Lytro to add parallax-based 3D effect - Photo Rumors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Oct 20, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    <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.
    Bruce, Oct 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Oct 20, 6:22 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > <http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effe...>
    >
    > 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-effe...>
    >
    > 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.


    Wow! 3D and little, tiny pictures. A match made in heaven.
    RichA, Oct 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    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.

    Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Oct 21, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    philo Guest

    On 10/20/2012 5:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

    >
    > Good for them. Always nice to see them pushing boundaries.
    >
    > Tony Polson (aka "Bruce") hasn't pushed a boundary since his first day
    > as a British civil servant (locating the bathroom that first day is
    > quite a challenge but after that it's ... downhill).
    >



    I recently applied an update to my Lytro and can manually adjust the iso
    (up to 3200) Some better results under low light...


    Still, it's not going to serve as my mail camera by any means
    philo, Oct 21, 2012
    #4
  5. Bruce

    PeterN Guest

    On 10/20/2012 10:17 PM, Robert Coe 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.
    >
    > Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
    >
    > Bob
    >

    Ya think that Brucie might not get a commission on Lytro sales? I wonder
    if that affects his postings.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Oct 21, 2012
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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".

    When the money runs out, Lytro will disappear.
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Oct 20, 6:22 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> <http://photorumors.com/2012/10/19/lytro-to-add-parallax-based-3d-effe...>
    >>
    >> 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-effe...>
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    >Wow! 3D and little, tiny pictures. A match made in heaven.



    The desperate final convulsion of a company destined for oblivion. ;-)
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2012
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> 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.
    >
    >Nothing ventured, nothing gained.



    I wonder what Lytro's backers think of this move?

    They have already forced the CEO to go back into product development,
    and this wacky 3D idea is probably the result. At some point the
    backers' money will run out and Lytro will die.
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2012
    #8
  9. On 10/20/2012 10:17 PM, Robert Coe 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.
    >
    > Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


    I am a little surprised that Lytro has taken so long. It seems to me
    that the system should make 3-d based on small rotations, +/- 2.5, quite
    simple. Many years ago results were published, by computer graphics
    pioneer Caroll Johnson I believe, showing that results produced by
    rotation were indistinguishable for most people from a true stereoscopic
    interocular shift.


    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Oct 21, 2012
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    James Silverton <> wrote:

    >On 10/20/2012 10:17 PM, Robert Coe 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.
    >>
    >> Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

    >
    >I am a little surprised that Lytro has taken so long. It seems to me
    >that the system should make 3-d based on small rotations, +/- 2.5, quite
    >simple. Many years ago results were published, by computer graphics
    >pioneer Caroll Johnson I believe, showing that results produced by
    >rotation were indistinguishable for most people from a true stereoscopic
    >interocular shift.



    But will it sell?

    Sales of 3D TVs are a small fraction of what was forecast. There is
    strong consumer resistance to paying more to watch 3D movies. 3D
    lenses for digital cameras don't sell - I know, I ordered ten from
    Panasonic and we only managed to sell one in 8 months. The rest will
    have to be discounted to below what we paid to get rid of them.

    Basically, consumers are not interested in 3D in sufficient numbers
    for it to be a viable market sector in the long term.

    So who is going to buy a useless Lytro with 3D? What on earth would
    anyone do with it?

    If Lytro was going to be a success, it would now be selling strongly
    with hundreds of web sites displaying Lytro images. The thing should
    be going viral.

    It hasn't, isn't and never will.
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2012
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    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, Oct 21, 2012
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
    Bruce, Oct 21, 2012
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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. :)
    Bruce, Oct 22, 2012
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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 1908), 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.
    Bruce, Oct 22, 2012
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Oct 23, 2012
    #15
  16. 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 3, 2012
    #16
  17. 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 3, 2012
    #17
    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. Drac

    Effects of Parallax ??

    Drac, Feb 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    706
    bugbear
    Feb 14, 2008
  2. Eric Miller

    Lytro Camera

    Eric Miller, Jul 28, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    319
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Aug 8, 2011
  3. philo

    Lytro

    philo, Oct 20, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    502
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 1, 2011
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    459
  5. James Silverton

    Lytro Cameras

    James Silverton, Jan 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    362
    Ryan McGinnis
    Feb 9, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page