«

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:45:45 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
: Eric Stevens <> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:24:13 +0100, Bruce <>
: >wrote:
: >
: >><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
: >>
: >>Later this year Lytro will introduce a "parallax-based 3D effect" for
: >>photos taken with their light-field camera via a software update. The
: >>company is also planning to add support for 3D monitors and TVs.
: >>
: >><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
: >>
: >>
: >>Lytro must be pretty desperate. 3D has been a sales disaster. Lytro
: >>is adding a feature that doesn't sell to a camera that doesn't sell in
: >>order to increase sales. Some hope.
: >
: >My guess is the Lytro guys are more fascinated by their technology
: >than the money they can make out of it in the short term.
:
:
: I guess their business model was to produce a working camera then try
: to sell or license the technology to larger companies. Their alleged
: talks with Steve Jobs may have given them false hope because no-one in
: their right mind would pay good money for it.
:
: The Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.
:
: There exists no question to which the answer is "Lytro".

"What current piece of photographic equipment will sell on E-bay twenty years
from now for four times its original price because it's such an unusual
curiosity and so few of them were made?"

Bob

Robert Coe <> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:45:45 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
>: Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>:
>: >On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:24:13 +0100, Bruce <>
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>: >>
>: >>Later this year Lytro will introduce a "parallax-based 3D effect" for
>: >>photos taken with their light-field camera via a software update. The
>: >>company is also planning to add support for 3D monitors and TVs.
>: >>
>: >><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>: >>
>: >>
>: >>Lytro must be pretty desperate. 3D has been a sales disaster. Lytro
>: >>is adding a feature that doesn't sell to a camera that doesn't sell in
>: >>order to increase sales. Some hope.
>: >
>: >My guess is the Lytro guys are more fascinated by their technology
>: >than the money they can make out of it in the short term.
>:
>:
>: I guess their business model was to produce a working camera then try
>: to sell or license the technology to larger companies. Their alleged
>: talks with Steve Jobs may have given them false hope because no-one in
>: their right mind would pay good money for it.
>:
>: The Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.
>:
>: There exists no question to which the answer is "Lytro".
>
>"What current piece of photographic equipment will sell on E-bay twenty years
>from now for four times its original price because it's such an unusual
>curiosity and so few of them were made?"


Nice try, Bob.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:45:45 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:24:13 +0100, Bruce <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>>>>
>>>>Later this year Lytro will introduce a "parallax-based 3D effect" for
>>>>photos taken with their light-field camera via a software update. The
>>>>company is also planning to add support for 3D monitors and TVs.
>>>>
>>>><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Lytro must be pretty desperate. 3D has been a sales disaster. Lytro
>>>>is adding a feature that doesn't sell to a camera that doesn't sell in
>>>>order to increase sales. Some hope.
>>>
>>>My guess is the Lytro guys are more fascinated by their technology
>>>than the money they can make out of it in the short term.
>>
>>
>>I guess their business model was to produce a working camera then try
>>to sell or license the technology to larger companies. Their alleged
>>talks with Steve Jobs may have given them false hope because no-one in
>>their right mind would pay good money for it.
>>
>>The Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.
>
>That's what they used to say about the laser.
>>
>>There exists no question to which the answer is "Lytro".
>
>I'm confident that someone will find one.
>>
>>When the money runs out, Lytro will disappear.
>
>But the idea/technology will not. Time will tell.


I am told by a university professor whose specialism is in optics that
the technology is nothing new, having been around for some years.
Apparently several of the established camera manufacturers have
evaluated it with a view to making and selling cameras but all
rejected it because they considered it unviable.

