If you take a snippet of what Maris said, basic information theory (can't distil more from less), this should explain it.
There's no conceivable way of extracting information about the original 3D scene from the antique photograph that now only exists as a 2D object. It's certainly possible to do tricks of photo-editing, but those will be limited by the skill of any operator and will be inherently fictional.
The Lytro literally captures all the information that's necessary to allow focusing later at the initial push of the shutter. It's optical system is wholly unlike a normal lens, and consists of many lenses that allow it to record spatial information, as well as "photic" information (for lack of a better term).
This is hard to explain, but we're discussing totally new stuff, so I guess it's only fair.
It may be the case that there is some unused (and currently unappreciated) information in the 2D photographs that we have now that can be used by new technology either now or some time in the future.
I would think that there might be more potential for this with film based photography, given the fact that a negative or a slide isn't purely 2D - they do have some inherent depth.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Yes, Lytro is a different way of making pictures but not all picture-making processes are photography. It is a general characteristic of pictures fabricated from data, as Lytro does, as digital picture-making does, as painting and drawing do, that the picture-making system is susceptible to data manipulation at the discretion of an operator.
Originally Posted by holmburgers
Photography in its original and true sense is one of only half a dozen or so known image making techniques that do not generate or consume data anywhere in the work flow; no data, no possibility of data manipulation. Not only is Photography different to Lytro it is in an entirely separate class of image making.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Interesting. What other processes do you refer to?
Photography in its original and true sense is one of only half a dozen or so known image making techniques that do not generate or consume data anywhere in the work flow; no data, no possibility of data manipulation.
In regards to data/information how do you make the distinction between an array of digital information and an array of chemical information? In both situations the raw data is useless to us until it gets manipulated in an algorthim of some sort. In one case mathmatical computations, in the other chemical process in a prescribed order. Under your definition, doing anything except looking at a scene or, to get past the trivial case, exposing a film and leaving it as a latent image would preclude it from being photography. Using a yellow filter, developing for contrast, burning in a print, even developing at all involves intrepetation, i.e. manipulation of the original data.
Please forgive if you think that I'm attacking in some way as I'm certainly not. I find these grey areas of what is and what is not fascinating to mess around in.
"There is no such thing as objective reality in a photograph"
and (gasp!) dpug photos
- take a look if you like.
No offense intended, but that's a bunch of mystical confusion. Photons carry discrete information (finite energy each), exposed/activated silver halides carry discretised (digital) information and the development of film is most certainly the transformation and manipulation of that data. Arguing that digital photography is different from analogue photography is like arguing that drawing with ink is fundamentally different from drawing with pencil because the marker is a liquid instead of an abraded solid. Sure there are (irrelevant) differences in underlying technology but they involve the manipulation of the same information (marks on paper; recording of an optical image) and the user interface is identical (stick makes marks; a planar sensor measures integral of luminous flux wrt time).
Originally Posted by Maris
While Lytro contains a 2D image sensor, the image on the sensor is not the image as we perceive it because the optical system is not a classic lens. So Lytro is a fundamentally different scene-recording technique from 2D photography but the reasons for that lie in the optics and how they transform the received lightfield into a 2D image, not the fact that there is digital signal processing involved.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I imagine acoustic sound recording would fit the description. Record collectors prize records prior to tape because they are direct recordings of the original sound.
Originally Posted by nhemann
Horn - Diaphragm - Needle - Wax - Stamper - Shellac - Needle - Horn.