Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20
On Cold Hearted Wind in the Bales challenge (4 comments in total)

Trite, but true: I LOVE this!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2013 at 23:58:26 UTC as 3rd comment

Sadly, it took 2nd place in this challenge.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2013 at 12:45:47 UTC as 1st comment
On Nikon D800 Review preview (3 comments in total)

Regarding the excellent demo of diffraction's impact at various f-stops, on page 25 of this review, where is the photo showing what could have been accomplished using Photoshop ACR sharpening against an f/4 RAW file?

I would very much like to compare sharpening of the f/4 RAW file to sharpening of the f/22 RAW file. Surely, a silk purse made from silk would be more attractive than a silk purse made from a pig's ear.

Link to page 25 of this review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/25

Mike

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2013 at 12:13:17 UTC as 3rd comment

Humboldt Jim: Can we assume that a 1" sensor system can be stopped down to ƒ16, or even 22 without diffraction problems?

Using the example I've given above, if you're willing to assume that no one will view your prints at distances less than 20 inches (instead of 10 inches), you can double the calculated f-Number, stopping down to f/12.84 - delivering an effective 2.5 lp/mm at 20 inches that will appear every bit as detailed as a 5 lp/mm print at 10 inches.

Please note that there are only two variables in the formula for calculating the f-Number at which diffraction will begin to inhibit a desired print resolution (expressed in lp/mm for a 10-inch viewing distance): Enlargement factor and desired print resolution at a given viewing distance.

Somehow, discussions of resolution (or "sharpness") almost always neglect these critical variables.

Have a look at the equation for calculating the maximum acceptable diameter for a circle of confusion. It includes Enlargement factor and desired print resolution at a given viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 18:28:32 UTC

Humboldt Jim: Can we assume that a 1" sensor system can be stopped down to ƒ16, or even 22 without diffraction problems?

A desired resolution of 5 lp/mm (which is equivalent to 360dpi, taking into account the 30% loss of resolution imposed by a typical CMOS sensor's Bayer algorithm and AA filter), to support viewing distances as close as 10-inches (25cm), for a 23x enlargement factor (which is required to make an 8x12-inch print from a 1-inch sensor's uncropped capture - an enlargement factor that would require, at 360 dpi, an image resolution of 2880x4320 pixels, or 12.44 MP:

f-Number = 1/ 5 / 23 / 0.00135383 = 6.42

Thus, a one-inch, 12.44 MP sensor cannot deliver more than 5 lp/mm (360dpi) of resolution after enlargement to an 8x12-inch print when using f-Numbers larger than f/6.42.

A one inch sensor is still quite small, compared to a full frame or MF sensor.

Continued below...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 18:26:24 UTC

Humboldt Jim: Can we assume that a 1" sensor system can be stopped down to ƒ16, or even 22 without diffraction problems?

The f-Number at which diffraction will begin to inhibit a desired print resolution (expressed in line pairs per millimeter for a viewing distance of 10 inches), at an anticipated enlargement factor can be calculated as follows:

f-Number = 1 / desired print resolution / anticipated enlargement factor / 0.00135383

A 1-inch sensor would have dimensions 13.2 x 8.8mm.

The possible f-Numbers at which diffraction would inhibit a desired print resolution at an anticipated viewing distance are endless, but here is an example combination:

Continued below...

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 18:25:38 UTC
On OMG Life creates Autographer - a wearable automatic camera news story (106 comments in total)

If this catches on, Facebook will have to buy a lot more hard drives.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 17:23:48 UTC as 33rd comment
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (198 comments in total)

jezsik: I hope there's a follow-up to this article. I already know how to bracket exposure, but that's just the raw material. What I struggle with is how to combine them properly. I can't help but feel that this is like a baking tutorial that focuses only on finding the best ingredients for a recipe.

Yeah! That's what I'm talkin' about! The one at bottom right (at your first link) is wonderfully natural, but without HDR, you couldn't have captured that with a single exposure. Nice example! Thanks!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 04:49:31 UTC
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (198 comments in total)

CaseyComo: Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the look of a single exposure. If the sky is too bright, expose for the shadows and use a grad ND filter.

Well, I'm almost with you, brother, but I say use HDR with even LESS saturation than the author's finished images. Unfortunately, we are in the minority. Walk into any Wal-Mart or Fry's Electronics, go to the rear of the store and check out how all of the television displays are adjusted: unnaturally saturated. Sometimes I think Joe Consumer has lost the ability to even see color. He wants to be slapped in the face with it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 04:42:04 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images news story (645 comments in total)

Mike Davis: Sony seems to be making a serious attack on visible diffraction, with this camera.

