Living pictures of the last Space Shuttle mission ever

Posted on by Eric Cheng

Shortly after midnight on the evening of July 20, 2011, my phone rang. On the other end of the line was Philip Scott Andrews, a photographer who currently works for the New York Times. Philip had received a Lytro prototype camera and was charging it up on his way to the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center to photograph the landing of Space Shuttle Atlantis. Philip has been photographing NASA Space Shuttle missions for many years, and having a Lytro on the ground at the landing site for STS-135, the last Space Shuttle mission ever, was very special—the beginning of a new era in photography juxtaposed with the end of another era. We posted a few of Philip’s light field pictures this week and managed to catch up with him for a short interview.
–

EC: When exactly were these light field shots taken?

PSA: These images were taken at the Shuttle Landing Facility, the giant runway at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida after the Space Shuttle Atlantis landed there to conclude its final flight into space.

EC: How did you get access to photograph the last Space Shuttle landing ever?

PSA: I have been working on a project on the final flights of the Space Shuttle for the last few years. In that time I have had the opportunity to meet some of the people that make manned space flight possible. It was through these relationships, and a bit of lobbying around the press room, that I was granted access.

EC: How long have you been photographing Space Shuttle missions?

PSA: Hmm, the first launch I photographed was STS-114, the first flight after the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. That was July 26, 2005 (I had to look it up) so I guess 7 years. For my project, Last Days, I photographed the final 7 launches.

EC: How did you feel when you saw the landing of STS-135? What was the mood at the landing site?

PSA: It’s always a pretty happy vibe when a bird comes back safely. This one, of course, was different. I didn’t have a lot of time to think right as the orbiter was landing because I was working quickly to transmit images for [the New York Times]. A few hours afterward, when we were allowed to go under the wing, was when I really began to emotionally connect with the situation. Everyone was proud to be there. The Space Shuttle was always more than a job for those technicians but it was particularly poignant that day. For some of them it was their last day as an employee. It was a true gift to be able to be there.

EC: This was your very first experience with a light field camera. Can you tell us whether it changed the way you take pictures?

PSA: I think I probably looked at including things I would typically not consider in the frame, because I knew there would be no problem with the depth of field. I’m still getting used to the technology but it forced me to think about compositions differently than with a standard camera.

EC: How do you think light field cameras will affect photography and journalism in the future?

PSA: Whoa, That is quite a question. I missed the transition from film to digital in journalism but it will probably be something like that. The new crop of digital cameras have allowed photographers to do things film didn’t allow, from extremely high ISO settings to movies and audio capture. I think its impossible to tell what these cameras will do. I can almost guarantee that there will be naysayers, but if these cameras allow us to tell stories in a different or better way, and I think it’s obvious that they do, then they will be embraced and pushed to do incredible things that their inventors and early adopters can’t possibly imagine.

I just want to say thanks so much to lytro, I can’t wait to see what comes next.
–

Born and raised outside Washington D.C., Philip Andrews has interned for the Associated Press and National Geographic, and currently covers Capitol Hill and the White House on an internship with the New York Times. Philip has won numerous awards in photography and journalism, and has completed freelance assignments of protests, Space Shuttle launches, and forest fires for publications including the New York Times and Getty Images.

See more of Philip’s living pictures of Space Shuttle Atlantis in the living picture gallery. You may notice that these living pictures aren’t as refocusable as are some of the other pictures in the gallery. While light field cameras are capable of producing pictures with dramatic refocus potential, not all pictures need to refocusable to be great!

Our living picture gallery features the work of photographers in the Lytro Professional Shooter Program (PSP), a small group of forward-thinking artists who lept at the chance to be the first to use Lytro prototype cameras in the field.

  • http://www.beacheye.com Latisse Orange County

    Latisse Orange County is a unique treatment that can help you grow longer eye lashes. You can have beautiful thick lashes that you want and protect your precious vision at the same time.

  • http://none Nick Radonic

    Is it possible to post process the image data to get full depth of field (focus) across the entire photograph — I suppose by doing your calculations in increments from 0 to infinity in some finite number of steps, deciding the in focus vs out of focus areas and stitching the focused sections together?

    Alternatively, calculating the spacial distribution of ‘stuff’ in front of the lens and having mapping the image to different distances in each direction vector, according to that depth estimate. (somewhat related to your parallax demo video)

    • Padmanabha Rao

      Wouldn’t that need the Lytro product to contain a supercomputer?

  • http://theotherpages.org Steve

    Most of the promotional materials – and most of the comments as well – deal with focal issues. I notice that most of your images seem well balanced in terms of color and contrast. Does the light field approach make this automatic, or is it a part of your post-processing software? Also, while f/2.0 is good for a digital camera (though mediocre for a manual film camera), how sensitive is the system to movement? Is there an equivalent ISO rating I could compare it to?

