.
>> The price was low enough that it was not much of a gamble. (It turned
>> out to be a hell of a better deal than the Facbook stock I purchased)
>>
>> My wife and I have just returned from our yearly excursion to NY
>> and I have the results.
>>
>> My background:
>> I specialize in candid shot of people. Though I never try to hide my
>> camera...I never like to make it obvious I am using it...I tend to hold
>> the camera and "shoot from the hip".
>>x
> On Jun 2, 9:05 am, philo<ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> I am sure I have mentioned here that a few months back I purchased a
>> Lytro. Knowing full well that being the first in line with new
>> technology is not always a prudent choice...I was so curious that I bit.
>> The price was low enough that it was not much of a gamble. (It turned
>> out to be a hell of a better deal than the Facbook stock I purchased)
>>
>> My wife and I have just returned from our yearly excursion to NY
>> and I have the results.
>>
>> My background:
>> I specialize in candid shot of people. Though I never try to hide my
>> camera...I never like to make it obvious I am using it...I tend to hold
>> the camera and "shoot from the hip".
>> My results were quite a bit different than what I expected.
>>
>> First off, I was really no better at aiming the Lytro that I was the
>> 50D...however virtually no one recognized the Lytro as a camera! I found
>> that I could easily walk up to people and just about point it in their
>> face and they rarely even noticed. That would of course been impossible
>> with any other type of camera. I ended up getting a shot of a very
>> unusual face that I never would have attempted with a recognizable
>> camera.
>
> You could be the next Eric Salomon! Sneak into political meetings and
> take surreptitious images! As a spy cam, it might be interesting, but
> most of the images at their scale could be duplicated I think with a
> small P&S, given their level of sharpness (when focus was selected for
> a certain scene). But if clandestine images are your thing, they make
> video and still image pens, watches and other non-camera items.
Although I will not be buying a new camera anytime soon...
>>
>> First off, I was really no better at aiming the Lytro that I was the
>> 50D...however virtually no one recognized the Lytro as a camera! I found
>> that I could easily walk up to people and just about point it in their
>> face and they rarely even noticed. That would of course been impossible
>> with any other type of camera. I ended up getting a shot of a very
>> unusual face that I never would have attempted with a recognizable
>> camera.
>
> You could be the next Eric Salomon! Sneak into political meetings and
> take surreptitious images! As a spy cam, it might be interesting, but
> most of the images at their scale could be duplicated I think with a
> small P&S, given their level of sharpness (when focus was selected for
> a certain scene). But if clandestine images are your thing, they make
> video and still image pens, watches and other non-camera items.
I think what I really need is a camera (such as Nikon) that has a tilt
out viewing screen.
James Silverton
Jun 2, 2012, 11:11:06 AM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/2012 10:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>
>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>
>>
>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>
> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>
> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
> unexpected).
>
> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
> through rain dotted windows.
>
I was impressed even if the full "refocussing" is not demonstrated very
> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>
>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>
>>
>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>
> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>
> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
> unexpected).
>
> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
> through rain dotted windows.
>
well with many of the pictures. This may well have been answered before
but how large can a sharp print be made? How many dots per inch would it
be at, say, 8x10?
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 11:27:17 AM6/2/12
to
still liked them for what they were.
The jpg extraction software provided by Lytro is still in the
preliminary phases and is really very limited.
The jps are only 1080 x 1080 and about the largest print one could hope
to get would be 8" x 8" (or perhaps 7" x 7")
If one would just take a screen shot, you would get better results than
the software provided. Lytro claims they are working on it and their
first efforts were directed more toward their "ive images"
I did find a site where some guy wrote his own jpg extraction software
but it's more for geeks such as myself who use Linux.
I took his code and compiled it on my Linux machine and found it worked
pretty well...but still about an 8" x 8" print is about the best one can
get.
So though it's possible to get a decent print...it won't be a large one
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 11:38:54 AM6/2/12
to
way it's presented on screen (which is really the way it's meant to be,
paper is so 20th century) would result in an 8x10 being printed at a
measly 50 dpi (±). Would not look all that great unless held at arms
length - so may as well print smaller.
Philo: what's the on-computer "JPG" size (pixels) of the image you get
out (not the lytro.com presented version). eg: can you get larger than
the 550 (more or less) pixels that lytro.com presents?
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 11:57:13 AM6/2/12
to
On 06/02/2012 10:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 11:11 , James Silverton wrote:
>> On 6/2/2012 10:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>>>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>>>
>>> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
>>> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>>>
>>> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
>>> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
>>> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
>>> unexpected).
>>>
>>> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
>>> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
>>> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
>>> through rain dotted windows.
>>>
>> I was impressed even if the full "refocussing" is not demonstrated very
>> well with many of the pictures. This may well have been answered before
>> but how large can a sharp print be made? How many dots per inch would it
>> be at, say, 8x10?
>
> I'm not sure how many pixels wide and tall one can get out of it. The
> way it's presented on screen (which is really the way it's meant to be,
> paper is so 20th century) would result in an 8x10 being printed at a
> measly 50 dpi (ą). Would not look all that great unless held at arms
> On 2012-06-02 11:11 , James Silverton wrote:
>> On 6/2/2012 10:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my recent
>>>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://pictures.lytro.com/philo/stories/37613#
>>>
>>> I enjoyed that collection, some interesting compositions. The reflection
>>> off the asphalt/pooled water is very pleasing.
