kenw

kenw

Lives in United States Baltimore, MD, United States
Joined on Jan 8, 2003

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 21 – 25
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Soon to come, a transparent "battery grip" with live fish inside!

(for those who don't get the reference, just Google "fish tank pimp shoes")

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2011 at 21:18 UTC as 187th comment
In reply to:

kwa_photo: Well this just plain sucks for any GF-1 or GH-1 user. Ack! The GF-1 has NOT had a real replacement at all since it was released. The GF-2 & GF-3, while having better IQ, have not really been photographer's cameras....so I stick with the GF-1 and it's analog feel. I'm very disappointed with this exclusion. The lens seems a perfect match for the GF-1. If there is a technical limitation that prevents the GF-1 from being included, I hope Panny comes out with a statement as such...othewise, I view this as a "you have to upgrade statement". If that's the case, give me something to upgrade to!!!!! Argh.

You don't need to upgrade, and you don't need new firmware. The new lenses will work perfectly with a GF-1 or GH-1. You'll just be missing out the four listed feature enhancements.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2011 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

love_them_all: This kind of effect can be easily "copied" by a software. Take a picture with the max DOF, then in post the software can burr out zones of the picture...

This camera can not correct a drastically out of focus picture any more than stopping down with a conventional camera. See Joseph's post below. What it will let you do is still have selective focus effects within a range of focus (at a tremendous reduction of resolution). That range, however, is no larger than if you had stopped down for larger DOF to begin with.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2011 at 04:03 UTC
On article Lytro plenoptic camera used for fashion shoot (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lobalobo: Most of these posts are missing the point. In theory, you can choose your depth of field after the fact (and not only the point of focus) because enough information is recorded to provide focus anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere. There is a penalty in resolution, but with 18 MP crammed into tiny sensors this may not be a problem. The real question to my mind is whether the principle of choosing depth of field after choosing the focus point can occur in practice--it may just require too much computing power.

The resolution penalty is severe. Even with a native 18MP imager you are getting less than 1MP out.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2011 at 23:37 UTC
On article Lytro plenoptic camera used for fashion shoot (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/doubts-about-lytros-focus-later-camera/2011/07/23/gIQAj1lSVI_story.html

Here is a very good write up on the technology. Some interesting things, the blurred out image you see is NOT due to the optics of the camera. The prototype uses a point and shoot sized sensor and lens (i.e. infinite DOF). Whats happening is the camera knows the depth of each pixel (pretty amazing), and when you tell it to (focus) on that point, it renders that point sharp.. all other points are digitally blurred according to the depth map.. pixels that are further away, are blurred more... yea, so this isnt going to replace your 85/1.4 for portraits.

No, not a software gimmick but a lot of software involved. The camera does have special optics in front of the sensor that allow for a depth map to be captured. A consequence of this is an extreme reduction in spatial resolution. Like from 16MP to 0.25MP.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2011 at 23:34 UTC
Total: 25, showing: 21 – 25
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »