We tested this and determined that the depth mapping was faked in software... it doesn't seem to be real. I think the company was a scam. I did like the design!
that's interesting... What claim did they make where the depth capture's legitimacy is dependent on "not" using code to realize the final solution? ( is there a realtime feedback interactivity use case scenario they were touting? Where they promoted that innovation as intrinsic to the sensor hardware tech alone? ) Otherwise where lies the scam? If in the end the captured range of parallax is an infinitely focusable range?
I suppose this kind of tech will not gain traction ( or at least a mainstream momentum? ) until multiple 3D depth captures can be used to composite positional viewpoint transitions seamlessly? If one did as much photogrammetrically integrated with lidar for hopefully an object/world transform depth map? Essentially photographing "locations" with all the location info to capture 3d projections. At which point stills and video become a location 3d photogrammetry device and the files produced provide the location light color and geometry as raw assets for post process 3d mapping and compositing of the final scene? Which I assumed was the end game for lytro?
In which case... perhaps some r not seeing the possibilities of such tech taken to it's ultimate logical end? ( location capture... not only focusable depth but geometry.. time of day color and light ) I suppose the only revolutionary aspect would be the single self contained device producing a meta file handling as much like a realsense device. But such a device that advanced in a market competing at a pro level. With competition economy producing larger sensors, faster frame rates, better lenses and falling prices etc.. Like we have with evolving mirrorless camera market instead of a relatively static 3d scan ( real sense, lidar, kinect ) market. In other words... they won't make awesome till there is a market for the possibility of that awesome evolving. And we won't create a possible enthusiastic market because we are an angry jaded internet generation with a knee jerk gimmick button circuitry and no vision for potential.
I watched your video on this camera and this didn't transpire at all in it. It was described as rewarding etc. I seemed to be a good purchase at 1100$ instead of 1500$. Was it after it didn't sell well that it became a scam ?
Swapnil Gohil It's essentially a concept at this point, like the first electric cars, crazy expensive and not up to par. Millionaires only buy them initialy but once the prices go down and the technology improves they become more affordable and better.
Its specs arent also up to the mark. Without a viewfinder it would be useless to any real photographer that could truly take advantage of refocusing photos. The possibilities are amazing, considering that this takes the concept of RAW editing a hundred steps forward, but no viewfinder! ridiculous...
omgtkseth Come on, for $200? Or $360. I think most photographers even would be willing to sacrifice the viewfinder here. At $1500, it was stupid though.
The technology and engineering is incredible at Lytro. However, that camera was definitely not ready for the public consumer market, hence why its now only a few hundred bucks and/or part of free giveaways now. One of the cooler things, at least I thought (Side note, I worked at Lytro!) was the that these photos are all 3D when viewed on a 3D screen/TV. However 3D never took off in the consumer market either, so that was a bust too! It will be interesting to see where Lytro takes their tech, they need some serious help when it comes to listening to the public and their target market, which they completely failed at with the smaller butter stick and lytro illum. I am glad they transitioned out of the consumer market and into high end video. Funny to see people reviewing this years later though. I don't miss editing depth maps to fix all the failing artifact edges though, I spent my entire time at Lytro doing just that haha.
Could you explain, what is an "Artifact Edge", and was your fixing logged, to form a machine learning, software patch, for the image sensor, or whatever it is that produces "Artifact Edge Faults"?
Austin Evans said: "the Technology doesn't"? Do you mean the Hardware or the Software? Not happy with picture? Image adjusted correct, hat and cameraman looked super crisp. Color accuracy looked superior, as if a polar filter. Care to qualify, your insulting price point? ~ What camera produces these quality images, are not the two lens solutions in the $800 price ranges? {I price everything relative to adventure without a gun, gaming console pundles.}
It's because he's shooting in raw. You can pull up those shadows and pull down highlights, or even increase saturation to give a better image. That's not to say it's a great camera or anything, it's not as bad as you think though. I use a canon 5D mark II, which is a pretty well rounded camera when it comes to performance, but the raw files still need tweaking to make the images look correct.
Will Gotsch well of course. The one thing I found really funny about some people with high-end cameras that they will always shoot in auto mode/auto focus and say they are pro and dont know what raw picture means.
The technology is incredible. This sounds like something so many professional photographers would appreciate. Bundle it with at least a 12mp lens though, 5mps is worse then some front cameras .-.
I've had one of these since around launch. The thing I learned really quick is that if you're trying to do conventional photography such as event photography, it doesn't stack up to conventional cameras, but if you are taking photos with the intention of using the Lytro's features, its fantastic. I'd absolutely recommend owning one because it's a great piece of gear, but at this stage it won't replace DSLR cameras for most conventional work.
it had a short time to where the features seemed really cool, but like Austin even mentioned, its been done before in a way. The need for the program and such, killed this.
Eric Rossi The Leica M5 was a pretty big bust too. Nikon and Canon were outselling them by a huge margin, and the Leica CL was out for much less without the loss of most features.
Its a damn good camera/gadget for 200-300$. Austin is using an old version of the firmware and is not using any of the tools like the lytro button to see Whats in the foreground/background. My photos look much sharper that the ones in the video. The only downside is the dynamic range.
9+10=21 Turn nine around. Now it's a six. Now turn ten. You get one. Now if you get both of them right, add them together. 6+1=7 Now turn seven around. You get L. Now if you get a capital L, turn the seven on its left side. What do you get? A letter U. And that explains it. The letter U is the 21st letter in the alphabet.
Austin is one of my favorite tech youtubers because I feel he is genuinely interested in the tech. He doesn't make videos about a stupid light up clock or another phone review, he takes interesting tech and talks about it like a real techie would. It's not another tech under how ever much money, it's not another best tech gift ideas, it's much more interesting. Thanks Austin!
Austin, sorry I have to tell you, you were way off on this review. 1- It's body is METAL and has a scratch-proof coating on it. 2- It was never meant to compare to a DSLR 3- It's output is VIDEO, not a sub-par still/ image 4- It's more ergonomic than any of the DSLR's that I've ever owned 5- You didn't even mention/ know that you can use lightroom/ photoshop to edit the images, then import them back into the (crappy) Lytro software to animate them. 6- The dynamic range is crap, yes, but bring a flash gun and you are SORTED. I'm not trying to defend this camera, but I hate half-baked reviews, it's clear you tested this for about 3 hours max and then formed your opinion.
Maciej Kieruzal That makes more sense, I've heard that you don't really need to go much higher than 8mp as your eyes cant really tell or something before
For screens, no, but if you want to print your photos you might want to go higher, and more pixels also allow you to crop images without loosing image quality.
Well, Facebook reduces your pictures to 4.2 MP and Instagram to 1.5MP. So you don't even really need 5MP to share on social media with maximum quality. Also, a higher MP count on a small sensor, like a phone, is usually a bad idea. Companies like the megapixel number to be big because consumers think it means they are getting a better camera. But any professional photographer will tell you that there is a trade-off between noise performance and higher MPs. If you have a high megapixel sensor, you will have worse low light performance. My simple guide is that you'd be satisfied with a cell phone camera with about 8MP, a casual compact camera with about 16MP, and if you wanted to take professional portrait photos or do weddings you'd want about 24MP. For full-page magazine product advertisements, movie posters, billboards, a 40MP camera would be worth it. These numbers will go up slowly as sensor technology improves, but I doubt they'll ever be much higher than this.
Oh man, I remember when this was first unveiled at some camera tech show & every other correspondent was fawning over it. Looks like the future isn't here yet, but the concept is pretty interesting & I look forward to its development.
"I get that this is more of a 'pro' camera" - following a comment on the poor dynamic range and then stating the image quality doesn't match that of a DSLR; but it's cool to be able to refocus. I don't think you quite understand what we, as photographers, look for in a camera, lol. We basically want the opposite; good dynamic range, superior image quality, and we can take care of the focusing on our own.
That's what I was thinking. Also to get the perfect photo you can just focus differently and take shots from different angles till you get the photo needed. Also what happens when you get home and find out those 4 photos you had taken are all unusable and you lost your chance at taking a perfect sunset shot? The camera is literally just a concept idea not feasible in the pro photographer world due to human interactions. The lytro only does like 10% of what a photographer would normally do on a photo shoot themselves. This camera would only be good for military reconnaissance on drones.
Stu probably Austins fault, he used a 1000+ iso hoping it would be nice and sharp... that's not really how cameras work, i'm quite sure if it was used in a studio the results would be much much more different than what he is showing. Sure the quality imof the photos may not be the greatest of all buts its a start
Jellyfish Juice high iso = grainy photos, but even in low iso(high light) the quality still looks like shit... 5MP isint much to go on. my selfie camera had 3 more megapixels than that.
Jonathan Kysar I actually have a Rebel T5 as well and while the depth of field concept is cool, the image quality looks like the equivalent to a potato compared to the T5.
Tyler Wise true, so what accessories do you have, I have a tripod, a monopod, flexible tripod, 18-55mm lens, 70-300mm lens, camera bag, cleaning kit and lens hood. and an auxiliary flash
4k scaled down won't do a thing if the bitrate is the same as the 1080p video ;) You actually do need to increase the bitrate! High-bitrate 1080p looks better than low-bitrate 4k (this starts artefacting).
you are a great you-tuber. i love to watch your videos. you have very good quality and great presentations. keep up the good work you have come a long way now and i hope you keep up. don't let peoples comments bother you. there are a lot of people who love your videos. i hope you can reach 3 million subs. good luck!
ARCH. M most people just don't know what to do with it, they expect it to behave like a dslr and they have everything planned, give the camera to a pro photographer for a few months and by the end everyone will want one
Jellyfish Juice pros are not interested in this camera, it came out 2 years ago and never took off. The company behind it are not interested in the photography market what they are doing is selling the idea of the technology to be used in other industries.
It depends. The best smartphone camera (Galaxy S7 Edge) easily rivals an mid-tire DSLR in many circumstances or even surpasses it. One thing smartphones still can't compete against are the lenses. Even the S7 Edge which creates by far the most bokeh a smartphone ever has been able to create, it simply can't get close to matching that of an DSLR. The story changes a lot when you pick another phone (LG G5/iPhone 7) as those phones are in general much worse.
When this thing came out, I was excited thinking about when that technology might make it to DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, since it really sucks to miss focus on a photo that would otherwise be really great. But then nothing really came of that camera (probably because it was far too expensive for the quality of photos that it puts out). But I'm glad to hear that Lytro is still working on products, since that means that it's still possible that "lightfield" technology will make its way to professional- as well as commercial-level cameras!
I had almost completely forgotten about Lytro! It's a really cool concept, but they still have a looooong way to go. I remember that square tube thingy that they first came out with like 6 years ago, I think.
I found out about this camera a couple years ago, I would say, after my experience of doing much research on the camera, that this could've been SOOOL much more!
ObnoxiousEdge what editing soft do you use? the Samsung is handy. is it perfect? no but its a good starter. I use 3 different cameras. a Handheld. a SLR and a DSLR. each have a purpose. the Samsung I use in events where my Sony is just to big to carry. if your looking for something to upgrade from a phone. go a Handheld til you get the hang of it. last thing you wanna do is invest $500 on a camera you only use for the AUTO functions and to record videos.
You can now post focus like this on the GH4 with the firmware update, not only does the gh4 shoot great 4k video and 96fps 1080p but takes some pretty good photos too. Much better of a buy.
I would love to see this camera redesigned today with the kind of specs we would expect a camera to have these days. I think that could be a really cool experience.
At work we have a small Lytro camera we use to take pictures of clients' dogs and put them on one of the displays in the showroom. I really enjoy that camera, and for what it's used for, it's awesome! I could imagine this is less for enthusiasts, and more for casual use, but the price is too high.
gimmick... that's all. being able to refocus is pointless, the whole idea of photography is that you choose the points of interest and you lead the viewer to see what you want them to see.
Being able to focus afterwards can be handy in situations where autofocus is too slow. As a hobbyist wildlife photographer I've missed plenty of shots because by the time the focus is right, the bird is disappearing behind a tree. If they had a 300mm version for $300 and with Linux support I would put it straight on my wishlist.
I bought one of these guys a couple years ago for $700 with 2 extra batteries, chargers, filters and the whole kit and kaboodle. Overall it works great for still life imagery and items that are not moving around. With this camera I found that I would wind up using a tripod or sandbag to make sure you get the sharpest image possible to process in their software then throw it in Lightroom and Photoshop for some additional tweaks. Takes a HUGE amount of time for post processing to where you definitely can get some REALLY cool images, but if your short on time then I'd look else-where.
I picked up an Illum late last year for about $300 or so and it has become the main "nice" camera in our house. The image quality is about the same as an iPhone 5, but it is an iPhone 5 with a 30-250 mm f/2.0 lens, manual controls, and a hot shoe -- not to mention any of the capabilities of the Lytro living pictures (i.e. refocusing, video output, etc). The main downside is that the exported images are right at 4 megapixels which is barely enough for a 5x7 print.
I'm not hearing the autotune effect at the beginning everyone keeps mentioning. It just sounds like he swallowed the "this is" a little bit but I have no clue where people are getting autotune from.
Vijay Nirmal I don't see how that adds to the thread man. But while we're on the topic, it didn't sell 30,000 it sold 15,000 which was MS's original production. They ordered another 30k for next year.
Even if it did fail, it does look beautiful. It's a nice design, and I like how big the screen is. 200$ is not bad, at least not as bad as $1500. Great video Austin! :D
Bruh, you compare that to the A6300, a DSLR like mirrorless camera.. the Lytro Illum is (or was) targetted at the "DSLR-pro" market. In comparison, the Lytro Illum is about the same size, if not smaller than most DSLR's with a proper battery grip (which seems to be very common).
The reason this didn't take off is because it offers few of the features that enthusiasts look for, is less convenient than compacts and phones for casual photography, and even post processing is annoying because the format is not standard. Once this tech lands in a Canon or a Sony sensor, this will really take off.
Well i think this didn't take off is because they just shouldn't have released it so early, i think they should've removed that 801 and put a more resonable cpu, and spend the money earned on a better... uhm.... they should've made it have somehow more megapixels and better construction.
Méchant Eduard Resolution isn't really the only issue. The image quality isn't good. The lens isn't good either. Dynamic range on the sensor sucks too. Nothing about this was top quality when compared to a DSLR.
Méchant Eduard It's not just the construction (lots of plastics and not good-feeling zoom/focus rings). There are badly constructed lenses that have great optics. This isn't one of them, it looks like. So if that's what you also meant by construction, then you're absolutely right.
WhatAreYouBuyen nothing its useless if you give it a purpose, i don't know what you'd use that camera for but if i owned i'd be more than happy to mess around and see what i could get out of it, try and make something that a normal dslr won't let you do
+Nanook Games Sure but light field sensors are inherently shit compared to normal sensors so you can either spend $1500 to get phone quality images with a gimmick or $1500 on a high end camera and learn to focus for actually good photos, at that price range the auto-focus will be very good too, and likely capable of tracking.
![Фотоаппарат, который не фотоаппарат [Lytro Illum]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD9vZ94fQyQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Фотоаппарат, который не фотоаппарат [Lytro Illum]](/img/tr.png)
"We just have to click on Ken's face...and it actually looks pretty decent." What a compliment!
ayy vsauce
Vsauce3 legend27 says if you are early vsauce will reply to you
Vsauce3 what are you doing here??
