fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Has a website at www.primephotography.com.au
Joined on Mar 28, 2010
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart. If it helps you may think of me as just some guy on the internet.

Comments

Total: 628, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Lovely work. Well done.
I'd say most of them fall into the category of digital art rather than remaining on the side of photography though. Looks like there is heaps of post work.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2015 at 03:17 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

MikeDPR: I'm seeing only 1080p. Can you guys post 4K version? 4K is a key selling point for these cameras.

I can see some benefit in what you've described above with regards to flexibility (less reshooting), and also in post stabilization, but that doesn't seem to apply to this music video.
Extra time editing in post also costs money however.
I'm paraphrasing but in the making of video Jonathan Houser says 'Conveying a bands energy in a music video is not always the easiest thing. Anyone who has shot, or tried to shoot a music video has come to the realization that there's just not enough energy in it.' - Yet he goes on to capture an edgy rock band video on a smooth 3-axis stabilized rig. The thought process seems a bit at odds with the practical methods used. And we end up with output that looks (my opinion) too cleanly panned, tilted and cut as opposed to being a bit rough around the edges (which I think would have suited this video more).
Just my 2c

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

MikeDPR: I'm seeing only 1080p. Can you guys post 4K version? 4K is a key selling point for these cameras.

Why can't they just frame it correctly in the first place?
If it's planned and story boarded with a design concept in mind...
Reminds me of those street photographers who shoot 36mp with a 35mm lens and then crop to make it look like an 85mm lens but still frame poorly because they didn't have a clear vision in the first place. Apologies if this offends. Yes I'm a bit of a purist. Yes, I'm upset that knowledge of practical methods is being disregarded because of technology.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: The camera-work is excellent, but they, the brilliant/professional staff, could have shot such a cool video with the $500 Sony A5100, with the 50mm/f1.8, too. I've seen a BtS video where Nikon J5 cameras were used to shoot excellent movies/documentaries by a pro team. Nothing special here, I guess. I love that the excellent/pro team of DPReview is capable to shoot brilliant movies practically with/on any cameras; just give them the damn tools and they use them for you-name-it projects.

@Treeshade,
So 4k cropping is a crutch for those without storyboarding, framing, cinematography and camera handling skills?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 06:25 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: I don't have a problem with sponsored content. Samsung can sponsor events, pay professionals to make videos and give their product away for all I care. Samsung apparently did sponsor PIX2015 and did give away NX-500 cameras. That doesn't change the fact that the NX-1 and NX-500 aren't very interesting products to me. Samsung's camera line just isn't relevant to the way I live and work. It's sad that some South Korean engineers spent so much time making products that really don't matter. Hopefully they'll concentrate on their sensor division or go full frame.

@HowaboutRaw
'About the only reason to use a full framed camera would be to shoot much higher ISOs, so that excludes a bunch of current full framed cameras that aren't a lot better at higher ISOs than the NX1 already is.'

Yes just completely ignore the fact that 135 frame size has the widest amount of lenses made for it.
Lenses.
You know, those things you put on the front of a camera... to give you varied perspective, contrast, colour, control, depth of field, focus and sharpness attributes?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2015 at 06:21 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I imagine a lot of NX500 bodies will be on eBay following this event..

So they have to wait overnight, and then spend an additional $280 to make something of it.
Or they could wait overnight, then go home and sell a new model camera and get ~$300 out of it.
How is that convoluted? They would be making ~$200 profit (difference between old and new camera) for waiting in line overnight. Not a bad deal.
Not everyone who sells or gets rid of a DSLR is moving away from using a DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 23:42 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I imagine a lot of NX500 bodies will be on eBay following this event..

Exactly.
Many people have a cheap old DSLR lying around. Grab one that has a resell value of $100 dollars or so and instead of forking out an extra $280 for a lens to make the NX500 work, just sell the body for what.. $300 easy? Give or take. It sells for $800 with the lens but I can't find a body only price.
I'd wager there would be just as many people offloading these cameras as there are who will be spending more money on it. But I'm just speculating.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 23:16 UTC

I imagine a lot of NX500 bodies will be on eBay following this event..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 20:28 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Songline: Why is it so brutally ugly?

There's no such thing as ugly. Just good or bad lighting ;)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 01:54 UTC
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Songline: Why is it so brutally ugly?

^^^ Lol, and they would force people to look at them for hours on end as a form of torture.
Tell us your secrets, or ve vill subject you to ze.. CAMERA!!
Nooooo!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2015 at 23:14 UTC
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Songline: Why is it so brutally ugly?

Pretty much all medium format system cameras look like this when stripped down as well. Just a rectangular box in a modular system.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2015 at 07:06 UTC
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Panasonic and Olympus should buy RED. I would love a GH5 with RED technology and the 5 axis IS from Olympus.

The first thing most M43 users would say is 'it's too expensive', which is more aptly translated to 'I can't afford it'.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2015 at 07:03 UTC
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Songline: Why is it so brutally ugly?

If you've ever actually held a RED or ARRI or other workhorse cinema camera kitted out and fully functional you'd know that they look great and serve their function very well. On top of that the build quality poos all over 99% of the gear that this website reviews..
Ie. The image of this camera above is not what the whole package looks like when it's being used.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2015 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

You mean how you have to bump up the ISO to make up for this lens having a narrow aperture, compared to a FZ300 Panasonic which has a 25-600mm equiv lens with constant f/2.8. So that's 2.5 stops less need to bump ISO with that superzoom, which is cheaper than this lens.
Just another option, but each to their own.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2015 at 01:42 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"
-----------------------------------------

Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?

Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.

To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.

A lossy compressed file is a lossy compressed file. I don't need to see photos or samples to know that information is being discarded. Whether that information is important or not I have no idea, because the user has no control over what is being done.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2015 at 00:15 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

cantor: It is good that Sony finally listened but I find it deeply troubling that it took them so long to respond to an issue that has been discussed adnauseum for over a year. The A7rii should have come out with lossless compression. They cannot do it efficiently now since it probably needs to be done in hardware. A good first step but they are slow to listen to their customers. Another issue that people have been complaining about for years is the very poor state of their user interface. When will they fix that? Another few years?

Frank_BR
If I'm making copies of backlit photographic negatives then the raw artifacts are also an issue. There will almost certainly be high contrast edges in many of the copies I'll be making.
So far Sony hasn't made an A7 camera that has both EFCS and lossless raw from the ground up. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 08:42 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"
-----------------------------------------

Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?

Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.

To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.

Frank_BR
From Dec 2011... via a simple google search.

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20111228_1-SonyNEX7-8bit.html

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 02:20 UTC

Well.. there's no danger of it breaking someones head if it crashes into someone... So that's good.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 02:06 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frank_BR: "What difference does this make?"
-----------------------------------------

Well, the difference I see is that the ARTIFACTS in left photo appears as NOISE in the right picture. What was the gain? Is it more a case where "six of one was traded for half a dozen of the other"?

Many people want passionately lossless RAW. They like to say they don't want to discard any information. Perhaps they forget that noise is not information. What a good lossy compression tries to do is to discard irrelevant information. What can be good in many cases.

To me it is clear that a better RAW converter which does not produce visible artifacts is perfectly possible to implement. Technically, this kind of "fix" would be better because the RAW files would remain small as they are now. Besides, the new RAW converter could be used to convert photos already taken including with discontinued camera models. Finally, the photographer would not have to worry about deciding between several RAW format options.

This is why you should be shooting on film. None of this hokey noise garbage and none of this compression or bayer/AA filter in the way.
Just pure chemistry and light.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 01:48 UTC
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (618 comments in total)
In reply to:

cantor: It is good that Sony finally listened but I find it deeply troubling that it took them so long to respond to an issue that has been discussed adnauseum for over a year. The A7rii should have come out with lossless compression. They cannot do it efficiently now since it probably needs to be done in hardware. A good first step but they are slow to listen to their customers. Another issue that people have been complaining about for years is the very poor state of their user interface. When will they fix that? Another few years?

It's a good step, but I agree it's taken way too long to get lossless RAW and be rid of shutter shock.
I've been wanting to buy an A7 series camera purely for macro copy work, and haven't been able to convince myself due to these issues.
I mean it's copy work, possibly the most simple technical aspect to build a camera for... :/

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 01:24 UTC
Total: 628, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »