Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:12 AM, Larry Colen<[email protected]> wrote:
Here are a couple of the shots that gave me pause, where the plane of focus
seemed almost more geometrical then optical:
http://i2.wp.com/roadsandkingdoms.com/uploads/2013/09/1200w_hor-talagante.jpg?w=2048&quality=75&strip=all
http://i1.wp.com/roadsandkingdoms.com/uploads/2013/09/1200-mike-and-david.jpg?w=2048&quality=75&strip=all
http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Big%20Camera#/15
http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Big%20Camera#/1
http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Big%20Camera#/14
http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Big%20Camera#/11
http://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=Big%20Camera#/12
Not that I understand what "more geometrical than optical" mean… They seem
about right given the long and fast lens he's shown using in the first two.
It seems that the plane of focus isn't perpendicular with axis of the
view. In other words that not everything in focus is the same distance
from the camera. That could be a trick of perspective.
Seems to me you should pick up a Speed Graphic 4x5 and explore a new realm of
photography. :-)
I can't even afford to spend what I already do on gear, I don't need
avenues to spend money, or for that matter time, on. If I did have that
money, there are a lot of other things I need first.
So you can see the dynamics of format influence are very profound. Just
sticking a lot of megapixels onto a tiny chip wafer does not net a large format
camera view of the world. For my needs with a 35mm FF format camera, 24 MPixels
are enough … More is occasionally nice, but mostly unnecessary. And no 35mm FF
format camera supplants the Hasselblad 500 or SWC in terms of overall image
dynamics … they're just too different.
In theory, with something like the Lytro you could recreate a lot of the feel
in post processing.
I've used two Lytros … the original and an Ilium. I couldn't get anything that
looks remotely like a Hasselblad image out of them. Here are three SWC images:
https://flic.kr/p/hGKSHA
https://flic.kr/p/f8GKsf
https://flic.kr/p/eUTMeB
Note that I said "in theory", not "in practice". There are a lot of
really cool things that could be done with something like the lytro, not
the least of which is modifying the performance characteristics of the
lens. If they can change the field of focus, they could also do focus
stacking, or for that matter bokeh stacking digitally and either
increase or decrease the depth of field.
Similarly, having the depth information in the file, they could also use
the file to create three dimensional maps, at least of what is visible
to the camera.
Combine that with a google street view car and you'd get good, accurate
3-d models of the areas surrounding city streets.
The Lytro concept is interesting but doesn't interest me much—it seemed much
more useful for moving images and images to be displayed electronically than
for anything I do, which is print. That's why I didn't buy one.
Light field photography is intriguing, but what Lytro does with it isn't
very interesting.
The Light L16 looks a lot more interesting for what I want … A relatively small
camera that can make excellent prints in the simplest way possible, more like a
Polaroid SX-70 than anything else.
It will be interesting to see just how excellent the prints it can make
are. The ergonomics look abysmal as well. But, time will tell.
G
--
Larry Colen [email protected] (postbox on min4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
