[jeffchuber]

I first want to congratulate and praise these advances in optics. I think it's great that they have received so much funding to further their pursuits.

I don't think that the current application of their technology makes sense. The form factor is awkward and they are selling to prosumer / professional photogs. The technology makes sense for consumers - because consumers aren't making art - they are making memories. And memories can absorb the dynamism their technology provides (changes focus and even perspective (minorly)). So this tech on an smartphone would be amazing. (because other consumer level cameras are being fazed out obviously).

For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition. I dont think most professionals want the general public messing with their art form. Some abstract artists that will be very interested in the interact-ability - but not most. As a photographer myself - I want complete control over my medium and that includes focus and perspective obviously -- but the tech would be useful for post-processing. If they want to sell this to the current market they are selling to (seemingly professionals/prosumers but with a consumer form-factor) -- then they almost need to say this isnt even photography - but a completely new thing.

I can tell the founder really cares about the technology - and doesn't just want this to be like a Cisco and sell tech to larger companies. I can totally appreciate that - I wouldnt want to run that sort of company either. I just don't know that it will work how he wants to make it work.

Maybe that's why this change is happening.

[Daniel_Newby]

> For professionals this tech would also be useful in DSLRs - but ONLY for fixing perspective or composition.

I disagree. In a few years light field photography will be mandatory for professionals.

This technology lets you combine low light, long depth of field, and fast shutter speed in a single photograph. It lets you selectively blur distractions without tedious manual editing. Multiple cameras can be combined to extract 3D geometry and textures in a single snapshot, a tremendous time saver for CGI projects. Movies can move focus pulling to post.

The form factor is so they can make money, keeping them from having to trade company ownership for money. Other form factors are inevitable, just give it time.

[beering]

For these cameras to be taken seriously, I think megapixel count needs to be a factor higher.

Currently, in video, we're chasing higher and higher output resolutions, and a 10x drop in pixel count isn't feasible. Once the sensors reach 10x the pixel count we need for output, then we can take the resolution hit for the focal effects.

1080p-capable light field capture seems possible now, but 4k light field capture might need a 300 MP sensor.

[shuzchen]

Be careful not to think of megapixel count as the end-all of photo quality. While it is very important, the quality of the image sensor makes the biggest difference. You can buy some 16MP point and shoot, but the image quality isn't going to match a quality DLSR at 10MP (like the Nikon D80). Think of megapixel count as just the upper limit of image quality.

[objclxt]

I think the post you're replying to is referring to applying this technology to video. For feature films, 4K resolution would be highly desirable, and that's going to need some very large sensors.

[Daniel_Newby]

Or several smaller sensors and fancier software.

[SoftwareMaven]

I agree with both of you. For some professionals (sports photographers, journalistic photographers), this will be insanely useful (and maybe mandatory).

For artistic photographers, capturing the moment as seen in the mind's eye will continue to be critical, so this won't be useful.

The nice thing about the first group: they have the financial backing of large media companies (or contractors looking for ways to differentiate themselves). Seems like it might be a reasonable direction to go.

[Daniel_Newby]

Why will a magic camera be useless to artists?