# Lytro is Leaving the Consumer Camera Business



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 5, 2016)

```
It looks like Jason Rosenthal, the CEO of Lytro has decided to switch gears and focus the company on developing a light field virtual reality platform.</p>
<p>Jason Rosenthal writes on his blog:</p>
<blockquote>
<p id="a3fe" class="graf--p graf--hasDropCapModel graf--hasDropCap graf-after--figure"><span class="graf-dropCap">A </span>little over a year ago at Lytro, it became clear to me that we needed to drastically change the direction of our company. We’d already built two generations of consumer Light Field cameras and were deep into development on our third and fourth generation models. But I was increasingly filled with doubt about our product strategy and direction. Were consumer cameras really our biggest and best opportunity? If not, what should we be focused on instead? Could we pivot dramatically with so much invested in our current direction?</p>
<p id="d952" class="graf--p graf-after--p">I’d joined Lytro in early 2013 with the conviction that Light Field technology had the potential to be even more transformative to imaging than the transition from film to digital 15 years earlier. Lytro initially gained attention for the ability to refocus pictures after the fact but the implications of Light Field technology run far deeper. <a href="https://backchannel.com/war-stories-why-i-lit-up-lytro-b46124da32a6#.9ipjrq7tn" target="_blank">Read the full story</a></p>
</blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## martti (Apr 5, 2016)

I failed to see them enter the Consumer Camera Business.
Maybe I wasn't looking.


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 5, 2016)

If they had built their Light Field camera around something like the 250Mpix sensor Canon has in development, perhaps these plenoptic cameras would have had a future. Then again, maybe not. The vast majority of consumers are quite happy with the "free" camera built into their cell phones. Getting them to do even more in post processing does not provide them with the instant gratification they crave. Seems like a losing proposition from the outset.


----------



## Refurb7 (Apr 5, 2016)

This was bound to happen. It had a big "Gee wiz!" factor when it was announced, but you only had to think about it for 30 more seconds to realize that almost no one wants to actually do post-exposure focus selection. And almost no one wants to pay a pile of money for that privilege.

I remember non-photography people asking me, "Have you heard about this new camera? That's going to revolutionize your work, right?" — because they read some hype about it in the Wall Street Journal or someplace like that. Nope. Zero interest.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 5, 2016)

If they would have given their bodies a decent sensor size and let me use this to do instant focus stacking for Macro then I'd be tripping over myself to get one. But as it stands they don't even let you produce your own photographs from it.

No, I'm not going to start using your stupid cloud service as the exclusive portal to all my photographs.
They insulted the hobbyist market and priced themselves out of the casual market, on top of trying to enter the point and shoot market which is already dead to begin with.

Great product, total and utter nuclear apocalypse failure in execution.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> ...you only had to think about it for 30 more seconds to realize that almost no one wants to actually do post-exposure focus selection....



Really? So you've never shot a bird in flight where the focus was on the wing instead of the eye? Never shot a sporting event where the focus was on the ball instead of the player's face? Never shot a portrait where the right eye was in focus, but the left eye was not?

I think almost everyone would like to "actually do post-exposure focus" tweaking. The problem was that the technology was not sufficiently developed to really achieve its promise. I suspect someone else will pursue this eventually. If it is ever perfected, it will revolutionize photography in a way that would make digital seem insignificant. Imagine never again needing sophisticated autofocus systems or worrying about autofocus adjustment.


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you only had to think about it for 30 more seconds to realize that almost no one wants to actually do post-exposure focus selection....
> ...



If only it worked that way. The ability to focus these cameras comes only in discrete steps. The marketing hype suggested it worked the way you wish it would have, but the reality of the math was less forgiving.


----------



## Refurb7 (Apr 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > ...you only had to think about it for 30 more seconds to realize that almost no one wants to actually do post-exposure focus selection....
> ...



For the cost of exactly $0 every photographer already has the solution to those problems. It is already built into their cameras. It is stopping down the aperture, and it requires no post-production time, no special software, no buying a new camera, etc. Yes, it too late to fix after the fact, but photographers learn from their mistakes. As in, "F/2 was too shallow for that shot. Next time I'm in that situation, I'll use f/4." That's how a lot of photography works: people learn how to deal with various photographic problems, without having to buy a different camera for each problem that pops up. Learning from one's mistakes saves a lot of money.

The Lytro is a very pricey & extremely limited solution for dealing with the occasional problem of missed focus or too shallow depth of field. Sure, if I could magically do some post-exposure focus tweaking with my DSLRs, that would be a sweet bonus for a few missed shots. A hypothetical "Lytro On/Off" setting on the menu would be cool. But the Lytro as a camera is not at all competitive with my current DSLRs. It solves a problem that DSLRs usually manage well, while introducing a host of other issues, like having no system.

Of course, Lytro's technology may have a other, more valuable applications.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 6, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> For the cost of exactly $0 every photographer already has the solution to those problems... It is stopping down the aperture.


The promise of the Lytro was that it was not necessary to stop down the aperture to place *everything* in focus, but rather to *shift* the focus from one subject to another without changing the overall depth of field, so that subject "A" would be in focus under choice "A" and subject "B" could be in focus under choice "B." 

Plus, stopping down the aperture doesn't work in many real life situations, such as birds in flight or sports, where you need a high shutter speed to stop the action and you are limited by the high ISO capability of your camera. And, frankly if you are shooting with a long telephoto lens, even stopping down to f32 may not give you sufficient depth of field to keep a rapidly moving subject in focus.



JMZawodny said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



Yes, of course, the technology was nowhere near where it needed to be to be really useful. Indeed, I suspect that was one of the problems – the cameras were released prematurely. I would hesitate to even say they were "beta" versions. 

But, that doesn't mean it did not have tremendous potential *if* it were fully developed (assuming that is even possible). 

I just take issue with the idea that "no one" would want to do post-exposure focus correction, when in reality the ability to do so *(if it could be perfected)* would be far more disruptive and significant than the digital revolution in photography.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 6, 2016)

As far as I can remember Llytro cameras have such small sensors that high ISO was terrible to begin with.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5956441/what-i-learned-shooting-with-the-lytro-illum


> The camera has an ISO range that stretches up to 3200, but images start to break apart with noise at about 1600.




And that's with an image resolution of 4 Megapixels.


----------



## JMZawodny (Apr 6, 2016)

9VIII said:


> As far as I can remember Llytro cameras have such small sensors that high ISO was terrible to begin with.
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/1/5956441/what-i-learned-shooting-with-the-lytro-illum
> 
> ...



That is the major weakness of the plenoptic camera, most of the pixels go unused (or underutilized - at least the way they used them). Their 40 megapixel (they called it megaray) version 2 camera still produced a relatively low resolution image. Much of the information just sat there unused - unlike a "normal" camera where the operator was expected to achieve proper focus at the outset of data capture.

I really do not see where the company can take the Intellectual Property they possess to form a new product. For my part, I'd like to see them release the IP into the public domain. We have a few applications we are working on.


----------



## that1guyy (Apr 6, 2016)

Their Light Field camera was really cool tech. A buddy of mine works there and I got to try it. But it was pretty limited as far as I can remember. VR does seem to be pretty hyped up these days so maybe it's for the best.


----------



## Refurb7 (Apr 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > For the cost of exactly $0 every photographer already has the solution to those problems... It is stopping down the aperture.
> ...



I don't see how post-exposure focus correction could be more disruptive and significant than the digital revolution. The digital revolution solves much bigger problems and offers vastly more utility than any focus invention.


----------

