Video: The freaky deaky “shoot first, focus later” camera
posted at 9:01 pm on June 22, 2011 by Allahpundit
I’m fascinated by the concept, partly because it answers a question I’ve always had. There’s so much visual data in the average photo that’s indecipherable, whether due to parts being out of focus, shot in poor light, and so forth. A bad pic is like a badly damaged hard drive, with only some of the “files” readable. Can’t technology figure out a way to recover the unrecoverable data?
Lytro’s founder and chief executive is Ren Ng, 31. His achievement, experts say, has been to take research projects of recent years — requiring perhaps 100 digital cameras lashed to a supercomputer — and squeeze that technology into a camera headed for the consumer market later this year.
Mr. Ng explained the concept in 2006 in his Ph.D. thesis at Stanford University, which won the worldwide competition for the best doctoral dissertation in computer science that year from the Association for Computing Machinery. Since then Mr. Ng has been trying to translate the idea into a product that can be brought to market — and building a team of people to do it.
The Lytro camera captures far more light data, from many angles, than is possible with a conventional camera. It accomplishes that with a special sensor called a microlens array, which puts the equivalent of many lenses into a small space. “That is the heart of the breakthrough,” said Pat Hanrahan, a Stanford professor, who was Mr. Ng’s thesis adviser but is not involved in Lytro.
Focusing after the fact isn’t the only breakthrough:
The technology works in very low light without a flash, Lytro said, while 3-D glasses can add a particularly vivid effect—simulated three-dimensional images that users can adjust to show different perspectives.
Conventional digital cameras essentially record the total sum of light rays from a scene as they hit an image sensor, Mr. Ng said. A light-field camera records the color, intensity and direction of rays individually. He compared the approach to audio recording; instead of recording multiple musicians all at once, modern multitrack studios record them separately so that the volume and other effects can be independently adjusted after the fact to create a sound mix.
Here’s the “how it works” page on Lytro’s website. If you want to experiment with the technology, try their one-click photo gallery. Just one question: As neat as this is, who’s going to shell out several hundred bucks for a standalone flex-focus camera? I remember dropping $500 in 2002 on a Canon Powershot with 4 megapixel resolution. Fast-forward nine years and I get a better image than that from my iPhone, with plenty of zoom features, filters, etc, available via apps in the iTunes store. Unless I’m a semi-serious photographer, why would I spend extra money on a separate camera that I have to lug around? And if I am a semi-serious photographer, why would I “cheat” by using after-the-fact focus instead of challenging myself to take the perfect shot in real time? There will be a market for this camera, I’m just … not sure who it’ll be.
They’ve got two obvious business strategies going forward, I think, and neither relies on semi-serious photogs. One: Miniaturize the technology to the point where it’s cell-phone ready and then sell it to Apple or Google or whoever. Having a feature like this in the iPhone to let you sharpen up shoddy pics would be lovely. Two: Surveillance. Isn’t that the most obvious application for this? How many times have you watched a true-crime show where the perp walks by a gas-station camera 25 feet away and the best they can do to get a description of him is magnify his face until it’s a pixelated blotch? Universal focus would be a very tasty treat for security agencies. There’s certainly a market for it. Chop chop, Lytro!









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Up next…retina implants? We can only hope.
SouthernGent on June 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM
But can the camera shoot around corners, like in Blade Runner?
John the Libertarian on June 22, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Sounds like a great Battle-Field edition too!
Take a picture,and then scrutenize the entire
area for Jihadys NutJobs….just a thought!!
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:05 PM
That, and more sex tapes from sleazy celebrity boyfriends.
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Porn
Rode Werk on June 22, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Who, what, when, where, why important.
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:10 PM
That, and more sex tapes from sleazy celebrity boyfriends.
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Buy Danish:Yup,perverts new tool!:)
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:11 PM
Good idea. Someone should get on that.
Kind of seems like overkill.
Count to 10 on June 22, 2011 at 9:12 PM
Weiner could have used a camera like this.
Bishop on June 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM
Weiner could have used a camera like this.
Bishop on June 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM
Bishop:You betcha,and after taking a picture of little
brain at attention,the investigators could confirm
if ShitzelWiener was around Federally related land
scaping,haha!:)
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM
The concept of the technology is fascinating, but there’s some idiosyncrasies with how the depth of field works.
For instance, on a normal camera, if you have a large depth of field, everything basically seems to be in focus. If you have a shallow depth of field, only the thing the lens is focus on is focused, everything else appears blurry.
But if you look at these images, if you move the focus to the front, the back is totally blurry. Okay, with you so far. That indicates it’s a very shallow depth of field. If you focus on the very far background, the foreground is blurry. Still with you. But if you have a shallow depth of field, when you focus on something in the middle, the background and foreground should both be blurry. But that’s not the case with this lens.
Not really good or bad, but it’s certainly different.
I’m very curious if this could work with movie cameras. This could make shooting 3D film even easier.
apollyonbob on June 22, 2011 at 9:17 PM
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:11 PM
Run,
ForrestParis, Run!Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:18 PM
Seems like this is very similar to the kinds of stuff the Kinect can do (possibly more advanced). do a youtube search for kinect hacks. it’s taking in more info than it needs for a simple 2 dimensional shot.
WitchDoctor on June 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM
Pervert!/
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:20 PM
I wonder if this would help Space Photography,like the Hubble Telescope!!
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:11 PM
Run, Forrest Paris, Run!
