JamieTux

JamieTux

Lives in United Kingdom Basingstoke, United Kingdom
Has a website at www.jamestux.com
Joined on May 13, 2005

Comments

Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

junk1: No auto focus - really? Who could ever focus it perfectly enough to take advantage of the lens...unless you have a 1:1 pixel display, you won't consistently get 1:1 focused images - you can't by definition since you can't see what you are doing! Will the AF system (contrast detection, or via pahse sensors on the imager) confirm once you have it focused?

And good enough for digital too with a great optical viewfinder too.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 19:21 UTC

Does anyone know if digital shift is software based (I'm assuming so) or done by actually moving the sensor using an update to the IBIS functionality? That would be awesome!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 08:29 UTC as 23rd comment
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

junk1: No auto focus - really? Who could ever focus it perfectly enough to take advantage of the lens...unless you have a 1:1 pixel display, you won't consistently get 1:1 focused images - you can't by definition since you can't see what you are doing! Will the AF system (contrast detection, or via pahse sensors on the imager) confirm once you have it focused?

The 135 f2 is pretty easy to focus reliably, I cant see this being much more difficult, and of course you can stop it down!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Yep, I'm up to 8.1 now but it doesn't help that you can't physically connect the scanner to anything running 7 or higher as I said :). Of course I could try Windows 7 on his old hardware, but if I'm using the same hardware there's no benefit to changing OS anyway :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 05:29 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Thanks, I've tried all of those things on PCs since Vista with no joy! I built a dual boot for a while but SCSI has become an issue on more modern computers (even the PCI slots the SCSI interfaces plugged into have been dropped)

Thanks again for trying to help though!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@Wye, you can probably buy it, my father has stopped using film all together and its a HUGE desk ornament now! However you'll need a windows xp machine with SCSI to use it :) (keeping that around adds more bulk too).

It is a magnificent machine though and outside of drum scans I've never seen anything like it.

Oh back to compression or not - it is doing exactly what you say, lowering contrast in the highlights :) but I agree that I prefer that results of negative film in that way most of the time.

I don't know what digital system you have but if its Nikon see if you can hunt down a good condition Fujifilm S5Pro, that gave very film like output with the added convenience of digital.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 06:29 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@wye You're kind of making my point that you're disagreeing with :) if film captures the scene without compression then you won't be able to scan it in or view it on screen without crushed shadows and/or blown highlights... Negative film has a shoulder or roll off in the highlights that compresses those tones and gives you a pleasing result. Digital is much more linear so you don't get the compression you get a sudden clip.

Having said that you can do a lot with curves in post with a modern sensor, I think you'd be surprised at how close you can get to a portra look with home brew recipes in Lightroom.

As for my film credentials, yes I have shot film, a lot. I like portra but prefer reala and ektar for various reasons but I used slide film more than negative film. I started with 35mm in the 80s with my Dad's Minoltas and have used roll film and sheet film since. I also have unlimited access to a flex tight scanner.

By the way I am not saying that analogue compression is bad!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Film compresses the dynamic range which is why its still there when its digitised, also those films you mentioned are imax which is a HUGE frame and gives more resolution just by being so large. Nolan had a lot of technical hurdles to overcome to shoot those.

Also they don't mention howsgallow the DOF is which gets in he way or some great face exprssions in the close ups when you watch it on a film projecting imax theatre.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Apart from the niggling ongoing fees, the problem with CLOUD computing of ANY kind (not just Adobe, but let's include Facebook as an example) is that YOU, the USER, lose control of your environment.

For example, FB routinely "updates" its user experience. YOU, the USER have no say whether you want to take the update, or stick with what workds for you.

Again, Cloud services can go "down", whether for maintenance or system failure: not much help if YOU, the USER, is on a tight deadline and need cloud access to locate your work or re-authorise your software.

Then, as in the case of Adobe recently, a cloud service might suffer a successful hacking attempt, severely compromising YOUR, the USER'S security, IP and possibly financial details.

The WHOLE reason I (the USER) want the DESKTOP model is that I (...) can control my versions, I (...) can make sure I am secure.

Sorry, but CLOUD means that you CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING and HAVE NO CONTROL. Give me BLUE SKY ANY TIME: my DESKTOP.

Hi Biowizard,

That security issue is a problem with anyone holding your financial information whether it's via a cloud model or not and as for the cloud model...

The adobe products don't run on the cloud - you download them and run them on your own desktop and have the option too update (or not) whenever you want - you're not stuck with having to use any changes and experiences that Adobe make.

Your Facebook analogy is a little off for this reason - Creative Cloud is still a bunch of desktop applications but with web features added (like synchronised content and portfolios). Facebook (and google applications, etc) is a web app.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 09:32 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (208 comments in total)

Scott - you're right - but it is also the software to create the profile - doing them by hand is very time consuming!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 08:31 UTC as 80th comment
On A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? article (219 comments in total)
In reply to:

JamieTux: Can you still get quickload anywhere?