Vsauce3 why don't use your personal youtube account
Vsauce3
We tested this and determined that the depth mapping was faked in software... it doesn't seem to be real. I think the company was a scam.
I did like the design!
Tony & Chelsea Northrup how did you test it? How can you know if it's the sensor or the software?
that's interesting... What claim did they make where the depth capture's legitimacy is dependent on "not" using code to realize the final solution? ( is there a realtime feedback interactivity use case scenario they were touting? Where they promoted that innovation as intrinsic to the sensor hardware tech alone? )
Otherwise where lies the scam? If in the end the captured range of parallax is an infinitely focusable range?
I suppose this kind of tech will not gain traction ( or at least a mainstream momentum? )
until multiple 3D depth captures can be used to composite positional viewpoint transitions seamlessly?
If one did as much photogrammetrically integrated with lidar for hopefully an object/world transform depth map? Essentially photographing "locations" with all the location info to capture 3d projections.
At which point stills and video become a location 3d photogrammetry device and the files produced provide the location light color and geometry as raw assets for post process 3d mapping and compositing of the final scene?
Which I assumed was the end game for lytro?
In which case... perhaps some r not seeing the possibilities of such tech taken to it's ultimate logical end?
( location capture... not only focusable depth but geometry.. time of day color and light )
I suppose the only revolutionary aspect would be the single self contained device producing a meta file handling as much like a realsense device. But such a device that advanced in a market competing at a pro level. With competition economy producing larger sensors, faster frame rates, better lenses and falling prices etc.. Like we have with evolving mirrorless camera market instead of a relatively static 3d scan ( real sense, lidar, kinect ) market.
In other words...
they won't make awesome till there is a market for the possibility of that awesome evolving.
And we won't create a possible enthusiastic market because we are an angry jaded internet generation with a knee jerk gimmick button circuitry and no vision for potential.
I watched your video on this camera and this didn't transpire at all in it. It was described as rewarding etc. I seemed to be a good purchase at 1100$ instead of 1500$. Was it after it didn't sell well that it became a scam ?
Idea is awesome, but image quality isn't upto the mark of that budget.
Swapnil Gohil It's essentially a concept at this point, like the first electric cars, crazy expensive and not up to par. Millionaires only buy them initialy but once the prices go down and the technology improves they become more affordable and better.
For $200? Nah, it's better than the cameras selling normally for that price!
Its specs arent also up to the mark. Without a viewfinder it would be useless to any real photographer that could truly take advantage of refocusing photos. The possibilities are amazing, considering that this takes the concept of RAW editing a hundred steps forward, but no viewfinder! ridiculous...
***** Austin said it was $200, so I'm not sure. It is £500 though, in the UK.
omgtkseth Come on, for $200? Or $360. I think most photographers even would be willing to sacrifice the viewfinder here. At $1500, it was stupid though.
i just noticed that tech UA-camrs almost never clickbait/uses capital letters
Jan Pul they don't have to be honest, they use the thumbnail photo for that.
Lance fisher yes ur right
Becky Brown, you ruined it!
***** yep I reported her
Unbox therapy
The technology and engineering is incredible at Lytro. However, that camera was definitely not ready for the public consumer market, hence why its now only a few hundred bucks and/or part of free giveaways now. One of the cooler things, at least I thought (Side note, I worked at Lytro!) was the that these photos are all 3D when viewed on a 3D screen/TV. However 3D never took off in the consumer market either, so that was a bust too! It will be interesting to see where Lytro takes their tech, they need some serious help when it comes to listening to the public and their target market, which they completely failed at with the smaller butter stick and lytro illum. I am glad they transitioned out of the consumer market and into high end video. Funny to see people reviewing this years later though. I don't miss editing depth maps to fix all the failing artifact edges though, I spent my entire time at Lytro doing just that haha.
That's some good info! Thanks for posting this.
Toby Harriman .
Could you explain, what is an "Artifact Edge", and was your fixing logged, to form a machine learning, software patch, for the image sensor, or whatever it is that produces "Artifact Edge Faults"?
Austin Evans said:
"the Technology doesn't"? Do you mean the Hardware or the Software?
Not happy with picture?
Image adjusted correct, hat and cameraman looked super crisp.
Color accuracy looked superior, as if a polar filter.
Care to qualify, your insulting price point? ~ What camera produces these quality images, are not the two lens solutions in the $800 price ranges? {I price everything relative to adventure without a gun, gaming console pundles.}
Uh, yeah sure!
That camera looks bad ass though
Those photos are muddy AF. No dynamic range, no sharpness, poor colours...waste of money.
dslr from 2008, would be better than this
J Hughes lol I'm seeing you everywhere, love the ugly baby profile pic.
It's because he's shooting in raw. You can pull up those shadows and pull down highlights, or even increase saturation to give a better image. That's not to say it's a great camera or anything, it's not as bad as you think though. I use a canon 5D mark II, which is a pretty well rounded camera when it comes to performance, but the raw files still need tweaking to make the images look correct.