>>>
>>> Many of the photos were not playing to the strengths of the Lytro. Esp.
>>> those that you "shot from the hip" in movement with less than great
>>> lighting. Really shows the limitations of the device (though that's not
>>> unexpected).
>>>
>>> As I've mentioned in the past some images show that the camera is
>>> perhaps not set up correctly in terms of depth of capture (a term I use
>>> for the Lytro) while others do so brilliantly. I too like the shots
>>> through rain dotted windows.
>>>
>> I was impressed even if the full "refocussing" is not demonstrated very
>> well with many of the pictures. This may well have been answered before
>> but how large can a sharp print be made? How many dots per inch would it
>> be at, say, 8x10?
>
> I'm not sure how many pixels wide and tall one can get out of it. The
> way it's presented on screen (which is really the way it's meant to be,
> paper is so 20th century) would result in an 8x10 being printed at a
> length - so may as well print smaller.
>
> Philo: what's the on-computer "JPG" size (pixels) of the image you get
> out (not the lytro.com presented version). eg: can you get larger than
> the 550 (more or less) pixels that lytro.com presents?
>
It's actually 1080 x 1080
>
> Philo: what's the on-computer "JPG" size (pixels) of the image you get
> out (not the lytro.com presented version). eg: can you get larger than
> the 550 (more or less) pixels that lytro.com presents?
>
translating to the real world though...not quite as good as my (first
digital) 1 megapixel camera which actually could give you a decent 8 x
10 print
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 12:08:51 PM6/2/12
to
>> length - so may as well print smaller.
>>
>> Philo: what's the on-computer "JPG" size (pixels) of the image you get
>> out (not the lytro.com presented version). eg: can you get larger than
>> the 550 (more or less) pixels that lytro.com presents?
>>
>
>
>
> It's actually 1080 x 1080
> translating to the real world though...not quite as good as my (first
> digital) 1 megapixel camera which actually could give you a decent 8 x
> 10 print
Ah yes - I recall now. Have you printed from it to date?
>>
>> Philo: what's the on-computer "JPG" size (pixels) of the image you get
>> out (not the lytro.com presented version). eg: can you get larger than
>> the 550 (more or less) pixels that lytro.com presents?
>>
>
>
>
> It's actually 1080 x 1080
> translating to the real world though...not quite as good as my (first
> digital) 1 megapixel camera which actually could give you a decent 8 x
> 10 print
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 12:48:43 PM6/2/12
to
>>
>>
>>
>> It's actually 1080 x 1080
>> translating to the real world though...not quite as good as my (first
>> digital) 1 megapixel camera which actually could give you a decent 8 x
>> 10 print
>
>
> Ah yes - I recall now. Have you printed from it to date?
>
>
>
>
Yes I made an 8" x 8" print that was pretty good.
>>
>>
>> It's actually 1080 x 1080
>> translating to the real world though...not quite as good as my (first
>> digital) 1 megapixel camera which actually could give you a decent 8 x
>> 10 print
>
>
> Ah yes - I recall now. Have you printed from it to date?
>
>
>
>
I think realistically a 7" x 7" would have been the maximum for a "show
quality" image
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 1:11:09 PM6/2/12
to
their quality of impact.
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 5:59:55 PM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 12:11 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 12:48 , philo wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 11:08 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-02 11:57 , philo wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2012 10:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-06-02 11:11 , James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/2/2012 10:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my
>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>x
> On 2012-06-02 12:48 , philo wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 11:08 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-02 11:57 , philo wrote:
>>>> On 06/02/2012 10:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-06-02 11:11 , James Silverton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/2/2012 10:52 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2012-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my
>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>> NY shots (I have not included the unusual face though)
>>>>>>>>
>>> Ah yes - I recall now. Have you printed from it to date?
>>>
>>
>> Yes I made an 8" x 8" print that was pretty good.
>> I think realistically a 7" x 7" would have been the maximum for a "show
>> quality" image
>
> Sufficient. I've been to shows with small prints - did not detract from
> their quality of impact.
>
>
Funny side note:
>>>
>>
>> Yes I made an 8" x 8" print that was pretty good.
>> I think realistically a 7" x 7" would have been the maximum for a "show
>> quality" image
>
> Sufficient. I've been to shows with small prints - did not detract from
> their quality of impact.
>
>
I have often wished that my photography was as crystal clear as that
usually seen in photography books. Then I realized that if I made my
prints the 3 or 4" that are in the books, they'd be that clear too
Alan Browne
Jun 2, 2012, 6:03:44 PM6/2/12
to
philo
Jun 2, 2012, 6:26:43 PM6/2/12
to
On 6/2/12 5:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 17:59 , philo wrote:
>> On 6/2/12 12:11 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 17:59 , philo wrote:
>> On 6/2/12 12:11 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-X2-06-02 09:05 , philo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my
>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>>>> NY shots (I havex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For those who have not seen them, here is a link to a few of my
>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>
>> I have often wished that my photography was as crystal clear as that
>> usually seen in photography books. Then I realized that if I made my
>> prints the 3 or 4" that are in the books, they'd be that clear too
>
> Broke the code!
>
>
:)
>> I have often wished that my photography was as crystal clear as that
>> usually seen in photography books. Then I realized that if I made my
>> prints the 3 or 4" that are in the books, they'd be that clear too
>
> Broke the code!
>
>
0 new messages