StevenE

StevenE

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Feb 24, 2009

Comments

Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@Wye ...np
... color shifts can be faked, but nothing is free.
@Prof ... if the reflected glare hasn't clipped the highlight, you may be able to enhance the underlying detail, but that's not reproducing the effect of the polarizer, which can eliminate the reflected light such that it never existed (as far as the sensor is concerned). The saturated signal has no detail to recover, and of course even in not fully saturated regions there is no information about polarization. If the sensor was able to detect and quantify polarization, then in theory the signal from reflected light could be separated from the signal of the non-reflected light (since the reflected portions have been polarized by the reflected surface), but you would still need a sensor with huge DR since the reflected light is often just clipped glare.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@Wye ... that's not homework, that's a fool's errand. There is no way to reconstruct the effect of a polarizer on reflections using software no matter how much $$$ you throw at it. It would require entirely new sensor technology before you could even think of developing the software.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@Wye ... polarizers cannot be faked with software. A polarizer filters out the wave oscillations along one plane. You adjust to taste when taking the photograph, giving the ability to alter the color of sky, and eliminate or exaggerate reflections.

Reflective surfaces reflect waves on one plane more than it's orthogonal component (which is dispersed and provides detail of the surface or below the surface). Software cannot see through the reflection of the water to what's underneath because the pixels were swamped with reflected light. The same applies to any reflected surface: surface details are not available to the software because reflected light swamps those pixels.

The polarizer eliminates the reflected light thus allowing the dispersed light (detail which is much less intense) to be recorded without swamping the relevant pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 15:26 UTC

The beginning of the video shows quite a lot of wiggle in the original Sony mount.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 15:14 UTC as 56th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (387 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: I like this camera.
But light is like money, there never seems to be enough around. So low light performance is really important to me. Great performance at ISO 2500 and useable ISO 10,000 are big consideration. This fact alone keeps me with the 5D3. Although the A7s is really tempting, it really would just fill the 5D3 spot but with no magic lantern and fewer lens options (and the A7s is fiddly, and apparently has bizzare color artifiacts in highlights).
I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the C100 mkII (and EOS-M III for pocket-sized cam), other than that I'll consider adding the new Sony PXW-FS7.

PS ... if it weren't for low light performance, this GH4 would probably be at the top of my list.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 13:30 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (387 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: I like this camera.
But light is like money, there never seems to be enough around. So low light performance is really important to me. Great performance at ISO 2500 and useable ISO 10,000 are big consideration. This fact alone keeps me with the 5D3. Although the A7s is really tempting, it really would just fill the 5D3 spot but with no magic lantern and fewer lens options (and the A7s is fiddly, and apparently has bizzare color artifiacts in highlights).
I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the C100 mkII (and EOS-M III for pocket-sized cam), other than that I'll consider adding the new Sony PXW-FS7.

Some say the new D750 is the way to go for low light in Nikon, I'm sure the D810 is really good too. They may both be better than the 5D3 (which is getting old) at this point. But the 5D3 is doing the job for now in low light, and in a few months (maybe a year) there'll be a 5D4 and/or a C100 mk II (these companies will be leapfrogging one another for a while yet I suspect). I don't have an urgent need, but definitely watching developments because who doesn't want ever-increasing quality and features, and very happy to see all the brands making strides.
Someone starting from scratch may do well with a Nikon body and lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 13:23 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review preview (387 comments in total)

I like this camera.
But light is like money, there never seems to be enough around. So low light performance is really important to me. Great performance at ISO 2500 and useable ISO 10,000 are big consideration. This fact alone keeps me with the 5D3. Although the A7s is really tempting, it really would just fill the 5D3 spot but with no magic lantern and fewer lens options (and the A7s is fiddly, and apparently has bizzare color artifiacts in highlights).
I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the C100 mkII (and EOS-M III for pocket-sized cam), other than that I'll consider adding the new Sony PXW-FS7.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 13:02 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
On Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Guba: Cool product. I do shudder to think of seeing all the super slow motion videos of people doing inane things. Long live the selfie generation.