J Hughes y tho
Will Gotsch well of course. The one thing I found really funny about some people with high-end cameras that they will always shoot in auto mode/auto focus and say they are pro and dont know what raw picture means.
I remember watching one of Austin's videos years ago where his hair was a product of Saruman's abominations. It doesn't look too bad here.
+AlphaBoy 😂
Austin Evans You got trending for a week and still gokmg
Lacks a good sensor and megapixels???
Austin are you the Legend27
he is
(That failed)
adnan yeasir bhn
I'm supposed to be making tech videos but this one youtuber keeps kicking my ass
No, but I am.
Honestly would it kill you to post links to products you feature?
I basically always do? Check the description homeslice.
Austin Evans lol
Austin Evans finally got noticed goal Achieved
Ewwwwww
screenshot this moment.
Pretty interesting, they're on the right path if they manage to tweak a few things. a video camera with some of these features would be amazing though
The technology is incredible. This sounds like something so many professional photographers would appreciate. Bundle it with at least a 12mp lens though, 5mps is worse then some front cameras .-.
0:01 "And this" Austin sounding like an auto tuned singer.
LOL
Wow
I was about to say that lol
at first I thought it costed 15000$ and it seemed a little bit weird to say it has a logical price and then I realised it was 500$
$1500*
ohhh English isn't my first language and I am not well practised on listening
George Diamant No problem :)
ok thanks 👌👍
I know it's not easy, even for me. But what I do is, when someone says "fifteen hundred", just do a quick calculation in your head: 15 x 100 = 1500.
I've had one of these since around launch. The thing I learned really quick is that if you're trying to do conventional photography such as event photography, it doesn't stack up to conventional cameras, but if you are taking photos with the intention of using the Lytro's features, its fantastic. I'd absolutely recommend owning one because it's a great piece of gear, but at this stage it won't replace DSLR cameras for most conventional work.
If it had better picture quality, I would 100% buy this thing.
I am sad this didn't catch on
HumorVortex Mosco probably should be more sad that it's not better than it is because it likely would've caught on had it been higher quality
Lol the biggest busts in camera history.
Eric Rossi it's so gimmicky it's unattractive
it had a short time to where the features seemed really cool, but like Austin even mentioned, its been done before in a way. The need for the program and such, killed this.
Eric Rossi The Leica M5 was a pretty big bust too. Nikon and Canon were outselling them by a huge margin, and the Leica CL was out for much less without the loss of most features.
Oh hey Eric! Didn't expect to see you here
lol hey its tech and camera related!
you know why i love your channel? because the way you say "hi guys this is austin"
What failed? The camera or the future?
+DevilLime Both.
i think the future
Amazing Awesome Ohhhhh fuck!
Best comment I've read in a while!
Its a damn good camera/gadget for 200-300$. Austin is using an old version of the firmware and is not using any of the tools like the lytro button to see Whats in the foreground/background. My photos look much sharper that the ones in the video. The only downside is the dynamic range.
wtf that computer is bigger than my future
happy new yeeeeeaaar
it's 10:24am in the Uk looool
yah, if you go onto my channel my links are on my banner :)
L0st Surviv0r hahahahaha
L0st Surviv0r literally. Don't remind me lol
It hasn't failed, it's just not mainstream.
o0julek0o no, it failed
9+10=21
Turn nine around. Now it's a six. Now turn ten. You get one. Now if you
get both of them right, add them together. 6+1=7 Now turn seven around.
You get L. Now if you get a capital L, turn the seven on its left side.
What do you get? A letter U. And that explains it. The letter U is the
21st letter in the alphabet.
Top Dawg great job u just took 10 years to answer the most useless and old fucking meme/trend.
Rx_Dank *2 years idiot
Sriracha Bottle fucking sarcasm DUMBASS! 😂
9+10=19
OMG! when I had heard about Lytro first in 2013/2014 I thought they are going to take over the world with this technology.
So if the image quality was better, would you recommend it?
+Aadyant Kapoor Probably. It's a cool piece of tech.
this is one of my favorite Austin videos recently
Austin still rocking the Microsoft surface studio!
It costs £460 in the UK that's like $560, I'd like to know where you can get them for $200 please
The price I found was from Amazon
Jason Londono it went for about £300ish i think during black friday
bh photography
Jason Londono b and h photo
Jason Londono USA.thats were
"However" should be put on a shirt
Austin is one of my favorite tech youtubers because I feel he is genuinely interested in the tech. He doesn't make videos about a stupid light up clock or another phone review, he takes interesting tech and talks about it like a real techie would. It's not another tech under how ever much money, it's not another best tech gift ideas, it's much more interesting. Thanks Austin!
Austin, sorry I have to tell you, you were way off on this review.
1- It's body is METAL and has a scratch-proof coating on it.
2- It was never meant to compare to a DSLR
3- It's output is VIDEO, not a sub-par still/ image
4- It's more ergonomic than any of the DSLR's that I've ever owned
5- You didn't even mention/ know that you can use lightroom/ photoshop to edit the images, then import them back into the (crappy) Lytro software to animate them.
6- The dynamic range is crap, yes, but bring a flash gun and you are SORTED.
I'm not trying to defend this camera, but I hate half-baked reviews, it's clear you tested this for about 3 hours max and then formed your opinion.
