Talk:Light field camera

Adobe light field camera

I merged the article adobe light field camera with this article. However i am unable to find any resource that is mentioning the term adobe light filed camera at all. I think the thing that is meant here is the focused plenoptic camera or pleonptic camera 2.0. As the article talks about a prototype and todor georgiev from adboe is publishing a lot of papers on plenoptic 2.0 cameras i think that the article adobe light field camera is about the prototype he is using. Can anyone help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.117.171 (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the see also link to Adobe light field camera, since it just pointed back here 203.143.164.249 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Old discussion

(be kind, it's my first time putting a page on wikipedia. I was surprised there was nothing on this topic yet.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.221.14 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 2005 November 18

It looks ok.  :) I went and beefed it up a bit. --Scott McNay 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

• The unprocessed images look roughly like unprojected holographic pictures; how closely are they related?

• John Y. A. Wang says that the microlens looks like the compound eyes of insects; do insect eyes work in a similar manner, even though there is no focusing lens?

• There are plenty of pictures available; someone wanna link several to demonstrate?

--Scott McNay 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does "Plenoptic Camera" redirect here?

There is another page called "Plenoptic Camera" with a capital C that redirects to this page, titled "Plenoptic camera" with a lowercase c. Is there any need for this?

69.124.125.120 23:23, 19 May 2007

It's standard procedure to redirect from nonstandard spellings and capitalizations to the standard one. Dicklyon 23:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement like language

The title of this article is misleading, it appears to be more about the companies producing the products than about the technology behind them. If there are to be articles about the companies, then they should be separate from the article about the technology. Overall this article appears more like an advertisement for emerging companies than an overview of the technology like the title indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.18.59 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention, this technology (such as it is) seems to have been the product of a single company, which appears to have gone completely bust. [1]https://www.androidauthority.com/lytro-light-field-camera-869929/ 2601:540:C700:42DF:76C8:5F43:53F1:5C95 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Light-field camera per below discussion. COMMONNAME applies here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Plenoptic camera → Light-field camera – "Light field camera" is by far the most common name for this technology, much more commonly used than "plenoptic camera". This has been confirmed via comparative searches of Google and Google Scholar. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe, but not without the hyphen that would make the term meaningful: light-field camera. That would avoid confusion with this light field camera. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support alternate move to Light-field camera based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:HYPHEN. --Pnm (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scam of refocusing

Why can't I simply get a normal picture that is focused at all points in it? Why should I have to limit my focus to one point at a time, wasting time shifting from one point to another? What a gimmick and a scam. Any such commercial product that does not have a feature of spatial focus stacking built-in as a core feature should be deleted from the article! It's not a camera if it doesn't take a real picture. --IO Device (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Art --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing to have focus-point selection available as an optional feature. It's a whole other (extreme) thing to make it the primary feature, while not providing the more practical feature of focus stacking! The primary purpose of most photographs is not art; it is to convey information. Art shouldn't be at the expense of needless and massive information loss. I won't even get into the subjective notion of what is better art. --IO Device (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move #2

I may be stirring up an old argument, which is not my idea of fun, but I just removed the hyphens from "light-field" in the body of the article and hereby request that the article's name be similarly de-hyphenated. I belatedly noticed the argument for the hyphen by @Dicklyon: above, which is well-taken, but my understanding is that we must follow common usage and not attempt to dictate it. If that is not the case, then I would gladly accept volunteers for a war against the term "lenticular lens", which I consider abominably redundant and which confusingly reuses a longstanding optometrists' term, but it has come into common use now and I am resigned to living with it. Not using the hyphen does not appear to conflict with any absolute requirement in the MOS, but perhaps I am overlooking something there. AVarchaeologist (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Including the hyphen seems to help clarify the meaning by use of a compound adjective, per MOS:HYPHEN. This is about a camera for capturing light fields, not about a lightweight field camera. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The hyphen may disambiguate, but without exception it does not appear anywhere in the list of references or in the few online sources I have checked. "Lightfield" turns up in file names and would make a nice unambiguous neologism, but, again, my understanding is that we have to hew to real-world current usage, which is spaced and hyphenless. AVarchaeologist (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Amateur light field cameras"?!

The four systems being mentioned certainly sound like they're very much professional cameras. They merely they haven't reached large scale production. Perhaps "Experimental", "Research" or "Pre-production" would be better words?

The Pelican Imaging system also seems to need an entry under Technology, since using an array of cameras instead of an array of lenses is an approach distinct from the other ones listed. 207.172.210.101 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lytro? Their first camera in particular, they were clearly at the amateur market. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Technical explanation is incorrect

Light-field (aka plenoptic) imaging works no differently than typical, two-camera stereo imaging. In the case of a light-field (LF) camera's using a micro-lens array (MLA), each micro-lens provides to the camera sensor a slightly different perspective than its neighbors, just as your two eyeballs do to your brain. The 3D volume is worked out because of parallax. The stuff about recording ray vectors, overcoming binocular occlusion, etc. is marketing hype.

The difference lies in what one camera can do. One image taken from a single, conventional camera provides no parallax. One image broken up by a MLA onto a sensor does provide parallax, but at the expense of resolution. LF cameras, or at least the most common type such as those produced by Lytro, Raytrix, d'Optron, etc., are simply camera arrays for stereoscopy, where each "camera" is composed of a micro-lens and a small section of the sensor. For example, when a Raytrix camera records an exposure, within that one exposure are 40,000 micro-images. It's all software from there. Post-focus is possible because, for possibly every point in the image, at least some of the micro-lenses had that point in focus, but not every micro-lens, which is why you still get bokeh. You can then create an image where possibly everything in the frame is in focus because you take each micro-lens's focused contribution and stitch them together.

Again, it must be understood that resolution is sacrificed. Raytrix perhaps does it best, and the most you can get with their cameras is approximately 25% of the sensor's specified resolution (i.e. 4MP sensor ~=> 1MP LF image).

LF imaging can also be easily simulated with a single, conventional camera. Taking either video or regularly spaced exposures (regular intervals and regular movement), and while the object is still, move the camera in front of the object in a planar array pattern. The same algorithms used for creating meshes from LF cameras can piece together these images, and you'll have postfocus and the whole bit.CalebPM (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

New Lightfield Photography Development

https://www.k-lens.de/en/home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.162.250 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)