Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Lytro test results

Reply
Thread Tools

Lytro test results

 
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012



Using the Lytro software in the "living picture" mode...the images were
really very good. Very sharp and the ability to re-focus excellent.

The big disappointment was exporting to jpg which depending where one
focuses the image leaves an 80k - 160k file size.
Too poor for doing much more than about a 3" square print.

There is a lot of info in the image, the actual file size of the "live
image" is about 45 megs. The person who let me use their Mac is a
software engineer and he told me that if he spent a few days with this
he might be able to see if he could extract better information...
but of course he is not going to do that without getting paid.

(BTW: he said the camera optics looked pretty decent)


So all in all, if anyone is considering a Lytro to do prints...
all who said it is a toy would be right.

OTOH: For those who want to use the camera as the manufacturer is
touting it...in the "live image" mode...it is really quite impressive.


Bottom line is I am not going to invest money and buy a Mac.
I will wait until the Windows software comes out and at some point
set up a "Living Picture" show in the art gallery my wife runs.


I don't regret buying it...
but I do admit the camera is only going to be useful in "live mode".









--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0500, philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
:
:
: Using the Lytro software in the "living picture" mode...the images were
: really very good. Very sharp and the ability to re-focus excellent.
:
: The big disappointment was exporting to jpg which depending where one
: focuses the image leaves an 80k - 160k file size.
: Too poor for doing much more than about a 3" square print.
:
: There is a lot of info in the image, the actual file size of the "live
: image" is about 45 megs. The person who let me use their Mac is a
: software engineer and he told me that if he spent a few days with this
: he might be able to see if he could extract better information...
: but of course he is not going to do that without getting paid.
:
: (BTW: he said the camera optics looked pretty decent)
:
:
: So all in all, if anyone is considering a Lytro to do prints...
: all who said it is a toy would be right.
:
: OTOH: For those who want to use the camera as the manufacturer is
: touting it...in the "live image" mode...it is really quite impressive.
:
:
: Bottom line is I am not going to invest money and buy a Mac.
: I will wait until the Windows software comes out and at some point
: set up a "Living Picture" show in the art gallery my wife runs.
:
:
: I don't regret buying it...
: but I do admit the camera is only going to be useful in "live mode".

How is it in low light? You implied earlier that you thought it would be
useful for street photography. The work you did in Kochanski's saloon is sort
of like low-light street photography, isn't it? The selective focus might
allow you to highlight individual patrons or performers more accurately than
if you were simply relying on an ordinary lens's depth of field in a dark
room. You might set up a Mac on the bar (or even a projector) at Kochanski's
and provide immediate "living picture" shows between sets. If the camera's a
toy, that's a way to use it like one. Just letting my mind wander here. ;^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
On 03/25/2012 12:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-03-25 11:43 , philo wrote:
>> lly quite impressive.
>>
>>
>> Bottom line is I am not going to invest money and buy a Mac.
>> I will wait until the Windows software comes out and at some point
>> set up a "Living Picture" show in the art gallery my wife runs.
>>
>>
>> I don't regret buying it...
>> but I do admit the camera is only going to be useful in "live mode".

>
>
> Are you able to post some "living pictures" for us to see... it's one
> thing to look at the Lytro gallery - I'd like to see real world results.
>



Unfortunately I will not be able to do that until I setup an account and
can again get access to a Mac. Sorry.
The results are pretty nice though but damn I do not want to buy a Mac
just to do that.

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
On 03/25/2012 01:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0500, philo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> :
> :
> :
> : Using the Lytro software in the "living picture" mode...the images were
> : really very good. Very sharp and the ability to re-focus excellent.
> :
> : The big disappointment was exporting to jpg which depending where one
> : focuses the image leaves an 80k - 160k file size.
> : Too poor for doing much more than about a 3" square print.
> :
> : There is a lot of info in the image, the actual file size of the "live
> : image" is about 45 megs. The person who let me use their Mac is a
> : software engineer and he told me that if he spent a few days with this
> : he might be able to see if he could extract better information...
> : but of course he is not going to do that without getting paid.
> :
> : (BTW: he s
> :
> : I don't regret buying it...
> : but I do admit the camera is only going to be useful in "live mode".
>
> How is it in low light? You implied earlier that you thought it would be
> useful for street photography. The work you did in Kochanski's saloon is sort
> of like low-light street photography, isn't it? The selective focus might
> allow you to highlight individual patrons or performers more accurately than
> if you were simply relying on an ordinary lens's depth of field in a dark
> room. You might set up a Mac on the bar (or even a projector) at Kochanski's
> and provide immediate "living picture" shows between sets. If the camera's a
> toy, that's a way to use it like one. Just letting my mind wander here. ;^)
>
> Bob





The results in low light are pretty good...I will have to give it a try
next time I go to Kochanski's. The camera has potential though...just
not for doing prints
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
WO Glad I'm a Linux geek as I just found this

http://eclecti.cc/computervision/rev...fp-file-format

Some guy wrote a jpg extractor that works better than what Lytrom
themselves has come up with...
the results are looking favorable.

I can now at least get a small...but printable image!




On 03/25/2012 01:41 PM, philo wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 01:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0500, philo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :
>> :
>> :
>> : Using the Lytro software in the "living picture" mode...the images were
>> : really very good. Very sharp and the ability to re-focus excellent.
>> :
>> : The big disappointment was exporting to jpg which depending where one
>> : focuses the image leaves an 80k - 160k file size.
>> : Too poor for doing much more than about a 3" square print.
>> :
>> : There is a lot of info in the image, the actual file size of the "live
>> : image" is about 45 megs. The person who let me use their Mac is a
>> : software engineer and he told me that if he spent a few days with this
>> : he might be able to see if he could extract better information...
>> : but of course he is not going to do that without getting paid.
>> :
>> : (BTW: he s
>> :
>> : I don't regret buying it...
>> : but I do admit the camera is only going to be useful in "live mode".
>>
>> How is it in low light? You implied earlier that you thought it would be
>> useful for street photography. The work you did in Kochanski's saloon
>> is sort
>> of like low-light street photography, isn't it? The selective focus might
>> allow you to highlight individual patrons or performers more
>> accurately than
>> if you were simply relying on an ordinary lens's depth of field in a dark
>> room. You might set up a Mac on the bar (or even a projector) at
>> Kochanski's
>> and provide immediate "living picture" shows between sets. If the
>> camera's a
>> toy, that's a way to use it like one. Just letting my mind wander
>> here. ;^)
>>
>> Bob

>
>
>
>
> The results in low light are pretty good...I will have to give it a try
> next time I go to Kochanski's. The camera has potential though...just
> not for doing prints



--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2012
On 03/25/2012 01:39 PM, philo wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 12:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-03-25 11:43 , philo wrote:
>>> lly quite impressive.
>>>
>>>at.

>



here is a pix extracted with a Linux-based jpg extractor

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-i.../pic_00050.jpg

 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2012
On 3/25/2012 6:52 PM, philo wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 01:39 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 03/25/2012 12:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-03-25 11:43 , philo wrote:
>>>> lly quite impressive.
>>>>
>>>> at.

>>

>
>
> here is a pix extracted with a Linux-based jpg extractor
>
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-i.../pic_00050.jpg
>
>

How much could you enlarge it and still get reasonable resolution? It
looks pretty good as viewed.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2012
On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 6:52 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 03/25/2012 01:39 PM, philo wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2012 12:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2012-03-25 11:43 , philo wrote:
>>>>> lly quite impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>> at.
>>>

>>
>>
>> here is a pix extracted with a Linux-based jpg extractor
>>
>> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-i.../pic_00050.jpg
>>
>>
>>

> How much could you enlarge it and still get reasonable resolution? It
> looks pretty good as viewed.
>

I enlarged it 200% with IrfanView and it looked pretty good. Even at
300%, it seemed good tho' the facial hair no longer seemed in focus.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-26-2012
On 03/25/2012 08:46 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/25/2012 6:52 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 03/25/2012 01:39 PM, philo wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2012 12:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2012-03-25 11:43 , philo wrote:
>>>>> lly quite impressive.
>>>>>
>>>>> at.
>>>

>>
>>
>> here is a pix extracted with a Linux-based jpg extractor
>>
>> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-i.../pic_00050.jpg
>>
>>
>>

> How much could you enlarge it and still get reasonable resolution? It
> looks pretty good as viewed.
>



I can make an 8" x 8" print that's pretty good...
3.5" x 5" is very sharp.

With the software provided by Lytro, the jpg extraction I found to be
rather poor...so thankfully a nice genius named Nirav Patel is one step
ahead of Lytro on that part.

This kind of stuff is definitively for an experiment (such as myself)
as I had to compile the code myself.

Supposedly it's cross platform though so I will try it out on a Windows
machine one of these days and see if it works.

Anyway, the Lytro camera has proven to be a worthy piece of
engineering...now the software will have to catch up!

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lytro Cameras James Silverton Digital Photography 9 02-09-2012 06:21 PM
Amazed at news penetration of that infinite focus camera the Lytro RichA Digital Photography 15 11-03-2011 01:34 PM
Lytro philo Digital Photography 12 11-01-2011 10:07 PM
Lytro Camera Eric Miller Digital Photography 2 08-08-2011 08:46 PM
test test test test test test test Computer Support 2 07-02-2003 06:02 PM



Advertisments