The f-Number at which diffraction will *begin* to inhibit a desired print resolution in lp/mm, at anticipated enlargement factor can be calculated as follows:

f-Number = 1 / desired print resolution / enlargement factor / 0.00135383

If (notice the word "If") you desire to render subject detail in the final print at a resolution of 5 lp/mm (a fairly aggressive goal), making the largest possible prints at an unresampled, uncropped 29.3x enlargement factor (print size would be 15.2 x 10.1 inches at an image density of 360 dip), the largest f-Number that can be used without diffraction beginning to inhibit your 5 lp/mm resolution goal, would be...

1 / 5 / 29.3 / 0.00135383 = 5.04

I find it noteworthy that Sony chose not to include f/5.6 and larger f-numbers with this lens - given that it stops down no further than f/4.9.

Big sensor and fast lens = less vulnerable to diffraction.

Mike

" but educated users should be able to decide" - and therein lies the deficiency I was hoping they had addressed.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2012 at 12:16:15 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images news story (645 comments in total)

Mike Davis: Sony seems to be making a serious attack on visible diffraction, with this camera.

The f-Number at which diffraction will *begin* to inhibit a desired print resolution in lp/mm, at anticipated enlargement factor can be calculated as follows:

f-Number = 1 / desired print resolution / enlargement factor / 0.00135383

If (notice the word "If") you desire to render subject detail in the final print at a resolution of 5 lp/mm (a fairly aggressive goal), making the largest possible prints at an unresampled, uncropped 29.3x enlargement factor (print size would be 15.2 x 10.1 inches at an image density of 360 dip), the largest f-Number that can be used without diffraction beginning to inhibit your 5 lp/mm resolution goal, would be...

1 / 5 / 29.3 / 0.00135383 = 5.04

I find it noteworthy that Sony chose not to include f/5.6 and larger f-numbers with this lens - given that it stops down no further than f/4.9.

Big sensor and fast lens = less vulnerable to diffraction.

Mike

Ooops! Never mind!

I just saw some sample photos taken at f-Numbers greater than f/4.9.

Wishful thinking...

Mike

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2012 at 18:39:58 UTC
On Just Posted: Sony DSC-RX100 preview with sample images news story (645 comments in total)

Sony seems to be making a serious attack on visible diffraction, with this camera.

The f-Number at which diffraction will *begin* to inhibit a desired print resolution in lp/mm, at anticipated enlargement factor can be calculated as follows:

f-Number = 1 / desired print resolution / enlargement factor / 0.00135383

If (notice the word "If") you desire to render subject detail in the final print at a resolution of 5 lp/mm (a fairly aggressive goal), making the largest possible prints at an unresampled, uncropped 29.3x enlargement factor (print size would be 15.2 x 10.1 inches at an image density of 360 dip), the largest f-Number that can be used without diffraction beginning to inhibit your 5 lp/mm resolution goal, would be...

1 / 5 / 29.3 / 0.00135383 = 5.04

I find it noteworthy that Sony chose not to include f/5.6 and larger f-numbers with this lens - given that it stops down no further than f/4.9.

Big sensor and fast lens = less vulnerable to diffraction.

Mike

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2012 at 18:36:27 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
On Sigma shows latest products at Focus on Imaging news story (42 comments in total)

6 LIKES and counting, on use of the word "bloodbath."

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2012 at 15:40:57 UTC
On Sigma shows latest products at Focus on Imaging news story (42 comments in total)

Salvatore Castrovinci: Very good alternative..... I am waiting the price...... I hope not so exagerate as the First SD1.......

About the viewfinder I can should use, for the DP1m, the OVF of the old DP1.... is not so different as field image....... or not ?

Cheers

Salvatore

I would think that any viewfinder made for a 28mm lens on a fullframe camera would work well with either the DP1 or the DP1 Merrill, given that they both have 28mm-equivalent lenses.

For example: The Voigtlander 28mm Metal Brightline Viewfinder

http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/VF%2028%20M%20B%201.jpg

http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg6/VF%2028%20M%20B%202.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Mar 11, 2012 at 15:33:07 UTC
On Kodak to stop making digital cameras news story (145 comments in total)

Mk7: Starwolfy said:
That is also the reason why they will fire many people. They need to make the company operational costs to be ligther.
Any CEO would do the same in such case.

That's what happens when CEOs run companies, not workers. Want to cut costs? How about cutting your own multi-million dollar salary/stock portfolio/private jet/bloated personal spending account, Mr CEO?
If your solution to problems is always layoffs and firings, who's going to have money to buy your products?

The people of India and China are buying the stuff we used to buy. Four guys in a 400 square foot apartment in Bangalor might split the cost four ways to buy a microwave oven, but they are buying the microwave oven just the same - and the blender, and the HDTV, and you name it. U.S. manufacturers (the few that are left) don't need U.S. consumers. The outsourcing of jobs will continue until we're willing to study as hard, work as hard and and accept the lower standard of living the labor force overseas has accepted. Hear that scratching sound at your office window? That's hundreds of educated, legal immigrants trying to get your job with a willingness to work harder for less compensation.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 22:36:13 UTC

Sergey S: Why is this press-release so similar to this one http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/27/leicaS30mmf2p8 ?
Chinese company can't write own press-release?

English isn't your native tongue? No problem - just plagiarize a German!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2011 at 13:46:51 UTC
On 3D Video Primer, Part 2 article (27 comments in total)

tulo: i never managed to understand the use of "toe-in"/converging optical axis for close focusing like in the Sony TD10. it is the OA of the viewer's eyes that are supposed to converge, giving a sense of depth - not the OA of imaging device, is it?

Continued from above.

When shooting with the lenses kept parallel, no doubling occurs at any plane along the z-axis, but the absence of doubled subjects goes completely unnoticed by the audience, just as the presence of doubling goes completely unnoticed in real life. And best of all, the audience has the FREEDOM to explore every scene at any point of along the z-axis they choose. Just as in real life, with two people standing side by side in a forest, one can be converging his eyes on the bark of a tree that's in the foreground while the other is simultaneously examining a distant meadow, seen through a gap in the trees. That's the natural experience that an audience should have when watching a 3D movie - with everyone looking where they choose to look - and it can only be had by shooting with parallel lens axes.

Mike

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2011 at 23:34:05 UTC
On 3D Video Primer, Part 2 article (27 comments in total)

tulo: i never managed to understand the use of "toe-in"/converging optical axis for close focusing like in the Sony TD10. it is the OA of the viewer's eyes that are supposed to converge, giving a sense of depth - not the OA of imaging device, is it?

Continued from above.

In real life, our vision doesn't automagically lose depth of field or cast shadows on the background every time we converge our eyes on something that's close enough to cause a doubling of other objects in the subject space. In my opinion, a far more natural experience is afforded the audience when the lens axes are kept parallel at all times - in combination with extreme depth of field, except in those shots were selective focus would be applied for the exact same reasons it has been used to great effect in 2D stills and movies for decades.

Continued below...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2011 at 23:33:37 UTC
On 3D Video Primer, Part 2 article (27 comments in total)

tulo: i never managed to understand the use of "toe-in"/converging optical axis for close focusing like in the Sony TD10. it is the OA of the viewer's eyes that are supposed to converge, giving a sense of depth - not the OA of imaging device, is it?

I'm with you tulo.

In my opinion, using convergence (a.k.a. toe-in) ruins the naturalness of a 3D experience. It causes subject planes that are well in front of or behind the plane of convergence to appear doubled-up, just as they do with natural vision, but in real life, I have the CHOICE to rapidly switch to any point of convergence in my field of view, from foreground to background to any point in between. Not so with a 3D film shot with convergence - the entire audience is LIMITED (forced) to a single plane of convergence along the z-axis, and worse - this unnatural restriction is usually accompanied by selective focus or weird lighting that becomes necessary to suppress the doubled-up planes (making them darker, typically) that lie well beyond the plane of convergence.

Continued below...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2011 at 23:30:24 UTC
On 3D Video Primer, Part 1 article (31 comments in total)

The biggest problem with 3D remains that which has always plagued it: 3D cinematographers, even the likes of James Cameron, are themselves so novice to the wow factor offered by the medium that they end up shooting in a way that exploits the technology to excess rather than gently and naturally integrating steropsis into their storytelling.

Those of us with healthy vision walk about all day every day seeing in stereo. 3D movies should be experienced the same way - as a natural experience - without excessive depth or having things poked in our faces. Five minutes into the film we should be able to forget that we're watching a 3D movie. 3D movies will be here to stay only when leading cinematographers can get past their own personal infatuation with the medium, do their homework, and stop experimenting at our expense.

The story is everything. Less 3D is more 3D.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2011 at 06:06:49 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
 Total: 31, showing: 1 – 20