Lives in United States United States
Joined on Nov 27, 2002


Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
On article Making sense of Canon's 4K cameras with EOSHD (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

MediaDigitalVideo: Which media can playback (= make visable) 4K Video ? Not my LCD laptop screen. Along with 4K recorded video there should be also 4K playback devices for max viasable quality.

That's assuming you're playing this video on a computer. But imagine you are playing it on a much larger screen (eg, theater) that doesn't have the same resolution limitations as a standard computer.

Or, and more likely, the high resolution footage is for archival purposes. It's the same concept as shooting on high-quality 35mm film, which you can easily extract several megapixels of data. Think about those classic movies you've seen that have been re-released on Blu-ray in hi-def and actually look stunning, even though they were filmed at a time when "hi-def" wasn't around and most TVs had the same resolution as a Gameboy.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2012 at 05:24 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: I'm confused about the "1.5" CMOS sensor"

Its dimensions are 18.7mm by 14mm.

That is equivalent to 0.736" by 0.551".

So where does the 1.5" figure come from?

Refer to this article:

In this case, the sensor is very nearly an inch measured diagonally (~23.3mm), so I guess Canon are rounding up to a inch, then using the "traditional" way to measure sensor sizes, which basically says use 1.5x the diagonal (or as the article puts it, the diagonal is always 2/3 of the diameter of the tube that is no longer used these days).

Posted on Jan 15, 2012 at 01:30 UTC
On article Olympus raided over accounting scandal (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

James Wages: As well all very well know, Olympus does have some very competitive cameras in the mirrorless market. Panasonic would be well served to buy up this company on the cheap so they can learn how to make decent in-camera JPEGs. (As a GF-1 owner, I know how JPEGs suck raw eggs. In-camera JPEG may not be important for pro users, but my wife hates to shoot RAW, so having stunning Olympus-style in-camera JPEGs would have the net effect of making some of the photos that exit my Panasonic cameras look better.) If Panasonic doesn't do something, in light of the amazing NEX-7, SONY will capture the mirrorless market before we know it. I have bought heavily into the GF-1 / µ4/3 world, but having been a Minolta SLR film camera user a decade ago, the NEX-7 compels me to put those old lenses to good use. If this news spells death for Olympus, it will be interesting to see how things in the compact mirrorless market pan out over the next year.

M1963 - If that was sarcasm, bravo, that was hilarious. If, on the other hand, you are serious... you should get a refund for that workshop immediately.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2011 at 04:51 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: I prefer my 35mm 1.8f prime. I use my legs to zoom.
This superzooms produce the same IQ you can get with P&S cameras.

"I prefer my 35mm 1.8f prime. I use my legs to zoom."

I will never understand posts like this. Comparing this lens to a fast wide prime is like comparing a steak knife to a pair of scissors. Yea, they both can cut things.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: "if the camera undergoes sudden motion while recording; motion generally inconsistent with smooth video recording"

most people dont want to beleive this and think that waving the camera around like a speed-addicted squirrel produces good video

It's not about that, it's about capturing what you intended to capture. "Sudden motion" might be exactly the effect you are trying to achieve, but I can almost certainly guarantee that a random clicking noise coming from the camera is not.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2011 at 02:21 UTC
In reply to:

sherwoodpete: I've not read the article. But I have tried out the Jpegmini service with various images. The very first image I tried grew fractionally larger.
Others showed results broadly similar to the various photo-editors I tried (a random selection).

Overall I've come away with the feeling that there's nothing useful here. In terms of colour fidelity or image detail, I can achieve similar (or possibly better) results with existing tools.

I'm not sure the service is intended for mass usage. I think it's more or less a demonstration vehicle to get the word out and people on board. If they had intended this for everyone to use, they would have focused on a plug-in or standalone application (to integrate into a workflow) from the beginning and/or they would have made it work with non-lossy formats (eg, TIFF).

What I find odd is while this new article is about JPEGMini, the primary focus seems to be the Photoshop quirk. And that seems to conflict since the JPEGMini site only accepts other JPEGs at the moment. Wouldn't you want to start with the best quality JPEG, which is neither 6 or 7...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2011 at 06:52 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6