Lytro failed, I assume, for the same reasons that companies like Apple makes winners out of failed ideas. When it came out, I nerded out and wanted one so badly. Luckily I couldn't afford one.
From what I read was that the software was slow, and it was a pain in the butt to go back and re-frame or refocus a shot. People don't do post-processing for mere white balance [1], why would they bother for focus, focal length, depth of field, pan, and perspective?
On the other hand, it means that high end gear is done. Once a well executed light field camera comes to market professionals will flock to it. They have to do post-processing anyway so they'll adopt the camera that is smaller, lighter, single insanely fast lens. Most importantly perhaps, a camera where they don't have to wrestle the bloody auto-focus (the kid! focus of the running kid on the edge of the shot!).
Better sensors and faster CPUs and digital cameras as we know them are dead.
[1] That's why I like film, preferably B&W. Take the time to do the right shot. Accept the results.
From what I read was that the software was slow, and it was a pain in the butt to go back and re-frame or refocus a shot. People don't do post-processing for mere white balance [1], why would they bother for focus, focal length, depth of field, pan, and perspective?
On the other hand, it means that high end gear is done. Once a well executed light field camera comes to market professionals will flock to it. They have to do post-processing anyway so they'll adopt the camera that is smaller, lighter, single insanely fast lens. Most importantly perhaps, a camera where they don't have to wrestle the bloody auto-focus (the kid! focus of the running kid on the edge of the shot!).
Better sensors and faster CPUs and digital cameras as we know them are dead.
[1] That's why I like film, preferably B&W. Take the time to do the right shot. Accept the results.