Eventually (if this truly catches on) I expect third parties to take advantage of the dynamism of the files instead of just always flattening them out for print. Light-field photos could be integrated with eye tracking technology to change the DoF depending on where the viewer is looking, or perhaps have TVs with multiple viewing angles that change the picture based on what angle the viewer is looking from. Eventually this could be great for VR as well.
“the viewer”? Singular? Even assuming that, that sounds insanely awful for actual viewing. A TV isn’t a window.
VR of what? Still photos?
So I made my way through Lytro founder Ren Ng’s dissertation which is fortunately quite readable. Less fortunately, it dashed my hopes that light field photography could replace conventional cameras with their big lenses and cases. Maybe we’ll get a good pro-level macro camera out of it, though. Summary here.
You’re doing a good job at not selling me on this as I was half thinking of getting one. That blog is great.
The whole computer-based viewing of the image is itself a profoundly limiting factor as to its application and widespread use. It only really works if everyone communicates through Facebook or some similar social media.
Eh, I can see plenty of uses for this as it advances, but it’s more things like crime scene recording (on top of specific photos)…
Why do people keep repeating this, as if the the ability to refocus the scene is intended for the final viewer, not as a tool for the photographer to fine-tune his shots? This is like arguing that RAW is profoundly limiting because it requires everyone to have a copy of Photoshop. That’s how confused you sound.
Not surprising. Described as an “asset sale.” Good tech, but they went about it all wrong in terms of actually selling it.