Light L16 camera. WOW!

Basvarken · October 14, 2015, 03:21:17 PM

Now this is out of the box thinking.
I think this is a sensational invention that will change photography.
Goodbye heavy bulky DLSR camera's!

There's more info on
www.light.co

I think I want one

Pilgrim · October 14, 2015, 07:01:46 PM

Very interesting - especially the depth of field feature which allows you to adjust after capturing the shot.

Dave W · October 14, 2015, 07:20:36 PM

I wish them well. Expected price of $1699, now $1299 to reserve one. Seems reasonable for a revolutionary product if it performs as advertised.

Psycho Bass Guy · October 15, 2015, 01:00:22 AM

All the DSP in the world isn't going to make up for a lack of glass. There's a reason spy satellites are heavy.

Basvarken · October 15, 2015, 03:22:55 AM

Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on October 15, 2015, 01:00:22 AM
All the DSP in the world isn't going to make up for a lack of glass. There's a reason spy satellites are heavy.

That is exactly what this new technology does. Getting rid of all that heavy glass.

NASA has been doing it for years. Many small telescopes make one big one.

Psycho Bass Guy · October 15, 2015, 09:40:40 PM

Quote from: Basvarken on October 15, 2015, 03:22:55 AM
That is exactly what this new technology does. Getting rid of all that heavy glass.

NASA has been doing it for years. Many small telescopes make one big one.

NASA's multi-scopes are radio and EM field detectors. Imaging is still handled by some VERY precisely ground glass, ie: the Hubble (which also has other sensors besides optics). I don't deny that the camera will probably be fairly successful, but pros and serious amateur photogs are still going to spend big bucks on better lenses that can be processed "out of the box" exactly the same way, but with a better initial image. Here's how the big boys do it: http://www.red.com/ (and there are even higher resolution formats out there!)

Granny Gremlin · October 17, 2015, 07:15:08 AM

But the Hubble is 30 year old technology AND needs to withstand the rigors of orbit AND not need maintenance hardly ever. There's also the issue of range. This is a completely different set of requirements and obviously a single large/thick plate (or lens I should say, which includes multiple such plates) of precisely ground glass suits this task better. You can't seriously compare the two applications.

However, for our purposes here, it might in fact be better, as demonstrated by Light, to use the insect compound eye model; there is precedent in nature for this!

Highlander · October 17, 2015, 04:31:21 PM

Hubble was ahead of her time ( by the tech of her time) and had several upgrades during that time and will now never (scheduled) be serviced again... but she is scheduled to be "injected" into descent-mode to burn-up over the Pacific when her "time comes..."

Psycho Bass Guy · October 17, 2015, 09:24:38 PM

Quote from: Granny Gremlin on October 17, 2015, 07:15:08 AM
But the Hubble is 30 year old technology AND needs to withstand the rigors of orbit AND not need maintenance hardly ever. There's also the issue of range. This is a completely different set of requirements and obviously a single large/thick plate (or lens I should say, which includes multiple such plates) of precisely ground glass suits this task better. You can't seriously compare the two applications.

I can, did, and am entirely correct in doing so. I deal in optics every day. The finest CCD's fed into image processors mean diddly squat until there is a high quality image resolved on them. It's not only economics that makes a movie released in 2D have a significant delay to be converted to 3D and THOSE cameras have enormous lenses.

QuoteHowever, for our purposes here, it might in fact be better, as demonstrated by Light, to use the insect compound eye model; there is precedent in nature for this!

Insect view: no depth of field in what is essentially two barely overlapping large sensors geared for contrast, not resolution. There's a reason that you can kill a fly by slowly lowering your hand over it to within range that it cannot escape, but it will spook at the slightest sudden movement. This whiz-band crap with DSP does do what it says, but it still will never produce a better fidelity image without superior optics.

Basvarken · October 18, 2015, 02:43:21 AM

You're missing the entire point.
This Light L16 camera is basicly an Android device (you can use all kinds of Apps on this thing) and as a big advantage it has got 16 small lenses that work together to make far better pics than any smartphone or snapshot-camera can.
The vast majority of people who buy a Canon EOS D-whatever use it to make slightly better photographs than their smartphone would allow them for.
But many people hate to drag the entire camera around with several different lenses.
The CEO of the Light company gave the example of someone on a bucket list trip to the Himalaya. He needed to choose between the camera and a bottle of water in his back pack. The choice was not that hard.

Another thing is that the RAW files of this camera allow you to manipulate the different layers after you took the pic. So you can choose/make the depth of field afterwards on your computer. That is awesome. No traditional DSLR offers that option.

I think this is a revolution for the photography world. For 1/4 of the price...

Highlander · October 18, 2015, 04:55:25 AM

Missed that...

Last CCTV co I was with installed a few of these things... not cheap...

The sort of thing that is put into stadia for HD imagery... covers a whole stand or area with a single seamless image the security/police can "zoom" into with a mouse click...

Granny Gremlin · October 18, 2015, 08:12:05 AM

Exactly, Rob.

Also Psycho, flies are just 1 animal with compound eyes - spiders definitely do have depth of field (and though this is not technically a "compound eye" it is a better analogy to this camera as it is "multiple simple eyes" - I'm not a biologist and neglected the difference there). Even human "binocular stereovision" is a good comparison (at least as regards superior depth of field - the ability to have all, or a very wide range vs a traditional monoscopic lens, all in focus).

The rest of what you said is an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority so I refuse to engage you on it, because you've now made it personal; it's not/shouldn't be. Peace out.

Lightyear · October 18, 2015, 10:08:21 AM

Cool little gizmo - I will grant that. Until they get it over the hump of wide acceptance it will be cost prohibitive for most folks. They may be sitting on a gold mine though - if it works well enough I can see them being swallowed up by a major cell phone manufacturer and have the advanced, highly refined, version of this included on a standard smart phone in the future.

Pilgrim · October 18, 2015, 03:34:51 PM

The only feature that impressed me was the ability to shift depth of field after the show is taken. That in itself is a really impressive feature, but it's not enough to convince me to spend nearly $2000 on a camera. I have a Panasonic 12x optical zoom camera that fits into a shirt pocket (smaller than this one) which makes impressive pictures at high resolution. To me this camera falls in the category of "interesting to know about, but nothing I need."

And yes, I have a Canon Rebel T3 which I take along when I'm more serious about photography, but I LIKE having the ability to change lenses and have continuously variable focal lengths (unlike having multiple fixed focal lengths.) I also bet that none of the professional photogs across the hall from me would be interested in leaving their digital Nikons and lens collections at home when they have a job to shoot.

Dave W · October 18, 2015, 10:29:01 PM

Quote from: Pilgrim on October 18, 2015, 03:34:51 PM
The only feature that impressed me was the ability to shift depth of field after the show is taken. That in itself is a really impressive feature, but it's not enough to convince me to spend nearly $2000 on a camera. I have a Panasonic 12x optical zoom camera that fits into a shirt pocket (smaller than this one) which makes impressive pictures at high resolution. TO me this camera falls in the category of "interesting to know about, but nothing I need."

And yes, I have a Canon Rebel T3 which I take along when I'm more serious about photography, but I LIKE having the ability to change lenses and have continuously variable focal lengths (unlike having multiple fixed focal lengths.) I also bet that none of the professional photogs across the hall from me would be interested in leaving their digital Nikons and lens collections at home when they have a job to shoot.

If it's any kind of success, the cost will come way down. In any case, I agree it's not going to replace professional photo shoot gear. But as Rob says, that's not the object.