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:18 PM
Buy Danish:Lol:)
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 9:22 PM
I’ve thought of just the perfect application: self-photography
The first customer would be: Anthony Wiener.
Dude. That is one very useful application.
No telling what would come into focus….
Mcguyver on June 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM
One of these camera mounted on one of those micro-UAV’s the size of a sparrow… wow.
barnone on June 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Right.
That would’ve been very useful for use of Osama Bin Laden’s “mess room”..
Mcguyver on June 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM
nice gadget for bigfoot hunters
maineconservative on June 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM
Don’t give Homeland Security any ideas…
Mcguyver on June 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM
Using the NYT photo, If one clicks on the flowers/beach/trees the focus only changes in a horizontal direction and everything in that horizontal ‘frame’ becomes less, or more focused. It’s not like the movie Blow Up where one can focus in on one flower, tree, bit of beach. Or is that photo a poor representation of the technology?
Buy Danish on June 22, 2011 at 9:35 PM
The “perverts” at TSA would have field day with this camera.
Up close and personal.
No need to check one’s lower region orfices and cavities for a bomb.
Step 1. Snap
Step 2. Focus
Step 3. “You are clear and free to go”.
Mcguyver on June 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM
Uh, professional photographers, who spend more than several hundred bucks for a single-focus camera, spend hours lighting their shots plus hours Photoshopping them after they’re taken to get them just right? Ya think?
bgoldman on June 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM
Step 1. Snap
Step 2. Focus
Step 3. “You are clear and free to go”.
Mcguyver on June 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM
McguyverToo funny,yet,it might work!
canopfor on June 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Right now, you’ll have professionals and early adopters. Just like with every single other new consumer technology.
Later, as it gets cheaper, just about everyone eventually will get on board.
Just as they did with phones, cars, LPs, TVs, VCRs, personal computers, Walkmans, CDs, DVDs, cell phones, digital cameras, iPods, smart phones….need I go on?
Missy on June 22, 2011 at 10:22 PM
blade runner photos capabilities
huan on June 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM
This isn’t really what’s going on here, Allah.
It would be more accurate to say that there is quite a bit of visual data available to, yet not captured by, the average camera.
This camera is capturing much more data than the average camera, and, more importantly, it’s capturing data differently. Instead of striving for a higher resolution sensor, this camera positions multiple sensors in different locations relative to the lens.
This video provides the simplest explanation of the actual effect being used.
blink on June 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM
For the inclined, here’s the technical paper:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf
Prufrock on June 22, 2011 at 10:37 PM
Pretty cool.
There’s a couple of other things I’d like to see develop:
1. Take an original black and white photograph or movie and have a program that can interpret the various shades as to their original colors and change them automatically into color.
2. Black and white pics, moving film as well as color prints-a program that can render them 360 degrees.
Maybe they have these already, but I’d like to be able to play with them myself!
Dr. ZhivBlago on June 22, 2011 at 11:08 PM
Enhance and Zoomify!
SlaveDog on June 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM
There is an iPhone app called SynthCam, made by one of the researchers on Plenoptic photography.
The app records a short video while you move the camera around in a small circle. It then translates all the frames and blends them together around your chosen focus point. It lets you simulate a much wider aperture. It only works well with still life.
The pictures on the Lytro website show the full resolution of the final image: between .5 and .75 megapixels.
yelnats on June 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM
It seems like this could be used to have a computer refocus each part of the image independently to get rid of the depth of field limitation.
pedestrian on June 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM
Beat me to it. One the higher frequencies are effectively attenuated to oblivion, there’s no way you’re getting them back. There are technologies to help restore photos and videos, but they generally aren’t automated enough and have too many artifacts (and, for example, need multiple photos or knowledge of your hardware). This is something different, but it won’t help you with postprocessing.
calbear on June 23, 2011 at 1:09 AM
Another problem is memory – I’d expect a light field to take up an awful lot of it.
Aside from what AP’s mentioned, I’d think this would be best for an effect in movies, both home and professional. There the memory trade-off is more worth it.
calbear on June 23, 2011 at 1:14 AM
In the end, it won’t be standalone. It’ll be the entire back of your phone.
unclesmrgol on June 23, 2011 at 2:18 AM
There is another approach that uses as a mask instead of a microlens, which they claim requires less precision in manufacturing.
http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/Mask/
That approach would seem to be pretty inexpensive.
The number of megapixels that can be captured by a cell phone camera seems to be better used to fixup focusing problems rather than in capturing massive amounts of useless blurred image data.
pedestrian on June 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM
How hard would it be to have every object in focus?
John Deaux on June 23, 2011 at 8:54 AM
Modern digital technology amazes me – being able to move a slider in Lightroom to recover detail in blown out highlights is enough. And Photoshop’s content aware technology…but really, what’s going to impress me way more than improvements in focusing technology, is sensor technology that enables one to take extremely fast shots in very low light with little to no noise. It’s already getting there, the high ISO performance on the high end Canons is amazing.
Sharke on June 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM
enhance… enhance…
enhance.
spec_ops_mateo on June 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM
It’s a good idea for surveillance, or perhaps for dash-cams in police cars, which might have to adapt quickly to near or far fields-of-view. It also might be useful for filming sports events, where athletes can be moving rapidly toward or away from the camera, and in and out of focus.
This is probably too expensive for portable cameras, but it could have a market for fixed-camera applications, where people can set-it-and-forget-it.
Let the market decide…
Steve Z on June 23, 2011 at 1:51 PM