    • Lytro

      Capturing the light field does offer new possibilities for simplicity and automation when shooting. The Lytro takes advantage of many of these possibilities. More FAQs, including this one about action shots and this one about manual controls, is on our Support site.

  • Ira Wilner

    It would appear that you cannot control depth of field, an important concept in photography, though I assume it might be possible with a fuller version of the post processing software using the original raw light field data. As indicated, this first generation camera has limited resolution when compared with conventional pixel locked imagers so that it is more appropriate for small format prints or electronic image viewing. And its being targeted in much the same way Apple has marketed its computers and media devices as a niche product for a loyal audience that craves simplicity and form over complexity and technical geekiness.

    Hopefully this is only the opening volley for this technology. As the imager expands in resolution along with data capture and near real time manipulation it could revolutionize photography and cinematography. The economic incentive to license other manufacturers who produce more traditional cameras will be intense. Not doing so will discourage its widespread adoption.

    I see it as a fundamental image capturing technology that should be shared for the better good. Technology is finally becoming mature enough to provide a practical foundation for it.

    This early incarnation, if overly promoted as an interactive social media sharing gimmick, will peak early and crash. Not a good way to launch a potentionally paradigm shifting technology.

  • http://www.ohrim.ru Alexey

    very interested in two questions:
    - Size file jpeg
    - Minimum and maximum possible area of ​​focus
    thank you

  • http://berhord.crimea.ua/ Vladimir

    It’s very symbolic when a new technology – monitors the last steps shuttle

  • Pingback: Designing Your Patio Area | Patio & Garden Supplies

  • BongoMongo

    I’d like to see more sample shots with a lot of depth and featuring mechnical objects (like tools and engines and stuff).

    A lot of your samples seemingly have only 2.5 levels of focus… the gimmick of a “web gadget” wears off pretty fast!

  • Pingback: Lichtfeldkamera » Gadgets » Hightech und Blech

  • Mac_Cal

    what is the Mega pixel of this camera? its shoot in RAW Files and JPEG?

    • Lytro

      The Lytro is built for online sharing and interaction with pictures, not for large format printing. It captures LFP files, but can save to jpg. The living pictures you see in the Lytro Picture Gallery are representative of the image quality you can expect (but dependent on the screen resolution of your viewing device.) Asking about the pixel resolution of a light field camera system is not really relevant because pixels are very well defined. A pixel is color value and luminosity, and a light field camera’s unit of capture is much more than that because each unit contains directional light ray data in addition to color and luminosity. Light field cameras capture megarays, not megapixels. The first Lytro captures 11 megarays. Our target resolution is HD at 1080p, but the full answer isn’t completely straightforward. 2D projections in light field are rooted in computational photography, and 2D resolution can vary based on all sorts of factors including focal depth (refocus).

      • http://www.ohrim.ru Alexey

        can you give some examples of live photos taken on your camera and converted to jpeg? Of course, with technical characteristics (size)

      • Dimitris M Papadakis

        So, what you are really telling us photographers here, is that this product, albeit innovative as it is, is still only of good use to the average teenager and housewife who wants to tweet and post pictures online on facebook.

        I was looking forward to seeing real creative control from this device. Besides I don’t really care about wasting my time “interacting” with a photograph online clicking on every “layer” to see each one of my friends’ faces. Ok, granted, this is good marketing of not so new technology.

        Important questions/suggestions:
        Many times we want to focus at f/64 or higher at infinity. i.e. landscape photography. What am I to do with an f/2? Can this camera produce an image, to use layman’s terms here, which appears to be in focus everywhere, without grain, which can, in turn, be printed at a quality similar to at least that of a medium-format camera? Or must it always be like this and it must always be viewed on a screen for maximum quality? Secondly, depth of field is also a creative choice, so having to click on an image every single time in five different areas, depending on what is being viewed, just to see all of it properly, becomes annoying. Can you set it up to output images that appear sharp? I know the average gramma is still fascinated by the “focus” and “blur” areas in a picture – “oooo that’s so artsy my dear,” but frankly who wants just all of their pictures to have this effect? You serious? Like millions of people on the internet posting pictures of the same style, doing the same thing over and over.. /f2 blur click there for focus, isn’t that going to be like the biggest overkill in the history of photography?