Cue the slow motion nose picking

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 14:54 UTC

The uber-wealthy really have nothing to do with their time and money.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 13:50 UTC as 69th comment
On Sony shows off upcoming full-frame lenses at Photokina article (324 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Can anyone explain what happens to the equivalent aperture when you stick on an Ultra Wide converter? Does the 28/2.0 just become a 21/2.0?

I don't know, but it's an interesting concept. A lot easier and quicker to add a converter on the end than change lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 01:38 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)

The Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 weighs as much as a full frame 70-200 2.8, and that's a turn off. I might as well carry the FF.

I have owned a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (APS-C lens) for many years and it's a great lens, except it doesn't have IS. It's parfocal too, which is great for video!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 16:31 UTC as 79th comment | 4 replies
On Photokina 2014: Sony stand report article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: That 16-35 is massive.... scary as it's not even F2.8

Where is the wide angle FE prime???

@probert500 it's smallish for a powered zoom video lens (with three rings, minimal breathing and probably parfocal)
It's not really designed for the A7s, but for the new PXW-FS7 video camera, but it can be used on the A7s too, so BONUS!
Edit ... oops wrong lens, thinking of 28-135 f/4 powered zoom. But this lens is still not bad at around 500g seems quite reasonable
@FujLiver agreed ... add a 24 to the 55 and it's a nice package on the little A7 cameras

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 04:20 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Sony stand report article (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

sportyaccordy: That 16-35 is massive.... scary as it's not even F2.8

Where is the wide angle FE prime???

It's 100 g less than the Canon version, a 1/2" shorter, and 5mm smaller filter thread (72mm)
So, it's smallish for what it is.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 15:56 UTC
On Sony unveils FE PZ 28-135mm F4 G OSS cinema lens article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artur Pietruch: This lens was introduced with a new 4K super 35mm PSW-FS7
http://www.cinema5d.com/sony-fs7-launched-portable-super35-4k-camera-exclusive-hands-on-video/
So it is very inexpensive cine lens for e-mount cameras

The canons are $25,000

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 20:36 UTC
On Sony unveils FE PZ 28-135mm F4 G OSS cinema lens article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

wsalopek: ASTRONOMICAL PRICE.

For those who want some kind of decent line of FE lenses (good/great performance AND at least semi-affordable) as they consider buying into the Sony FE ecosystem...announcements like this are rather disheartening....$2500?

Honestly, to say something like this "expands the FE lineup", is like saying "Gulfstream has introduced a new business jet, so YAY, Joe Traveler has more choices of aircraft to fly".

Of course I exaggerate some but...

Look...this is probably a good lens. But for Canon and Nikon customers who are considering an A7/variant (or indeed ANYONE considering an A7/variant), the limited number of FE lenses (A-mount + LA-EA4 is far from ideal), compounded by the utter astronomical prices of said Sony lenses, is, well, like I said, sickening.

Yes, the canon versions are around $25,000 at f.2.8 and are super 35 only (APS-C)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 20:35 UTC
On Sony unveils FE PZ 28-135mm F4 G OSS cinema lens article (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: Wow! Sony innovation! Nice work Sony!

Downscaling photos from an A7r to 12 MP will produce image quality very similar to the A7s, so there is no need to get the A7s, while it is selling for more than the A7r, right?

The A7s is video optimized. The A7s blows away the A7r for video.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

JohnTh: Most probably this throws out Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 and even Canon 16-35 F/2.8. Eager to see the image IQ, distortion charts etc. vs to above and Nikon 14-24.

John C Tharp ... Agreed .... The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 II is still king of the PJ ultrawides, and shots from this lens have won many PJ awards. The ability to go to 2.8 still gives it the edge over Canon's new 16-35 f/4L IS

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 12:24 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

ipecaca ... auto mode with backlighting yields an absolute garbage photo. But then you would need a bit of knowledge to understand that, and even more to understand how to deal with it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

peterstuckings ... exactly!

Bottom line: this photo had zero chance of existing without the hard work, knowledge, expertise, and intent of the photographer. The photo exists ONLY because of the photographer and his artistic intention.

PS ... the critics are simply jealous, and incapable of capturing anything like this.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:10 UTC

The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:45 UTC as 104th comment | 6 replies
Total: 116, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »