Phil O Sophical

Joined on Sep 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6

So the collected view below is "never heard of T Swift?" This is no point for pride. Reading-on, it appears that having one's finger on the cultural pulse is not a component of this readership. What's the demography here? Technobores, monomaniacs and dads? I am both the latter yet have managed, somehow, to have heard of Swift. Funny, that. The phrase "Need to get out more" comes to mind.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 16:15 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

This is no hypocrisy on T Swift's part but a petulant whinge from a poor old photographer subject to the same kind of commercial abuse that she was complaining of. The fellow should be on her side. In any case to equate the creativity in music with that of photography is questionable. She (whether you like her music or not - I am indifferent) makes up music from thin air, inspires others to join in, she looks good and dances - whereas a photographer merely pokes a lens, click and thats it. The inflated egoism of such photo poseurs is sickening here. Let us see photographers as artisan more than artist, recorder rather than impressionist, and stop this strutting about with our technical clobber beleiving ourselves, against all evidence, to be creatives. I begrudge no-one an ego but hell, let it be in proportion.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 16:08 UTC as 13th comment

Just had a thought: To read a curved focal surface with a flat sensor...

If the image was "scanned" by the sensor-read process in a circular fashion as the sensor moved towards the lens during the shot.... This would be easy with a liquid-crystal shutter near the focal "plane"
The process starting at the centre as a circle and then becoming an anulus as it radiated to the corners, we should have compensated for our curved field.

The camera could be equipped with the curve parameters of any lens. The sensor moving by piezo or moving-coil actuation may be a limit to higher shutter speeds.

Is this an equally silly idea or the germ of a better one

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 22:52 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply

Simpler - curved focal-surface - lenses enabled by curve on the sensor? Cheaper lenses for novelty-fun photos maybe. However with the advent of in-camera processing able to compensate for barrel, pincushion and chromatic aberation, AND the ability to make non-spherical lenses, this seems a bad move. Swallowing a spider to catch a fly. Sure our eyes are spherical but the brain enables us to see the side of a house as a rectangle. The curved sensor, only appropriate for a given lens, limits interchangeability. It looks like a strategy for cheapness. A rush to the bottom. Pezval's lens was fast but unsharp and passed into history - so should this

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 22:38 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Surf's Up: Clark Little's incredible wave photography (55 comments in total)

There was an Aussi film called Crystal Voyager made in '73 and with pink floyd as soundtrack. Shot mostly in California, it featured similar spectacles, tunnels of green glassy water rotating about the moving viewpoint and was a breathtaking experience in a big-screen cinema. The cinema had the aroma of exotic smoking mixtures floating in the air to add to the atmosphere. Despite the difficulties of hauling (what I guess was - based on the limited definition) a watertight 16mm film camera on a board the results were unprecidented and great. It's on youtube if you're keen.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 22:10 UTC as 3rd comment

Q: I wonder who this is aimed at...

A: No photographer. An air-head with no taste and excess cash - hoping to impress similar idiots.

Old man Hasselblad would turn in his grave at the absurdity.
Since when have Italians been at the forefront of camera design anyway?
Bencini, Gandolfi, Ferrania all gone long ago. This is an own-goal. Such a shame.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 20:18 UTC as 52nd comment
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6