Most UA-cam video reviews are like that
I was considering getting this until I heard 5 mega pixels which is less than my phone
***** it is? I never knew that
Because it is not. 4K is about 8MP.
Maciej Kieruzal That makes more sense, I've heard that you don't really need to go much higher than 8mp as your eyes cant really tell or something before
For screens, no, but if you want to print your photos you might want to go higher, and more pixels also allow you to crop images without loosing image quality.
Well, Facebook reduces your pictures to 4.2 MP and Instagram to 1.5MP. So you don't even really need 5MP to share on social media with maximum quality.
Also, a higher MP count on a small sensor, like a phone, is usually a bad idea. Companies like the megapixel number to be big because consumers think it means they are getting a better camera. But any professional photographer will tell you that there is a trade-off between noise performance and higher MPs. If you have a high megapixel sensor, you will have worse low light performance.
My simple guide is that you'd be satisfied with a cell phone camera with about 8MP, a casual compact camera with about 16MP, and if you wanted to take professional portrait photos or do weddings you'd want about 24MP. For full-page magazine product advertisements, movie posters, billboards, a 40MP camera would be worth it. These numbers will go up slowly as sensor technology improves, but I doubt they'll ever be much higher than this.
I remember hearing about this
Oh man, I remember when this was first unveiled at some camera tech show & every other correspondent was fawning over it. Looks like the future isn't here yet, but the concept is pretty interesting & I look forward to its development.
"Hey guys szsz Austin"
zszs
You look a lot like the beast from x-men
"I get that this is more of a 'pro' camera" - following a comment on the poor dynamic range and then stating the image quality doesn't match that of a DSLR; but it's cool to be able to refocus. I don't think you quite understand what we, as photographers, look for in a camera, lol. We basically want the opposite; good dynamic range, superior image quality, and we can take care of the focusing on our own.
That's what I was thinking. Also to get the perfect photo you can just focus differently and take shots from different angles till you get the photo needed. Also what happens when you get home and find out those 4 photos you had taken are all unusable and you lost your chance at taking a perfect sunset shot? The camera is literally just a concept idea not feasible in the pro photographer world due to human interactions. The lytro only does like 10% of what a photographer would normally do on a photo shoot themselves. This camera would only be good for military reconnaissance on drones.
2nd of the best Tech UA-camr I've watch on UA-cam..
Very interesting concept, but has a long way to go!
IT IS DOPE! Why so much hate? How many photographers struggle with focus on their long-awaited perfect shot, on Manual Focus. This is like a Godsend.
Are those shitty pictures because of the camera or because austin can't use a camera?
Stu Why no both
definitley both
Stu probably Austins fault, he used a 1000+ iso hoping it would be nice and sharp... that's not really how cameras work, i'm quite sure if it was used in a studio the results would be much much more different than what he is showing. Sure the quality imof the photos may not be the greatest of all buts its a start
Jellyfish Juice high iso = grainy photos, but even in low iso(high light) the quality still looks like shit... 5MP isint much to go on. my selfie camera had 3 more megapixels than that.
Austin can't use the camera
being a photographer, I'd love that
and I already have a Canon eos rebel t5
Jonathan Kysar I actually have a Rebel T5 as well and while the depth of field concept is cool, the image quality looks like the equivalent to a potato compared to the T5.
for $300 on B&H that's pretty amazing how affordable it is! WOW
I'm a photographer and I have that ;)
Tyler Wise true,
so what accessories do you have, I have a tripod, a monopod, flexible tripod, 18-55mm lens, 70-300mm lens, camera bag, cleaning kit and lens hood.
and an auxiliary flash
World's most underrated camera.
me nope, just really shitty.
much better video than your typical in the room type videos
I think it's worth 200$ but would you use it as a daily camera;
I didn't think so
It's better than a lot of $200 cameras though. Shame it's £500, or I'd have thought about getting one.
Dylan Westbrooks thanks for saying the price! All youtubers that review things need to add prices.
Jumpski Random Stuff Ummm.... Austin stated the price right at the beginning? You even listening?
Jumpski Random Stuff he added the price did you watch lol
What a cool camera man! Also, that focus effect is awesome.
I shall revive this tech!
Derpu Wolf Good luck.
BEST THING ABOUT THIS VIDEO!- THUMBNAIL😍😍😍😍
I can't help but say that the slanted style of the base and the length of the thing reminds me of a few ultra-slanted rat-rods out there.
I knew someone was going to interpret this comment the wrong way, but I pressed on and posted it.
I've got a few rats in my barn, i've never been interested in their rods, but who am I to judge.
oh wow! i remember how some tech UA-camrs were going crazy about this camera a while back, then it just sorta disappeared...
A non sharp 5 megapixel picture... lol
Full HD looks sharp to you, doesn't it? It's under 2MP!
overTIMe
actually 1080p video sucks, 4k scaled down is better
Oh give me a break. Of course 4k scaled down is technically better but I don't hear anyone bitching about how soft regular 1080p looks.
4k scaled down won't do a thing if the bitrate is the same as the 1080p video ;) You actually do need to increase the bitrate! High-bitrate 1080p looks better than low-bitrate 4k (this starts artefacting).
Clorex Bleach
well it also depends on the encoding 4k h264 scaled down will be sharper than 1080p h264
you are a great you-tuber. i love to watch your videos. you have very good quality and great presentations. keep up the good work you have come a long way now and i hope you keep up. don't let peoples comments bother you. there are a lot of people who love your videos. i hope you can reach 3 million subs. good luck!
i had high hopes on this till i saw the reviews :(
ARCH. M most people just don't know what to do with it, they expect it to behave like a dslr and they have everything planned, give the camera to a pro photographer for a few months and by the end everyone will want one
Jellyfish Juice pros are not interested in this camera, it came out 2 years ago and never took off. The company behind it are not interested in the photography market what they are doing is selling the idea of the technology to be used in other industries.
I was never this early to an Austin Evans video
imagine in the future if all cameras end up having this technology :O
James Royce-Dawson That would be awesome
James Royce-Dawson and... they are already starting to do that with smartphones
F.O.G yeah but DSLR quality is much much better than phone quality
It depends. The best smartphone camera (Galaxy S7 Edge) easily rivals an mid-tire DSLR in many circumstances or even surpasses it. One thing smartphones still can't compete against are the lenses. Even the S7 Edge which creates by far the most bokeh a smartphone ever has been able to create, it simply can't get close to matching that of an DSLR. The story changes a lot when you pick another phone (LG G5/iPhone 7) as those phones are in general much worse.
Clorex Bleach
BLEACH CAN TALK?????
When this thing came out, I was excited thinking about when that technology might make it to DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, since it really sucks to miss focus on a photo that would otherwise be really great. But then nothing really came of that camera (probably because it was far too expensive for the quality of photos that it puts out). But I'm glad to hear that Lytro is still working on products, since that means that it's still possible that "lightfield" technology will make its way to professional- as well as commercial-level cameras!
Camera looks pretty cool, probably no one bought it because of the lack of features..
I had almost completely forgotten about Lytro! It's a really cool concept, but they still have a looooong way to go. I remember that square tube thingy that they first came out with like 6 years ago, I think.
Did his arms get really small since last video or is it just me
Harry Pomerantz he got bigger shirts
He usually wears really tight shirts apparently, so that he looks bigger xD
I was just checking out this camera yesterday, funny that you uploaded a video today about it. It's super interesting.
Completely sucks at any price. LOL
Even for £0.10
Not really...
For 0.10 i'll take it.
Bobster986 Still better than most point at shoots that cost 100-200$. except for the fact you lose video
AMA ...and the pictures never really look tack sharp. ???
I found out about this camera a couple years ago, I would say, after my experience of doing much research on the camera, that this could've been SOOOL much more!
If you read this
I hope you have
a happy new year!
from
a small tech youtuber
I was getting really excited about the video possibilities... i think that would be pretty sawesome!
How is video quality? looking for something better than my S7 for cheap?
It doesn't support video.
Thx
Michael Edgell
a basic Samsung WB350. will work. check out some reviews. its a pretty good camera and the price has dropped to about $100
I've checked them out. Too grainy. My best bet is save up and spend more on a EOS or a5000
ObnoxiousEdge
what editing soft do you use? the Samsung is handy. is it perfect? no but its a good starter. I use 3 different cameras. a Handheld. a SLR and a DSLR. each have a purpose. the Samsung I use in events where my Sony is just to big to carry. if your looking for something to upgrade from a phone. go a Handheld til you get the hang of it. last thing you wanna do is invest $500 on a camera you only use for the AUTO functions and to record videos.
You can now post focus like this on the GH4 with the firmware update, not only does the gh4 shoot great 4k video and 96fps 1080p but takes some pretty good photos too. Much better of a buy.
I would like an updated video for gaming PC build!
I would love to see this camera redesigned today with the kind of specs we would expect a camera to have these days. I think that could be a really cool experience.
The Quality is just bad.
At work we have a small Lytro camera we use to take pictures of clients' dogs and put them on one of the displays in the showroom. I really enjoy that camera, and for what it's used for, it's awesome! I could imagine this is less for enthusiasts, and more for casual use, but the price is too high.
gimmick... that's all. being able to refocus is pointless, the whole idea of photography is that you choose the points of interest and you lead the viewer to see what you want them to see.
Being able to focus afterwards can be handy in situations where autofocus is too slow. As a hobbyist wildlife photographer I've missed plenty of shots because by the time the focus is right, the bird is disappearing behind a tree. If they had a 300mm version for $300 and with Linux support I would put it straight on my wishlist.
I bought one of these guys a couple years ago for $700 with 2 extra batteries, chargers, filters and the whole kit and kaboodle.
Overall it works great for still life imagery and items that are not moving around. With this camera I found that I would wind up using a tripod or sandbag to make sure you get the sharpest image possible to process in their software then throw it in Lightroom and Photoshop for some additional tweaks.
Takes a HUGE amount of time for post processing to where you definitely can get some REALLY cool images, but if your short on time then I'd look else-where.
i would watch this instead of digitalrev now that kai's gonr
Crazy Hacker yeah I saw that. I use to like watching Kai roam the streets of Hong Kong taking photos and being the edgy beast he is
what's the name of his channel? I used to be a fan of his review at digitalrev too
Started the video with the sound muted, had to rewind to get my "HEY GUYS, this is Austin"
holnrew :V
I think I may go for the video one if it works out
I picked up an Illum late last year for about $300 or so and it has become the main "nice" camera in our house. The image quality is about the same as an iPhone 5, but it is an iPhone 5 with a 30-250 mm f/2.0 lens, manual controls, and a hot shoe -- not to mention any of the capabilities of the Lytro living pictures (i.e. refocusing, video output, etc).
The main downside is that the exported images are right at 4 megapixels which is barely enough for a 5x7 print.
hehehe LOL "HEY GUY"S ZZZ Aistin**
Do you guys need to comment that every time. Its just character, personality. If you can't deal with that there are other channels...
Hey guys this is autism
DjuntasGaming dude It's a Joke
A joke is something that isn't said time and time again....Also you cant really joke about something he says as a catch phrase.
DjuntasGaming who you talking to
I'm not hearing the autotune effect at the beginning everyone keeps mentioning. It just sounds like he swallowed the "this is" a little bit but I have no clue where people are getting autotune from.
That's actually pretty badass tbh but not for over 1000 since it doesn't take video it should be like 300
It is around 200 to 300 dollars, but I wouldn't buy it anyways since the image quality is not good
I'm way more interested in the display of your pc. The aesthetic is giving me life!!!
Wow surface studio already. Jesus. You tubers are richhhhh
He might have got a review unit.
Surface studio sold 30,000 units. It is twice than Microsoft's expectation.
Vijay Nirmal I don't see how that adds to the thread man. But while we're on the topic, it didn't sell 30,000 it sold 15,000 which was MS's original production. They ordered another 30k for next year.
Even if it did fail, it does look beautiful. It's a nice design, and I like how big the screen is. 200$ is not bad, at least not as bad as $1500. Great video Austin! :D
can't believe that I am so early. Will Austin reply to this
Harsh Agarwal no but you can fuck yourself
tHeShadyLuGia Totally right!
Fun fact: actually nobody cares if you're "first" or "early" on a UA-cam video, grow up. We know notifications are a thing.
0:01 when he said "and this" it sounds like the box is a drumpad
Is that the blue guy in X men before he changed😂🤔
Adnan Kadri Oh my god😂😂😂
Hey Austin, this is Guys!
for the price
it's really good
Those photos are muddy AF. No dynamic range, no sharpness, poor colours...waste of money.
you just completely copied another comment...
Happy new year Austin
I'm sorry but I cannot find this anywhere for $200 or £160
AF25 ebay?
It's £500 sadly. Shame, for £160 it would have totally killed.
Thisath Ranawaka yup
I found one for £400
Jamoi Isn't it £460?
Bruh, you compare that to the A6300, a DSLR like mirrorless camera.. the Lytro Illum is (or was) targetted at the "DSLR-pro" market. In comparison, the Lytro Illum is about the same size, if not smaller than most DSLR's with a proper battery grip (which seems to be very common).
Damn this video's trending
The reason this didn't take off is because it offers few of the features that enthusiasts look for, is less convenient than compacts and phones for casual photography, and even post processing is annoying because the format is not standard.
Once this tech lands in a Canon or a Sony sensor, this will really take off.
Well i think this didn't take off is because they just shouldn't have released it so early, i think they should've removed that 801 and put a more resonable cpu, and spend the money earned on a better... uhm.... they should've made it have somehow more megapixels and better construction.
Méchant Eduard Resolution isn't really the only issue. The image quality isn't good. The lens isn't good either. Dynamic range on the sensor sucks too. Nothing about this was top quality when compared to a DSLR.
Well that's essentially what i've said, by saying ''better construction'' i meant better Lens construction (i know i am not employing the right words)
Méchant Eduard It's not just the construction (lots of plastics and not good-feeling zoom/focus rings). There are badly constructed lenses that have great optics. This isn't one of them, it looks like.
So if that's what you also meant by construction, then you're absolutely right.
Useless camera, take a good shot the first time.
WhatAreYouBuyen nothing its useless if you give it a purpose, i don't know what you'd use that camera for but if i owned i'd be more than happy to mess around and see what i could get out of it, try and make something that a normal dslr won't let you do
The camera is good for interactive photos, but not still frame shots, not yet.
WhatAreYouBuyen what if you have to focus on two objects at the same time?
#14 on trending, good job Austin!
This cam is garbage....try it live and you will see how the quality sucks when you change the focus
1:57 what is that effect called? that showed the snapdragon thing?
you can get better DSLR camera $350 🤔
vishal Sharma link me
Was going to say the same thing myself. It just takes a bit of a learning curve but image quality is far more superior
you miss the point of the lytro... light field sensors are not found anywhere else
+Nanook Games Sure but light field sensors are inherently shit compared to normal sensors so you can either spend $1500 to get phone quality images with a gimmick or $1500 on a high end camera and learn to focus for actually good photos, at that price range the auto-focus will be very good too, and likely capable of tracking.
oBLACKIECHANoo well yes but the whole point of the lytro is the sensor, yes it sucks but it still has its purpose
Austin was literally a block away from my school when he filmed this