Watch Lytro Change Cinematography Forever

The Lytro Cinema Camera could be the most groundbreaking development in cinematography since color motion picture film. We go "in-depth" with the entire Lytro system in this exclusive video.
Full article:
nofilmschool.co...
From No Film School's complete coverage of NAB 2016:
nofilmschool.co...

[@GavinRemme]

"Back in my day, we actually had to focus before we took the picture"

[@QUITUTINCIPICTURES]

+Gavin Remme that's what i'll be telling my grandkids or even my sons

[@IAmNumber4000]

Lol, you never did. Hyperfocus has been a thing for a long time, producing a much nicer result. Manual focus pulling with a cinema lens or even a stills lens still looks a thousand times better than Lytro's crap camera.

[@roastface101]

Dude you've been flaming on almost every comment I've seen of this video. Its good you have an opinion, but chill bra.

[@timmmm5012]

@@IAmNumber4000this would’ve allowed you to change the focus after taking the shot, even with autofocus. For instance, if you have something in the background you want to see with better clarity. “Hyperfocus” only does the process of focusing on a subject for you.

[@RYSEproductions]

This is one of those things that seem absolutely mind-blowing now, but totally normal in about ten years. It was the same with electricity for example, so basically we're witnessing a revolutionary step in camera technology. I think we should tale a step back and appreciate that.

[@Echoplex25]

+RYSE how? the concept isn't really that innovative, it only saves time. like a short cut

[@IkarusFlight]

+siegeh25 Did you say the same thing about digital image capturing, back in the days when we used film?

[@ropersix]

+Ted Logan A lot of movies today are still shot on film. Four of 2015s top ten domestic grossing films, even (not just arty indie stuff). So we're still in "the days" when we use film. But yes, it will be history at some point.

[@mobspeak]

+RYSE That all depends on whether or not studios are willing to adopt this thing.

[@RYSEproductions]

+siegeh25 it shifts the power dynamic from production to post-production. To me, that's pretty revolutionary.

[@IkarusFlight]

I've dreamed of this since the first lytro. Now make a movie and track the eye-movement of the viewer to adjust the focal-point in real time!

[@Gravitized]

+Ted Logan I believe this to be one of the selling points to some of the competitors to the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive VR headsets.

[@thomassteele5748]

It will be years till this technology rolls out and is seen be general users, longer till this becomes integrated with VR headsets, by the time this technology becomes popular major headset producers will have adapted their designs to the new use. As of now I doubt that the computation needed to real-time calculate eye tracking and to accordingly adjust the depth focus of the image would be in current headsets, and I doubt the computational power will be in the headsets in the coming generations.

[@elasticmachinery]

Could be simple with with some rigged up contact lenses and silica on the low end and the tech from hands free/eye typing tech on the high end.

[@Proctie1]

My dear god... He said it himself, there's still long way for this to actually be used industry wide in high end productions, however the idea and technology is extremely fascinating and has potential to completely revolutionize how we capture and produce images. The CGI and post possibilities that opened up when we moved from film to digital is nothing compared to what we'll able to do when this technology matures....

[@GabrielDalposso]

that red thing(17:12) that captures the movement of the camera AUTOMATICALLY... MIND=BLOWN

[@diyrecordingstudio]

All that technology in a camera.... then for audio, places a wireless mic horizontally on the table in front of him.

[@MaxxMcGeeImpactStudios]

+Revolution Music Film & Photography I would like to have a similar technology for audio to get rid of background noise etc. ;)

[@EdmondOliverLives]

@@MaxxMcGeeImpactStudios Kinda like Nvidia RTX Voice?

[@RYSEproductions]

This guy knows his shit

[@McPhatTV]

+RYSE I was thinking the exact same thing.

[@kamel3d]

This is crazy! I was thinking before about the ability of extracting foreground object using a depth map and it finally happen and happen beautifully

[@jaquandaserwaa7522]

it never happened though. Google killed it

[@JoshKemmerer]

This is why you study math

[@Azuniite]

+Joshua Kemmerer Or physics rather. Or both :D

[@RocketRoomVideo]

More than both, really, was the genius to realize that a single lens can provide depth information that can be put to so many useful purposes. Can't learn that in any school.

[@james.tupper]

Yeah but can it upload directly to Instagram?

[@robinjohnson4613]

Haha no kidding

[@tallaganda83]

That is mindblowing technology, this could be bigger than film to digital.

[@Blackfilmguild]

Changing the shutter angle without a cut... that sounds amazing

[@HenrikvonMartensHvM]

So basically Lytros failed attempt at the consumer market turned out to be the best thing that could ever have happened to them. Happy for that, the technology seems to be Nobel price worthy. Still, if that is the future of filmmaking, I'll sure be craving for "that digital video look" from back in the days of rolling shutter and CMOS sensors of the year 2016...

[@TheDoobElDoobarino]

+Henrik von Martens Not to mention how we had to wrangle mattes to get rotos for 2D compositing, and we LIKED it that way! Consarned whipersnappers with their fancy-dan 4D space-time continuums... :-)

[@theteddychannel8529]

i have bad news for you...

[@gridvid]

This needs a revival... still awesome tech

[@futureshockdigital8391]

Incredible, it's revolutionary but probably more revolutionary for VFX than for regular cinematography. In my head I thought it was like a vector graphic vs a rastered graphic.

[@junejhunkie]

This can make post production even way longer.

[@dr.gumbyr.cheesephd6686]

+Francis June Sebastian Maybe but the green screen and depth mapping technology will make certain aspects much shorter.

[@HaroldsMind]

The tech behind Lytro is amazing! I think most will see and really understand how over time this can revolutionize what's possible after capture. Think back not too long ago how the first digital camera was compared to now.

[@movax20h]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This is game changing. It is probably producing 100GB per second. A lot of storage and processing required.

[@darviniusb]

+movax20h is the start of holografic cameras

[@IAmNumber4000]

It's not game changing. It's a gimmick.

[@Ephisus]

Why the hell are the closeups stabilized on the subject's heads?

[@TeamYankee2]

+Apsis Motion Pictures Not Lytro that;s for sure!!!

[@Mutantcy1992]

no film school i guess

[@BrakoFilm]

Cinematography has always fascinated and inspired me. This scares the shit out of me

[@iLikeTheUDK]

Why?

[@NotAverageAfro]

Because it doesn't take any skill or training to make something good. Imagine if you spent 20 years becoming a guitar master, and all of a sudden they invented a glove that allows you to play any song you want without training. You'd be pissed because you spent 20 years learning and understanding the guitar and a little scared as to where all your experience will be needed. Some little snob who has money can just come in, put the glove on, have no idea what he's doing and play a perfect set.

[@iLikeTheUDK]

SamuelDM What gives you the impression that it takes away all need for skill and even training?

[@FragMentEditing]

+AverageAfro This doesn't take away the skill required for making good movies. You still have to focus on everything involved, but this technology just allows you to focus less on the camera settings on set and focus more on, I don't know, the actual story, camera placement, lighting, and all that, then refine the little details of the footage in post. We already do that, this camera just gives you more freedom and reduces the need to do re-shoots for camera setting related problems. Contrary to whatever people like you might believe, re-shoots aren't good, or often that cheap. This can only help filmmakers, it doesn't take anything away.

[@iLikeTheUDK]

FragMentEditing Exactly.

[@user-hp9bg9oq5r]

What is it with cinematographers today not wanting to make FINAL decisions for their projects? Focus? Fix it in post. Framing? Fix it in post. Lighting? Fix it in post. Exposure? Fix it in post. White balance? Fix it in post. Wrong make up? Fix it in post. Actor hungry during filming? Feed him in post! I realise now that people like Spielberg or Tarantino have really big balls! I don't believe that the whole "fixitinpostmania" is actually "the way of the future", more like something to help uneducated or untalented people make movies. It's like recording the guitar and then you want to change what you played or the tuning. PLAY IT AGAIN. The masters will always know where their damn focus should be, and won't bother to spend even 5 minutes in post for something like that...

[@ian9outof10]

+Nτινος Σταματιου I don't make movies, but here's my take. Big budget films can shoot, and re-shoot if something goes wrong. To give an example, focus on movie cameras is tricky stuff and easy to blow if an actor or camera isn't bang on its mark. In a big budget movie, you could re-shoot, in a smaller budget film that's harder. Watch enough TV and film and you will see shots that are incorrectly focused from time to time. It's not a big deal, but it shows how budgets and time affect productions. Most filmmakers put a lot of effort into getting things right on set. And this camera sort of helps them tweak that later, but it also gives them other options, like 3D and effects shots that don't need a green screen to work. Green screens and motion tracking is hard, so I can see the appeal of making a process where that's less difficult. Of course this tech is a way off being practical, and years off being useful for low-budget productions. The VR camera is _VERY_ interesting though because of the complexities of shooting VR. I suspect that in the future there could be eye tracking systems that would allow you to focus in VR the way you do in real life. But that's a loooooong way away.

[@RJ-Isaac-TSOML]

+ian9outof10 I do shoot movies and have worked as both a director and cinematographer on small budget shoots. It doesn't matter if it is a big budget or small budget film, reshoots are very expensive. It's another day or week of hiring an army of technicians, actors, costumes, sets ect. Bigger budget films do technically have more money but each day of shoot costs a lot more than a low budget indy film. Even on an indy film many people work on it as a passion project so reshoots can be comparatively less. More to +Nτινος Σταματιου original question, post IS a part of the filmmaking process. There were directors who would "edit in camera". They would shoot only coverage of the scene they wanted so there was only one way to edit it. The problem is, the way you have it in your head doesn't always work and as stated above, reshoots are expensive. Thus, multiple takes and a lot of coverage just became the way to shoot a movie. When the editor decided to use a different shot or angle of coverage than the director had in mind that is technically "fixing it in post." Also, I have never heard anyone actually seriously say "we'll fix it in post." They might choose to do something in post because it is easier or cheaper. A camera like this isn't about fixing it in post, it's about giving more options to the editor and director to fine tune their work.

[@superwolf95]

+Nτινος Σταματιου i was thinking the same. i mean, i like the idea of a "better camera", for us it could be a better tool capable of new ways of shooting, the first thing that comes in my mind is the integration with VR headsets with eye tracking for dynamic focus. but the whole way they're putting this is "from now on you can forget all the good things you know and start acting stupid on the set". digital cinema of course is a great thing and i see a lot of good directors doing very good movies with it, better than what they could have done with film cause it's just a better tool. but in fact most of movies nowadays with their "digital look" have just a worse cinematography than what they used to do in big budget productions in the 90's or before, cause they think that a fancy color correction is enough, when we were used to see actual good lighting before the post production became the most important stage.

[@Rebelismo]

+superwolf95 You're comparing the cinematography of most movies of today with only big budget productions of the 90s? Are you talking about something like Sharknado, because I think that a lot of recent movies have great cinematography. The tools don't matter as much as what the artist does with them.

[@superwolf95]

Rebelismo i'm talking about today's big budget mainstream productions vs yesterday's one. pick a cinematography book, one with a lot of examples, and look how the light changed during the years. of course there are a lot of good cinematographers around today and now they have the perfect tools to achieve their idea, but i think that overall the best period was in the 80s and 90s, now it's all about soft light and fancy colors

[@maxthue]

David Fincher will have a blast seeing this!

[@daviddupoise6443]

THAT is Fn awesome! Incredibly innovative hardware, new and advanced plugins for OpenSource platforms ( YES!!!!) and such a creative engineering group. Throw money at these great people and hope that they don't get bought up by Adobe, Sony, or ...

[@ElAndresRodriguez]

David Dupoise pornhub?

[@HillDigital]

Finally the elimination of the green screen headache & true 3D could be possible with this Technology, Wow!

[@KurisuDE]

My mind is literally blown because of the awesomeness of this.

[@DOMINOSMOFO]

I'm flaccid with interest.

[@antdx316]

+DOMINOSMOFO So am I but it would be great for other things too other than cinematography.

[@QUITUTINCIPICTURES]

Lots of people will loose jobs in the film industry over this R.I.P Focus pullers

[@JoeRichardson02]

+QUITUTINCIPICTURES very few people really aim to be a focus puller though; it's usually just a way for people to become skilled at something (don't worry, i'm not saying focus pulling is easy)and gain experience and contacts. There will be plenty other/new ways of people doing that, even with this camera being a industry standard.

[@QUITUTINCIPICTURES]

Nobody aims to be that but people end up there for money purposes cause they don't get chances at any jobs as dop

[@IAmNumber4000]

Manually pulled focus looks a thousand times better than this. Am I the only one that noticed? The shots in the video look like they've had a shitty bokeh effect added in Lightroom or something. Because that's literally what's happening. Absolutely no studio in their right mind would ever use the Lytro. Manual focus pulling is faster, looks infinitely better, and is cheaper to boot. In a studio environment it makes ZERO sense to use the Lytro, as you can just do reshoots if you ever mess up the focus. With focus peaking assists on most production cameras, though, messing up focus pulling is pretty much impossible. The Lytro cinema camera is a solution out looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

[@BBWinner48]

Isnt that AE's Job??

[@xkatnisstylinson]

No but seriously, RIP roto artists... and also I wonder what the new entry level in VFX is going to be... I think that when this becomes standard it's going to be even harder getting into the industry for junior compositors because usually the first job you get is as a roto artist.

[@ZevHoover]

Reytrix already has some light field video cameras, but they are aiming at the scientific community.

[@RyanThompsonrthomp]

You guys warp stabilized the shit out of the side interview shot. Next time mask out the person so it doesn't make you some people queezy. Examples: 1:36 , 3:40 , 3:50 , 4:03 , 5:05 , etc regardless, I'm glad you guys got this interview! I enjoyed listening to the science behind the camera

[@LanceCampeau]

"with a starting price of $125,000 for a rental"... and another 2 million for a functional editing suite.

[@HaloUnion]

I am pumped about the changing technology of cameras and lighting.

[@hadipourkerman]

awesome, deep compositing with real footage .. really awesome

[@blueeffusion]

Oh man, people are going to be in post forever now.

[@vsulmgc]

Great report on a stunning technology. Kudos to Lytro and to No Film School for your respective roles in bringing this information to the creative world who hungrily awaits it!

[@stupidbananagamer5717]

This would take filmmaking to a new level

[@holaco448448]

I guess people who disliked this video are used to be rotoscope artists 😂

[@kobayashimaru8114]

This is truly impressive. I can't wait to see how this technology matures in the coming years and how it will be used in and out of cinema.

[@sublimal2]

Thank you for not dumbing it down

[@AlbaAdventures]

I have been waiting for this. I played with the lytro still camera - amazing device but, was hoping for video - now this blew me away.

[@KyleCulver]

A freaking awesome tool. Also, I find it ironic that while we're getting a great in-depth look into the next-age camera technology, the secondary shot in this interview of Jon is terribly stabilized cell phone footage... what's up with that? lol

[@nineeast8730]

FINALLY! Photoshop techniques for cinema.

[@Samtagri]

Incredible! Thank you for keeping this interview in one video to try and explain the system from beginning to end. Was very informative. I hope Lytro can get interest from the film industry. I was skeptical, but yea, now I think they've got something special.

[@amathma]

Wow wow. I'm happy to be a young artist. The future cinematography is going to be absolutely amazing, sharper and faster. Thanks guys for the video. Thanks Lytro for this !

[@michaelcooney9368]

What would really make this camera great is if it could work somewhat like the Paul Debevic lightstage. What it you could just light a character in a flat white room, capture a frame by frame 3d pointcloud of him, put him in a CG dungeon with a fireplace and as he walks by, the cg fire relights the live action as though the character was really standing next to the fireplace.

[@hanniffydinn6019]

Clearly the future, this makes normal cameras completely and utterly pointless. Amazing ! Not having green screens is just enough! Having full light field capture is so useful.

[@Bikewithlove]

Amazing camera system, I'd like to see how it can handle Tane doing a flarhgunnstow.

[@YVZSTUDIOS]

so "standard" RAW video made it possible to correct WB etc. in Post.. and this camera makes it possible to change the ap., shutter speed, iris shape!!? like.. "accurate anamorphic oval bokeh" in one click. "keying out using depth information instead of greenscreen" just with a few sliders in post.. *This is some very amazing piece of technoligy!* :^) I believe that it will take a lot of time, but eventually this get's integrated in our all-day lives. A phone camera already can shoot RAW images today.. You can make nice prediction how the technology would evolve.

[@shamrock1430]

great coverage, thanks for the heads up..This changes everything! We truly are living in a magnificent era..technology keeps changing what we think is possible..What's next!?

[@LawlessTech]

Wow, this is an absolute game changer!

[@mobspeak]

This is going to be great for filmmakers who make lots of mistakes, filmmakers who are lazy, and filmmakers who want everything to look like the Star Wars prequels.

[@meahhhhhhhhhhhh]

what a time... what a time...

[@alexmaris3561]

I think the majority of you all have short sighted concerns. it seems to me that this would allow more focus on the quality of acting performance, sets, everything important to telling a story and leave the technical stuff as not even an issue anymore.

[@KahloCopan]

Trippy. Impressive....gotta aim to work with one soon enough.

[@patrickbutler87]

@21:59 "nuke" sounded like ADR to me!

[@victorfilm_]

2016: Self driving vehicles and now this!

[@HAlariousInc]

Self driving vehicles have already existed

[@TristanCurrieTCP]

Great news for actors - no more react in an emotional authentic way to a piece of green fabric

[@sushiboots]

Now they can get an authentic emotional reaction to a parking lot

[@Mutantcy1992]

Wow good for Lytro. Their consumer cameras didn't do too well from what I understand, but this technology is huge so I'm glad they have kept at it.

[@sulev111]

they are defunct.

[@artzoc]

it seems Lytro was acquired by Google in 2018 and shut down. Interesting.

[@NicoIsntHere]

I think this is ground breaking and cool, but a little sad to see the craft reduced to a program and everything is done in post.

[@menoats]

Now you know how people who swore by film felt.

[@IAmNumber4000]

Lol, don't worry, Lytro's cameras are all gimmicks. Pulling focus with a follow focus system on a cinema lens still looks a thousand times better. There's absolutely zero point for this thing to be used in a studio environment, where you can take the time to get your focus right, and do another take if you don't.

[@TheAngryCanary]

right. but it's just a matter of time until it is as good.

[@NatesFilmTutorials]

Cant wait till they use this technology in smaller cameras!

[@MarkIreland_carrierband]

We will fix it in post, Lovie!

[@RandomTreeProductions]

This is very cool and very fascinating... But at the same time, I don't know if this is what should be the next step. Everything looks so... fake, and un-cinematic. Very much like the camera's used on Attack of the Clones looked like. Understandably so, this is the first generation of this new camera, and of course it's not gonna look fabulous of be a small enough size etc etc. But idk, theres not very much nuance or character in the images, hopefully in the future they're improve and get on a level such as the RED or Arri cameras.

[@Rebelismo]

+Random Tree Productions There isn't much character because they didn't show any lens parameters that look like any of the current Cooke/Zeiss/whatever lenses. In another presentation, it was mentioned that they'll be able to replicate any lens that's currently on the market, and use it in a LUT type way. At that point the characteristic feel of what we're used to seeing, should be there. Currently it just looks like the most basic blur, which is not appealing. The technology will get there in time.

[@raredreamfootage]

+Random Tree Productions That has more to do with the form factor of the camera. Right now they are stuck with a very immobile camera due to the size and weight. So they need to show it off in this way. I can't weight until they can develop this technology into a Sony A7 footprint with in-camera storage.

[@paulgall3475]

This is quite literally, a 100% interesting thing. I'm quite literally fascinated.

[@rbus]

Lightfield photography is interesting and has some great applications in VFX work but the way it's being hyped using woop-dee-doo words like microlenses and raytracing only confuses people rather than explains how this tech can actually work for them. So it's a presumably very high-quality digital camera sensor coupled with a special polarization filter ("the microlenses") which are calibrated together so that software knows which angle of polarization corresponds to pixel on the sensor to reconstruct the proper images within given angle of light ("the raytracing" .. sorta). Simple.

[@SpencerStamitoles]

fundamentally changed the fundamental photography of its fundamental light

[@Taz_Olson]

I love the idea but my biggest issue is the question of what the data rate is? It's got to be a few hundred GB per minute at least.

[@LukeMaximoBell1]

195GB per second data rate. recording at 300 frames per second.

[@Taz_Olson]

And I thought shooting on a blackmagic was expensive. This tech still has a ways to go at that rate

[@mr702s]

Four years later, what happened to this? Why have I not seen these used in big projects yet?

[@Eliguitar1]

absolutely mind blowing tech to be sure. also a file management nightmare. how many TB of data for an entire feature, including multiple takes, etc? i can't even imagine. it also seems like if the footage was shot with focused artistic intent in the first place it makes much of the tech completely besides the point and an active impediment/distraction.

[@ucheucheuche]

9:30 Pros: for the green screen advantages alone, let alone focus pulling accuracy, this is on the bucket list. Cons: bulky and costly

[@user-ef5nd3ho3n]

2019??

[@RyanThompsonrthomp]

If anything needs schooling on no film school, this would probably be that one thing haha

[@AVClip]

absolutely mindblowing

[@itsdigitalmagic]

Was it just me, or could he double as Liev Schreiber's voice?

[@NetvoTV]

Jon definitely a left hander!

[@Just_Ve]

They manage to get that LYTRO ILLUM to work properly? I mean, is a bit difficult to trust in a new product when they didn't get the first one to work as it should.

[@devrim-oguz]

This surely is a very expensive camera, but maybe some companies can make a special room full of this cameras that will capture the whole lightfield. They can shoot all of their shots in that room and edit it later instead of carrying one or more of these cameras to somewhere.

[@catcher10LP]

They should create a VR application with eye-Tracking, so the User can Focus by himself by looking on an object!

[@rdoetjes]

`Wow I am blown away about the abilities. Especially for VFX this is a great tool.

[@pottuvoi2]

+Raymond Doetjes Indeed. Ability to shoot in final lighting environment without worrying green screen and having 3D surface of actors is mind boggling. Moving camera after the shot is a nice bonus. I bet the compositing team of King Kong would loved to have lightfield camera when they got shots of miniatures with moving trees which had to fit live 'jungle' environments, characters and CGI monsters moving between layers.

[@rdoetjes]

pottuvoi2 I agree. This technology in my mind will initially fill a niche for VFX supervisors on set. When in doubt shoot with a Lytro. I actually had a shot last week I worked on for an indie film where they shot on location and the director decided after the shoot that he wanted the whole background gone and just wanted an empty prairie. I had to rotoscope for 2 days for this 26 second shot. The track obviously was a pain and still not superb but it will whizz passed. But if they could have shot on a lytro I would have been very happy in that case :D

[@ArtiePenguin1]

It's such a shame this technology did not make it. It is very cool in principle but not very practical in the real world with nearly 600 gigabytes (!) for every second of video. Even 7 years later, that is way too much data to handle (nearly 2 petabytes per hour). Maybe in another 10-20 years someone else will reapply a similar technology in a more efficient way so we can get all the flexibilities of a light field camera but with more sensible data usage.

[@JaredReabow]

11:22 the green screen replacement is cool, but i see issues with tracking, if an actor walks back or fowards they will change the focal point . With green screen it doesn't matter

[@user-hk3ej4hk7m]

+Jared Reabow (Jazza) And if you place your finger in front of the camera you are not going to get a good picture :v (just don't do it). You can still, put a green screen on the background and get a better result

[@FragMentEditing]

You could animate the focal length to track the movement of the actor.

[@IAmNumber4000]

And it doesn't reduce the need for keying. There are still visible halos around the actors. These mongoloids have managed to make a $150,000 (rental) camera that's actually *inferior* to a green piece of fabric. Jesus.

[@user-hk3ej4hk7m]

IAN 4000​​ your comment just shows that you have no idea of what lightfield means. It's like a painter complaining that a huge black box that can take low resolution black and white photos is just a piece of crap. The technology is not here yet, but the effort these guys are putting on pushing lightfield into the life of professional filmakers is extraordinary, you could at least appreciate that.

[@user-hk3ej4hk7m]

IAN 4000 It's real focusing. You could know that if you knew how lightfield cameras work. A lightfield camera is composed by a lot of pinhole "sub-cameras", because of that, the bokeh effect you see there is not "natural". The images that camera takes are unusable without further processing, it captures the lightfield (with some limitations of course) and because of that, images that derive from that space are virtualized cameras. Think about it as a camera that captures volume, a real volume, where volexs exist instead of a plane, where pixels exist

[@ovonisamja8024]

At first I was like, ok, why don't you just show it to us instead of talk about it. But at the end I was like, oh, ok, that's why. Cool. My bad. :)

[@deletedwaffles]

15:56 That just looks like a budget Syfy channel quality movie.

[@Samtagri]

That was just a demo to show what the system can do. They won't spend a million dollar blockbuster budget on a demo video.

[@OlivierMaXZUCCARO]

+Samtagri This type of camera will certainly hit a price around 6 digits... even 7 digits if you take in account the whole ecosystem ( servers, licenses, softwares... ). And i'm pretty sure since he is speaking about "their cloud" that there will be a monthly / annual subscription involved. So, not a million dollar blockbuster, but they could have spent a little more or... even maybe worked with a renowned director. Still... this is a really insane technology.

[@MegaMoviemaker13]

Actually, for Barry Lyndon Stanley Kubrick used modified nasa camera lenses and got shots with a focal length of between .25 mm and .35 mm

[@RobertLeidl]

In 10 years, my smartphone will be able to do all of this :)

[@benandreas369]

+Robert Leidl which is what hollywood is scared to death of...you see what artists can do in their homes? Soon they will be able to make high quality films from home in no time.

[@paranoidandroid00]

One of this days they will make an entire movie in a computer.

[@spproplus]

Good interview and product. what is with the frequency in the background going for low to high in frequency?

[@ChrisPowellMerleApAmber]

Brilliant! Simply BRILLIANT!

[@IAmNumber4000]

It's a scam.

[@minecraft2048]

The thing that bothers me much is that they never tells us how long it takes to upload those raw lightfield recordings to the cloud, because eventually the internet will be the bottleneck. And there are much more applications to this then just cinematography. Imagine mounting this on an airplane and doing a 3D scan of a city and using that dataset for Google Maps. Or some sort of optical target acquisition radar, or space debris imager, or an imaging satellite. 3D maps of Mars

[@ian9outof10]

+minecraft2048 well he does say how big each "frame" would be, which will tell you just how much time you'd need to upload it.

[@1monto1]

wow mind blowing stuff. This could lead on to so much more. Excellent

[@DaveKatague]

The funny part about the footage is it’s wobbly, they should’ve used a lytro

[@Beyondflix]

I love the fact that you can achieve tilt/shift effects without the optical components. They were a pain in the ass and I'm happy they're being replaced. Still this will take away the intellectual work of a technician while shooting which is kinda sad, but the same thing applies for workers on an assembly line. Future is unstoppable.

[@IAmNumber4000]

Dear lord. The rental cost of this camera is $125,000. For that amount of money you could fill a swimming pool with tilt shift lenses. This camera is a gimmick. Please regard it with the skepticism it deserves. I could go into detail about why it's a bullshit product if you'd like me to.

[@Beyondflix]

Well I actually would like to hear your opinion. I will state mine as well, if you care to read it: This is the first foot that Lytro dares to set in the world of cinema cameras, therefor it should be regarded as a prototype. From an engineering point of view, the optical properties of this camera are incredible. Once they will be able to - as they have already announced - introduce the technology in a smaller camera body which can also be operated from the shoulder, they really got something worthwhile on their hands. Of course the initial price will drop through time, just like with every major prototype that goes into wide production. If you take a look at how Tesla started out, you will see the same principle. As a director, I would love to work with this camera, as I was already able to get my hands on a Lytro Illum last year, which really made me appreciate the artistic possibilities, this tech has to offer. I'm curious where this will go.

[@IAmNumber4000]

JustNoise My opinion is that it is possible for a technology to be both incredible and pointless. A step forward in technology can easily be confused with a step sideways. A machine that counts how many grains of sand there are on a beach instantly is amazing, but no one will want or buy it and it is effectively pointless technology. Think about what they're selling. A camera that delivers a sub-par bokeh effect with the benefit that you don't need to focus while you're actually filming on a studio set. Studios are used primarily because you can reshoot again and again until you can get the shot you want. Therefore, it is pointless for them to want to do their focusing in post instead of just get it over with while shooting. And frankly, their focus pulling in their program looked awful. It looked like somebody was adding a Gaussian blur effect in Photoshop. It was really ugly. I don't know if you know what a follow focus is, but they're a lot of fun to use. A cinema-style lens can go as low as $600, a follow focus costs $100, and most video cameras also have focus peaking assist so you can immediately know where you're focusing and with how much precision. And manual focus pulling with a cinema-style lens produces a simply _beautiful_ result. It's hard to beat. And it's quick, precise, cheap, and easy. Whereas the Lytro costs $125,000 for rental packages, a good DSLR, a shoulder rig, a follow focus, and a Rokinon lens cost like $2,000. Everything you can do on the Lytro cinema camera is already doable, and for far cheaper. The camera records data that is apparently supposed to make it easier to create CGI, but adding light sources and objects is already extremely easy within 3D programs and render engines. They didn't mention a single reason why their technology would actually improve a 3D workflow. They just said a lot of buzzwords and it makes it seem like they're trying to scam or trick people. Workflows in professional studio environments are all already fairly entrenched. The cinematographers that use them aren't going to change them for the opportunity to use a $125,000 camera that effectively makes their work harder by recording data at unmanageable levels. It records what, like 100 GB per second? No one wants to deal with that if they don't have to. And they don't have to. This reminds me of Solar Freakin' Roadways. Everybody's jumped on the "It's the future, we should start throwing money at everything that looks futuristic" bandwagon. Nobody calms down long enough to consider the fact that the technology we're already using works orders of magnitude more efficiently than what is being proposed.

[@Beyondflix]

Well of course you can do all that with a dslr, but what you talk about isn't being used in a studio setup. I'm talking big studios here. Universal, Warner Bros, etc. If they can save money on manpower while shooting, they will. The only issue here is the data volume. But that is just a question of time. The arguments you brought forward are the same that were used against the electric car since I was a child. And now we have Tesla, who are changing the world with their company. The combustion engine worked out great. As do nuclear power plants, but still solar energy is the future. Actually celluloid worked out pretty great as well. Still the digital revolution was unstoppable. The first cameras were shit compared to film, but as time goes by they improved and continue to do so. Having worked in a studio environment, I know for a fact that there are possibilities for automation. Just wait for it. The technology will come.

[@Jerbod2]

Dude this is sick.

[@RadianHelix]

The perfect camera for the DP / director that has no idea what they want and plans to change their mind 40 times in post. :p Those sick Alpha Masks from the depth map is sexy as all hell though. I want that.

[@iLikeTheUDK]

If the director is incoherent in their ideas, the film will still be crap. Talent will always be required to deliver quality no matter what.

[@RadianHelix]

I think the main application of this system really is scientific and technical. With the ability to raytrace particles in motion you have a straight way to translate fluid effects. You can even use the slight parallax to create volumetric effects for compositors. It need multiple generations of miniaturization and and the entire ecosystem to scale to fit the data overhead. I'd never use this system as is in the field for basic cinema work. I'd use it for the creation of visual effects and it would never leave the soundstage.

[@xpez9694]

this is really a VFX camera. Basically just used for the most trickiest shots. Using it to shoot a whole movie seems kind of overkill..

[@kubolor1234]

And with a sensor like that, data management will be crazy.

[@creepyzebra]

Where are you now :p Knew this would never take off

[@jesseaok]

Id settle for a steady b shot camera at this point...

[@MilesBellas]

10:30........notice the flickering on the female's hair net in the black and white image....... won't that create an artifact in the comp ? it can't do as good of a job on fine detail like the hair mesh as chromakey ?

[@PrashantRawat]

what about outdoor shooting

[@18000rpm]

A technology in search of a problem...solving a problem nobody asked for, just like the Lytro photo camera.

[@toyeadeniran6394]

+18000rpm lol its solves a problem that entire studios get paid to do lol. There are 3 studios where i live that get paid millions to pull keys, rotoscope and add stereoscopic 3d in post. This removes them from the equation. Do some research into it, you would be surprised. Watching this made me smile because it would make VFX artist lives alot easier and it weeds out the boring low paying jobs, ie rotoscoping, pulling keys and adding stereoscopic 3d.

[@ropersix]

It would be nice not to have to worry about keeping focus, especially at those shallow depths of field.