Then along came Lytro to prove them all right.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:55:58 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:45:45 +0100, Bruce <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:24:13 +0100, Bruce <>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Later this year Lytro will introduce a "parallax-based 3D effect" for
>>>>>>photos taken with their light-field camera via a software update. The
>>>>>>company is also planning to add support for 3D monitors and TVs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effect-by-the-end-of-the-year/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lytro must be pretty desperate. 3D has been a sales disaster. Lytro
>>>>>>is adding a feature that doesn't sell to a camera that doesn't sell in
>>>>>>order to increase sales. Some hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>My guess is the Lytro guys are more fascinated by their technology
>>>>>than the money they can make out of it in the short term.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I guess their business model was to produce a working camera then try
>>>>to sell or license the technology to larger companies. Their alleged
>>>>talks with Steve Jobs may have given them false hope because no-one in
>>>>their right mind would pay good money for it.
>>>>
>>>>The Lytro is a solution looking for a problem.
>>>
>>>That's what they used to say about the laser.
>>>>
>>>>There exists no question to which the answer is "Lytro".
>>>
>>>I'm confident that someone will find one.
>>>>
>>>>When the money runs out, Lytro will disappear.
>>>
>>>But the idea/technology will not. Time will tell.
>>
>>
>>I am told by a university professor whose specialism is in optics that
>>the technology is nothing new, having been around for some years.
>>Apparently several of the established camera manufacturers have
>>evaluated it with a view to making and selling cameras but all
>>rejected it because they considered it unviable.
>>
>>Then along came Lytro to prove them all right.
>
>Your university professor has cut a few corners in his account of the
>history. See http://optics.org/indepth/2/6/3
>
> " In a 2005 Stanford Tech Report, Ng refers to plenoptic methods
> pioneered more than a century ago (the Nobel laureate Gabriel
> Lippmann was the first patent the idea, in 190, and particularly
> to the optical design of the plenoptic camera by Adelson and Wang
> in the 1990s.
>
> Ng also describes the similarity between the Lytro design and the
> “insect eye” sensors that rely on microlens arrays, and which have
> been tipped to find widespread use in future mass-produced
> cameras. But Ng and his Stanford colleagues actually went one step
> further, combining fundamental aspects of both human and insect
> eyes. “Our optical design can be thought of as taking a human eye
> (camera) and replacing its retina with an insect eye
> (microlens/photosensor array),” he wrote in the Stanford Tech
> Report, before adding: “No animal has been discovered that
> possesses such a hybrid eye.”'
>
>Your professor should have told you that these guys have come up with
>something new and it is this that is the subject of their patents.


I have no doubt that the patents present the Lytro technology as
something new. However, I must question whether a combination of two
existing technologies is all that new.

In the end, all that matters is whether it sells at a price that makes
production profitable. There is not the remotest sign of that yet,
and adding a feature (3D) that no-one wants to a camera that no-one
wants to buy is unlikely to change things.

I will gladly eat my words if Lytro's sales increase to the point
where the business becomes profitable and soundly based.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:13:50 +0100, Bruce <>
>wrote:
>>In the end, all that matters is whether it sells at a price that makes
>>production profitable. There is not the remotest sign of that yet,
>>and adding a feature (3D) that no-one wants to a camera that no-one
>>wants to buy is unlikely to change things.
>
>That's very likely going to continue to be the case with the present
>camera.


At least we agree on something, and as I said, it's all that matters.

Your comments on patents are well made.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:13:50 +0100, Bruce <>

>>I have no doubt that the patents present the Lytro technology as
>>something new. However, I must question whether a combination of two
>>existing technologies is all that new.

About everything is the combination of existing technologies
by now.

> The question is whether or not it's patentable.

Near anything is patentable.
The question is rather whether the courts will allow it to stand
--- and I have very little doubt they will.

> It appears to be
> patentable if it hasn't been done before and is not obvious and
> employs new methodology (e.g. the Lytro's image processing).

Patenting stuff that's obvious, commonly used by those
skilled in the field and wide-spread has become a past-time
for many, especially for those who don't create or build any
stuff themselves, but live on making other people pay for
soon-to-be-invalidated patents.

> That the
> work is new, novel and far from obvious is indicated by the fact that
> it led to the awarding of a PhD by Stanford.

Or so the theory goes.

>>In the end, all that matters is whether it sells at a price that makes
>>production profitable. There is not the remotest sign of that yet,
>>and adding a feature (3D) that no-one wants to a camera that no-one
>>wants to buy is unlikely to change things.

> That's very likely going to continue to be the case with the present
> camera.

Obviously people are buying and using the camera.

Bruce seems to think there's a world market for maybe 5
comput^WLytros. But then Avatar certainly wasn't seen by
many people either ...

>>I will gladly eat my words if Lytro's sales increase to the point
>>where the business becomes profitable and soundly based.

I doubt that.
No, not the part where Lytro becomes a highly profitable
business.

-Wolfgang

Rich <> wrote:

> Lets see...company decides to produce a camera whose claim to fame was
> doing what any tiny-sensored P&S can do stopped down to f/6.3.

Tell me again how I can click on any image --- especially of rather
quickly moving things ---- from any tiny-sensored P&S and have
the relevant depth snap into focus. What software do you use for
that, and how much manual work is it to define all these layers?

-Wolfgang