I knew the answer - but that's the concept the video is selling :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 08:15 UTC
On A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? article (219 comments in total)

Can you still get quickload anywhere?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:27 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AV Janus: I think this is a good deal.
The overall atmosphere in the comments suggest it is something pople can live with.
Those crying never for lifetime usage need to think of a few things:
- it is just one user of your photo, just he can use it,
- its just one photo, how glorious do you think our work is...
- 175$ for is good days pay in most o the world, plus somebody else could also buy it if its used more.
- its logical usage that if they buy it they can use it in more than one of theirs catalogue or web whatever.

Control your greed.

If it's unlimited usage rights does that mean an agency could buy a picture you posted then print it as posters and sell hundreds of thousands of them while you get that one time fee? Or that they could buy your picture and use it to promote something that you disagree with strongly. Or all of a sudden your picture of your teenage daughter is being used to sell condoms all over europe

I thinkbthat these are things you would need to think about before posting pictures there.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2014 at 11:44 UTC

I've just had a play - that's impressive!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 19:29 UTC as 32nd comment
On Behind the Shot: Lost in Space article (88 comments in total)

Stunning shot, well worth the effort, thanks for sharing!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 05:52 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

RumpelHund: Love the idea, Adobe will win over the community for sure. I don't see how anybody using one of those tools will find a flaw in the offer, unless it's about illegal copies of course.

Hope this pays off well enough for adobe in the long run.
For me (CS4 and LR5) it's the thing I hoped for.

Jose,

I'm sure that you have Photoshop 7 and a version of raw Adobe Raw Converter that works with your brand new camera right? If you're using Photoshop generally you have to upgrade when you upgrade your camera anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:39 UTC
In reply to:

dombi: There are two types of users.

- Professionals who use Photoshop on a daily basis (8 hours/day).
- Hobby users, who use Photoshop occasionally (maybe 8 hours/week or /month).

The current pricing might be good for professional users, who make a living using Photoshop. But it is too expensive for the hobby users, who don't use PS that much.

Adobe could come up with a "pre-paid" type user fee for the hobby users. Because hobby users probably don't want to pay the same price as the professional users, since they don't even use the software as much and probably as extensively.

Lets assume that a pro user uses PS on an average about 160 hours/month (20 days * 8 hours). They currently paying 10 USD for this, which comes to about 0.0625 USD/hour.

With this, how about a pre-paid plan, where a hobby user could open an pre-paid user account with a minimum of 10 USD, and then be charged by the hours of use. The hourly rate could be double of the pro: 0.125 USD/hour.

I'd sign up for it

Hi Inars - would you buy it anyway?

Until the subscription model I didn't use Photoshop and she was using old (CS2 or earlier) versions of photoshop, dreamweaver, indesign, etc)

I jumped at the subscription model - it means that I can keep my photography software up to date and my wife can use the design tools without us having to spend big chunks of money every time there's an upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Bear in mind that Lightroom 6 could be an additional charge...

Yes, it cost me nothing extra (over my standard CC subscription) to go from LR4 to LR5 - it's a subscription, not a rental..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

RumpelHund: Love the idea, Adobe will win over the community for sure. I don't see how anybody using one of those tools will find a flaw in the offer, unless it's about illegal copies of course.

Hope this pays off well enough for adobe in the long run.
For me (CS4 and LR5) it's the thing I hoped for.

From about 20 lines above your post...

"To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013. This offer will be available at the same time we introduce the new version of Lightroom 5.2 in a couple weeks. Visit the FAQ to learn more and follow Photoshop on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to find out when the offer goes live."

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

dombi: There are two types of users.

- Professionals who use Photoshop on a daily basis (8 hours/day).
- Hobby users, who use Photoshop occasionally (maybe 8 hours/week or /month).

The current pricing might be good for professional users, who make a living using Photoshop. But it is too expensive for the hobby users, who don't use PS that much.

Adobe could come up with a "pre-paid" type user fee for the hobby users. Because hobby users probably don't want to pay the same price as the professional users, since they don't even use the software as much and probably as extensively.

Lets assume that a pro user uses PS on an average about 160 hours/month (20 days * 8 hours). They currently paying 10 USD for this, which comes to about 0.0625 USD/hour.

With this, how about a pre-paid plan, where a hobby user could open an pre-paid user account with a minimum of 10 USD, and then be charged by the hours of use. The hourly rate could be double of the pro: 0.125 USD/hour.

I'd sign up for it

This is crazy - Adobe sell Lightroom separately and they sell Elements for those that want most of the functionality at a much lower cost. But for $120/year you can get full Photoshop and Lightroom and you think that Adobe are charging too much? The last time I bought Photoshop it was about £500 - even if we use a 1:1 £:$ ratio that's 4 years of use plus Lightroom.

This is soo much cheaper than antyhing that they've ever done before (and you can still buy elements and Lightroom separately if that's what you want).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 08:17 UTC
Total: 28, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »