Who would be best off buying a Lytro Illum, and what for? Well, with its ability to produce a three-dimensional ‘living image’ – namely one for which depth of field, perspective and point of focus can be altered after the fact, and not via Photoshop but within the camera itself or supplied software – for most of us it would make sense as a second camera.
Samples
http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/lytro_illum/sample_images/lytro_illum_01.mp4
http://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/lytro_illum/sample_images/lytro_illum_10.mp4
Use 3D Stereoscopic cameras with a focus set on the entire frame (close the aperture). Generate a ZDepth map in post, set a focus point with your favorite compositing software, Voilà. And if you don't shoot in 3D, you can still use one of Pixel Farm software that creates a fake ZDepth map. Or last option, you make the ZDepth map by yourself as Indians worker do to convert your favorite 2D pop corn flick into an unimpressive 3D film. Honestly, it's not like setting the focus requires a PhD or that you shouldn't care about it and think "let's do that after". Just imagine the file size to have that in video, it's completely pointless. It awesome to convert a photography into something interactive although.
Why are people asking to have video mod for it? I don't get it.
To get ability to set focus in post :-)
Why are people asking to have video mod for it? I don't get it.
I rented one a few weeks back. It's a tricky camera to maximize its potential. I still haven't tweaked all of the images since their software is crashing and I haven't had time to troubleshoot.
Watch their tutorial vids, it helps a lot. You really need a close object to focus on to get a good "living pic". Each shot takes quite a bit of thought. You have to think different.
I will definitely rent one again, but won't buy until the next version up.
The Illum has an interesting and very modern design. The camera is actually quite large and heavy (almost 1kg). The body feels solid and is made of magnesium and aluminium, and the grip on the lens ring is also very nice thanks to the “tyre-like” rubber that covers the rings. One thing I don’t like is the smoothness of the zoom and focus ring, as they can shift with the mere brush of your fingers.
It is in stock now
This doesn't do video does it... :-( Couldn't they just go the whole hog of 21st Century science fiction and do away with taking 'still' photos and simply do the new 'extract from raw video' thing that the GH4 will have soon?
They have iOS app now
Lytro Mobile App - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lytro-mobile-app/id894109160?mt=8
wasn’t until I brought the Illum to a concert at Brooklyn Bowl that I realized just how quickly I’d bumped into the ceiling of its capabilities. The camera has an ISO range that stretches up to 3200, but images start to break apart with noise at about 1600. The constant-aperture f/2 lens, which is admittedly really nice, is front-heavy and has no image stabilization, so it is hard to keep steady when zoomed all the way to 250mm. You can change the white balance, but only to other presets like "Tungsten" or "Daylight," and the Auto White Balance (the setting I typically use when shooting concerts on my 5D Mark II) is too slow to keep up with the constantly shifting lights of a venue.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5956441/what-i-learned-shooting-with-the-lytro-illum
Every once in a while, the Lytro Illum blew my mind. I’d take just the right picture at just the right moment, and I’d suddenly have it captured in a way that felt more real, more alive than anything else I could’ve done. For every one of those moments, though, there were three or four moments where I felt like I missed it
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/30/5949913/lytro-illum-review
Given how little resolution this camera has, I cannot see anything but a party gag in this, still.
But it's not only the resolution that sucks: Have a look at the picture with the surfer and the white flower in front: Not only are there lots of "stair steps" visible on the outlines of the objects, also there are strange looking artefacts on the leaves of the flower and last but not least the colors look just awful.
I'll buy a GH4 for the same price... :-)
If it'll drop in price a little and they will improve all software it can be almost ideal camera for budget wedding guys.
And his machine didn't even have a flat screen…
"Give me a hard copy right there."
Someone had to say it ;)
I'm still hoping for a version capable of 1080p video at some point. No need to do the processing in-camera. Just capture all of the raw data and let me run an application on a computer later where I can use a powerful Intel processor with a massive GPU.
I love it. Won't buy it, but love the results.
Like manna from heaven for rack-focus junkies. But beyond that?
@Vitaliy_Kiselev Darn, thanks for the heads up. I was wondering why the sample was so soft!
So I guess I'm hoping for a 320 megathingamagigs.
I should mention though, the interpolation is pretty good, looks fairly organic or "filmic". Makes sense since they have more data to work with. Kind of neat.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!