Lytro test results

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philo, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. philo

    philo Guest

    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
     
    philo, Mar 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. philo

    philo Guest

    1. Advertising

  3. philo

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0500, philo <> 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
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 25, 2012
    #3
  4. philo

    philo Guest

    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
     
    philo, Mar 25, 2012
    #4
  5. philo

    philo Guest

    On 03/25/2012 01:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:43:54 -0500, philo<> 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
     
    philo, Mar 25, 2012
    #5
  6. philo

    philo Guest

    WO Glad I'm a Linux geek as I just found this

    http://eclecti.cc/computervision/reverse-engineering-the-lytro-lfp-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<> 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
     
    philo, Mar 25, 2012
    #6
  7. philo

    philo Guest

    philo, Mar 25, 2012
    #7
  8. 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/-...DI/AAAAAAAACFw/_oq1zDwQwAI/s300/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.
     
    James Silverton, Mar 26, 2012
    #8
  9. 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/-...DI/AAAAAAAACFw/_oq1zDwQwAI/s300/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.
     
    James Silverton, Mar 26, 2012
    #9
  10. philo

    philo Guest

    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/-...DI/AAAAAAAACFw/_oq1zDwQwAI/s300/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
     
    philo, Mar 26, 2012
    #10
  11. philo

    philo Guest

    On 03/25/2012 09:00 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    > On 3/25/2012 9:46 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    >> On 3/2
    >>>
    >>> here is a pix extracted with a Linux-based jpg extractor
    >>>
    >>> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...DI/AAAAAAAACFw/_oq1zDwQwAI/s300/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.
    >



    The bottom line is that the camera is good quality.
    Now Lytro has to improve their software.
    Glad I made the purchase.

    That said if one wants to use the Lytro to "print out" their photos,
    then using the code that Nirav Patel wrote rather than Lytro's software
    is the way to go. This kind of stuff is more for a computer geek such as
    myself as I had to compile the code he wrote


    --
    https://www.createspace.com/3707686
     
    philo, Mar 26, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    998
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. Eric Miller

    Lytro Camera

    Eric Miller, Jul 28, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    338
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 8, 2011
  3. philo

    Lytro

    philo, Oct 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    521
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 1, 2011
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    480
  5. James Silverton

    Lytro Cameras

    James Silverton, Jan 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    381
    Ryan McGinnis
    Feb 9, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page