SaulTh

SaulTh

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Feb 4, 2012

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
In reply to:

semorg: Sony is going for the kill.....this camera will kill Canon 5DII/III when it's used for videos. You can shoot 4K, and no pixel dropping or other tricks, probably without any of the aliasing issues. Have a 4K footage or downsize to 1080P/720p, etc. for broadcasting distribution

captura: at best around 3840 samples over the horizontal field of view angle. Or another approximation is 2160 samples over the vertical field of view angle of the current lens, at best.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2014 at 02:58 UTC
On World Press Photo announces 2013 contest winners news story (298 comments in total)

Very good photos, but cranking local contrast makes them look like cartoon pictures, or like a screenshot of PS3 war game, rather than a real event, which distances me from the event being captured.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2013 at 00:00 UTC as 85th comment
On Stairs in Santrini in the Greece challenge (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

ConanFuji: The WB is off. By a lot.

Given the appearance of WB in the non-blue objects, the WB seems to be OK i.e. the pot which has neutral shades are not blueish, nor are the plants. The stones in the pot are a little, so the blue may be a bit off, but then we cannot know whether the lighting was actually very blue -- this may be a realistic presentation, not that it need be!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2012 at 04:56 UTC
On NHK working on 8k video sensor capable of 120fps news story (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaulTh: That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.

Kirppu: exactly, just marketing speak, which going by the replies many people prefer ;) One is good for making you buy things you don't really need, the other has a useful, physical meaning which would be good for photographers to understand. Oh well, can't teach those that are sure they already know.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2012 at 03:35 UTC
On NHK working on 8k video sensor capable of 120fps news story (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

SaulTh: That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.

4320 / 1080 = 4
7680 / 1920 = 4

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2012 at 04:09 UTC
On NHK working on 8k video sensor capable of 120fps news story (101 comments in total)

That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2012 at 03:40 UTC as 20th comment | 9 replies

Agreed. To disagree, where do you start in the digital form? Should all news publish Bayer tile patterns of the raw image? -- all cameras perform a huge amount of processing inside the box, shall the argument be limited to "post" processing, as distinguished from in-camera, post-exposure processing, just because in-camera was not *entirely* controlled by the photographer? Or should we say, "one exposure only"? Seems to be overly cautious at the expense of photographic flexibility.

If it is held against an ethical code, then intent is in play, as it should be since it is not only the content of the exposure, but where one pointed the camera that makes or breaks the ethical concern -- does it deceive, is it respectful, ... It is hard to see a local increase in tonal range as a deception, for example, unless, in a particular context, it is exactly that -- depends on the context.

Anyway, my opinion is that most HDR is bland or overcome by extreme contrast -- either way it is unrealistic.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 00:37 UTC as 125th comment
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7