        Since it is designed to output digital images into a proprietary format… ehm.. you know, .. most of us smart people have trouble with proprietary formats….. Besides, most of this light field stuff can be simulated very easily if I take the same image maybe 5-10 times each time focusing at f/2 on each layer, depending on the depth, and then sandwich them together encapsulated in an interactive proprietary format… or alternatively I could get the same effect and do the same thing with just software by merely manipulating in photoshop a conventional razor-sharp picture taken at f/32 and create once more 5-10 layers with a different focus, and then sandwich them together encased in a proprietary “interactive” digital format.

        In other words, in my view, the “interactivity” part of clicking on focusing on gramma or grampa in the photo is completely irrelevant, and needn’t have gone the light field avenue, because the slight change of angle can be compensated and depth of field blur can all be software-generated. Really good marketing though. I bet the vast majority of people who get a Lytro will be people who already own an iPhone… (get the idea don’t you?)

        So I guess, the big question here is, will the camera/technology be of any use to anyone who wants to do more with photography rather than upload pics on their blog for their clicking-interactive-insatiable friends to see?

        • Kamil

          (forgive me my english it is not my ative language)

          I am not a professional photographer nor expect much from the camera i’m using, but I would like to shoot sharp photos with one-click of the shutter button and be able to correct the depth field to create some nice looking still images.

          And I definitely believe that this is what most of users expects from Lytro cameras. I had exactly the same questions as you Dimitry after I briefly checked the Lytro Picture Gallery.

          But because I’m an electronics engineer, I dig inside the “Science Inside” chapter and found the “CEO’s dissertation” document where this technology is described in more details.

          What you can read there is:
          - the device can shoot pictures with great depth of view using a single f/2 setting. Additionaly, the amount of light reaching the sensor is exactly the same all the time. This means you can shoot low light images with high depth in field. This really IS possible!.
          I wouldn’t try to describe how this works in details – you can read this in the “dissertation” document. This can be easily described as a sensor that capture lots of different aperture light rays per one pixels – and this is done on the flat surface sensor using micro lenses per each pixel (this is why it has limited resolution).
          - it is possible to create images with any-depth of field, focused on any object using the software. The final 2d picture is made by software calculating the image from many sub-aperture pixels for each resulting pixel.

          I’m not really sure how much of the software possibilities will be avaible in first commercial versions of this camera anyway. IMHO the quality of the sample photos is far from perfect, but as I understood, there is much place for improvements on this device and I strongly believe that folks from Lytro will work hard to provide a more proffesional version of this device!

          This looks like a beginning of something new and exiting. I would like to have all my photo’s focus adjustable.
          But I believe that this device should be a “good quality camera with possibility of correcting depth of field and focus” rather then “a toy that make interactive images”.
          I think this is what we are all looking for!

          Lytro folks – please work hard on the quality of images, and forget about the internet toys – this will not lead you to a great success that this device can be!

  • Pingback: Lytro Cameras Entering Production

  • Igor

    I think it could be a great camera, but how long does it take to save each photo? Is it fast? How does it work with low light?

  • KidColeco

    Will this be compatible with the iPad via the camera doc connector?

  • Mr Gaonkar

    Just imagine if this technology can be squeezed in a Nikon / Canon Body & lenses. The possibilities thereafter will be unlimited.

    Just as Film gave way to Digital. This technology has tremendous potential to be modified & used to redefine imaging & photography!

  • Sean

    Eric,

    Sorry this is slightly off topic, but there isn’t anywhere else I noticed on the sight to post this question…

    You list yourself as an Underwater Photographer. Has Lytro started looking at an underwater housing for the cameras yet? I’m running a D70 in an Aquatica housing today, and would LOVE to have something as small and elegant as the Lytro instead!

    Thanks,
    Sean

    • Neil Stead

      I was thinking the exact same thing! However, I notice that exposure is controlled via a Touchscreen on the back – rather tricky if it’s inside a housing!
      It really would be amazing for Macro Underwater Photography, though. Hope they can bring out something with a different way to set exposure – then there would be a good chance that someone might make a housing for it!

  • David

    Is that cross hatching effect around the edges of the focus and throughout the whole photo a negative side effect of the light array photography or is it an issue with the way the preview photos are displayed online?

  • http://www.atlantiseyecare.com Niraj Desai

    I am an ophthalmologist and I see potential for this technology in the detection of wavefront aberrations of the cornea. Currently, Fourier based wavefront algorithms are used for wavefront guided ablation of the cornea for LASIK. This technology has potential to give us new insights into corneal aberrations as well as intraocular lens technology.

  • Harry

    This camera will make excellent art in pictures.

    • http://500px.com/HLen Harry

      I will love to get one! Just curious if a JPEG conversion will sustain its quality & resolution?

  • Glenn Waites

    Can’t wait to get one, but seriously no Windows compatible client app? You do know it runs on 90+% of the worlds computers right? Release the windows client and I’ll release my cash to you :)

  • http://www.bestimageproduction.fotki.com Patrick Chan

    After I select different focus on the picture, can I save it as jpeg & print & what is the jpeg file size, thanks.

  • Jeff

    Will the camera be shipped with Windows software when it’s released? If I preorder now, it will work on my Windows computer when I get it?

  • John Davy

    Why are many of the questions regarding specs on the images (resolution etc) given vague answers or the question is actually dodged ? This concerns me ! What happens when/if the battery dies and is NOT replaceable ? Let’s be straight with people.

    Thanks

    John

    • Peeter Vissak

      I should like to know about the possible closest distance of shooting. Is this system usable as macro?
      And yes – the resolution?

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/9729517@N04/ Andrew Alper

    I would like to pre-order one right now. Please?

    I would like to put in my order.

    One for me please.

    I think the life sciences and Macro specialists will want this too.

  • http://www.but.ae Wim

    We document quite a lot of mega construction projects in the Middle East using video and time lapse devices. Would we be able to use the cameras to create time lapse video’s where you can shift focus?

    We have an upcoming project where a whole dock of huge container cranes will be erected on an island offshore (Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi, UAE) it would be very cool if we can create a timelapse of that construction and be able to shift the focus in the movie from the first crane to the last crane in the row.

    Thanks,
    Wim

  • James

    Any of the beta folks try a Lytro camera out scuba diving? I’m thinking it could really change things up.

  • http://jimmarkle.smugmug.com/ Jim Markle

    OK, I read your blog and get some idea of the groundbreaking opportunities and “challenges” facing Lytro, but I’m eager to try it on some projects. Over the past 4 years I’ve been working with researchers at the UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center on presentation materials, including 3D. We are always seeking ways to use new technology to document and educate visitors about the ongoing research to preserve Lake Tahoe. We could provide great opportunities to further test and promote the Lytro.

  • monk

    focus is dodgy on distant planes. nice gizmo for P&S shooters. now bring on the hate mail.

  • Grant

    As one great era of exploration ends — let a new type and era of exploration begin.

  • Joe Bowers

    Anyone who says this technology will not completely revolutionize photography simply has no understand of photography. This is a paradigm shift. This technology is just as or possibly more significant than the change from film to digital.

    • Jeff

      I have to agree. This will be yet another tool in the artist/photographer’s toolbox. Ansel Adams would have been impressed but it would not have changed the way he projected three dimensions of light and shadow onto two. Furthermore, this concept may spark further innovations leading to more ways to express an idea in light, shadow and color.

  • Hariharan Srinath

    Incredible stuff… All you now need is a way to sense the changing thickness of the eye’s lens (probably tricky) and iris size (easy) and you have TRUE virtual reality of the Neuromancer variety

  • Pingback: Light Field camera « Wayne Connor

  • jarfil

    Any word on light field video? I’d like to see that.

    • Lytro

      Video is possible with light field technology, but will not be included in the *first* Lytro. This is just the beginning….

  • Sanjay

    Hi,

    Does this light field camera technology have useful applications for astronomy? Can it be used for that purpose?

    CCD cameras that fit onto amateur telescopes are certainly available in the consumer market. Has anybody thought of fitting a plenoptic light field camera to a telescope, to capture light field information through it? Is it possible to do so?

    If not, why not? If so, then how could we adapt light field cameras for use with telescopes? Could a kit be offered?

    Thanks,

    Sanjay

    • Joe Bowers

      I’m a big fan of the technology, but I don’t see how a Lytro camera could help you here. Any camera, including a Lytro, would be focused at infinity at distances of beyond 25 feet (more or less, depending on the lens).

      The Lytro can only adjust the focal plane to objects within that distance. If all of your subjects, stars in this case, are beyond that distance, adjusting the focal plane to anything less than infinity will only cause your subject to become out of focus.

      • jbrink

        True – light-field cameras may not directly improve astro-photo’s, but they could be a valuable tool to diagnose abberations and optimise a telescope’s image quality. Using a lenslet array in front of a CCD to determine a telescope’s delivered wavefront is exactly the technique used to analyse optical performance on many large telescopes.

        • Kairi

          What if you place a telescope in front of the Lytro camera to take the photo? As in, the Lytro camera acts like our eye looking through the lens of the telescope. Just wondering…

      • Daniel

        Once the light rays from the astromonical objects have been through the telescope’s primary mirror they’re not even close to parallel, so the actual distance is irrelevant. In fact on a dobsonian with a rack and pinion focuser and a short focal ratio, it’s often quite difficult to get the focus right! Sure the planets are really several light-minutes away, but at the observer-end of the telescope’s optics that doesn’t really matter.