DStudio

DStudio

Joined on Jan 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 489, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

enenzo: Go get a Minolta MC/MD ROKKOR-X 50mm f1.4. $70 :-)

IF this is anything like Soft lens designs of the past, then no, you can't. It has nothing to do with your imagined brilliance as a photographer.

There are numerous differences, but a key differentiator is the ability to (soft) focus on subjects a moderate distance away (e.g. over 20 feet) and still get a very soft background. You might have to get your hands on one to understand, but it's something you can't do with a 50/1.2.

So, again, you may be able to simulate SOME of the examples here. But if it's anything like Soft lenses of the past, it has some unique qualities you can't create with a normal lens.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

jeffc1: Draconian?
If someone is within 15ft they are likely getting in the way of the police officer trying to do their job.
DPReview should stick with reporting the facts and stay out of making editorial comments/conclusions.

Good luck finding a publication that doesn't share its opinion. If you find one, I'm not sure I want to read it.

At least Brittany's thoughts are out in the open, not veiled.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 04:16 UTC
In reply to:

DStudio: The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

Sorry, goob, that's a ridiculous example. The police didn't tell him to stop filming; the others have no authority, so if the cameraman listens that's his problem (and he's an idiot).

The fact that a few people might try to game the system may not take our rights away.

It sounds like these two are breaking other laws, and should be held accountable. If "the system" doesn't care to follow up on such people, then too bad. The rest of us still don't lose our rights.

When the Constitution was written you didn't have "official press badges." All you needed was the ability to print - which was almost anybody if you had friends or made a little effort. Same thing today - all you need is an internet account.

You seem to have missed the whole idea behind the Constitution.

Incidentally, I don't suppose you have any documentation on this alleged scam. Care to share it?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 03:46 UTC

The right to record such incidents is absolutely a constitutional right, and must be maintained to preserve our freedom. I'd be VERY concerned to see this taken away.

However, we still have another problem, in that much of the media is more interested in a story then the truth. And much of the general public - as well as juries themselves - fail to view such video clips with common sense. The whole incident, situation and context must be taken into account. This problem goes back at least as far as the Rodney King incident, where people ignored the fact that King refused to pull over for 20-40 miles, driving at high speed under the influence, and was a big man who then charged officers just as a person under the influence of PCP would. The police had to use batons because their use of firearms (and even tazers now) is restricted. King's skin color and last name made it sound worse.

But the Texas law is an AWFUL response to the public's lack of discernment. There's no place for it!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 01:36 UTC as 41st comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?

Do you have any evidence they won't be a generation or two behind the external boxes such as this? Or are they just in rather expensive models (e.g. ~$800+)? Any links or details you can provide?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just wondering. If they put anything great in them, this would be news indeed! But I'm skeptical because of the past. Perhaps this will be the first time this in-camera feature is actually usable at 360p or above. From what I've read about the specs, there's a reasonable chance the new Broadcasters (even the Mini) will be usable at 480p or 720p - perhaps even higher.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2015 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?

Have you used them, Mike? These "video cameras with it built in" that I've seen are either unusable (low quality, or sometimes don't work at all!) or only stream locally over WiFi to your own phone!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2015 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

Papi61: "When it arrives, the Broadcaster Pro will be priced at $495 USD."

And it doesn't even work with 4K video? Non-starter.

Actually the problem is the Broadcasters may not even be allowing enough bandwidth for these 1080p connections - 4Mbps is cutting it close. As it is, the video quality may already drop below generally acceptable levels when there's significant motion or panning - we'll have to see when the product comes out.

A 4K connection might require 20Mbps upstream. Allowing for the necessary headroom, that would be about 30-40Mbps required for a wired connection, and about 60Mbps for a cellular connection (would you like to pay that cell bill?)!

If it's a "non-starter" because you can't get 4K live video for $500, you may need to re-adjust your expectations. Personally, I hope they allow 720p at the full 4 or 5Mbps - that would actually be much better than a marginal 1080p broadcast.

Here's an example of how to do it right - don't attempt 4K, but allow 15 or 30Mbps for 1080p: http://www.teradek.com/pages/beam

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 06:24 UTC
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?

Oops, forgot the link to the Sony Firmware:

http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=HDRAS100V&template_id=1&region_id=1&tab=download#/downloadTab

And here's Panasonic's overly optimistic specs on the maximum streaming quality on one of their camcorders, on p. 146 of the manual: http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/HCV720_ADV.PDF

(in other words, you won't be able to maintain a steady 20 fps, even at 640x360 resolution).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

RPJG: I'm feeling a bit dumb. Are we just meant to know how this all works, because these devices are common? Or has this article not explained anything at all?

The WiFi is also to connect to the LAN or a mobile hotspot. That connection gives it access to the internet for publicly available streaming.

A WiFi connection to the LAN can also be used to connect it to a computer running Livestream Studio, which can process multiple video inputs and then produce multiple copies of the output (e.g. simultaneously recorded to hard disk, HDMI or SDI output to local TV screens, and streamed across the internet).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

"In the end the livestream is more costly, less capable and about as pointless a product as I have ever seen."

Sorry, but you're patently wrong about this one. The Livestream is extremely useful within its market.

However, I'm still interested in your application. Sounds like it works well when the viewers are at fixed, known locations. Can you please tell me which Actiontec models you're using? And am I right in believing that it requires Actiontec (or similar) equipment on the receiving/viewing end as well? Finally, does it transmit across the public network without using a VPN?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?

According to the firmware link toward the bottom of this page, it doesn't even work anymore (requires a website which has been de-activated). But even if it did still work, quality is probably poor. Some Panasonic camcorders (which cost more) have this feature, but they can only stream at up to ~480p with somewhere between 5 and 15 fps (and 15 fps requires a resolution much lower than 480p). The processors in these camcorders simply aren't powerful enough. I gave up on that idea after about two weeks of trying to use it (to stream action).

Streaming is Livestream's entire business. They take streaming seriously. Consumer camera makers who partner with U-stream just want another flashy feature to market.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:24 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

The Actiontec probably works well for your application. But it requires viewing on TVs or other devices with an HDMI input, right? And it can't transmit across the public internet, can it?

Multiple Broadcasters are often used to feed into a computer running Livestream Studio, for a full multi-camera production which adds graphics, mixes audio, etc - for example, to stream a sporting event. That's why the example photo above shows it connected to some expensive cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

Bjorn_L, I think you may be a little confused about the Livestream Broadcaster. It's for a completely different kind of application than anything I can find from Actiontec. I don't think you could even use the Broadcaster to replace an Actiontec, or visa versa. If you think I'm wrong here, could you please be more specific about which models and which application they were used for?

As I said, they have different functions. Perhaps this is why you think it's over-priced, when it's actually under-priced.

For example, the Broadcaster requires NO receivers. One Broadcaster, one $49/mo subscription, and you can broadcast to thousands of computers or mobile devices anywhere in the world with a decent internet connection.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:54 UTC
In reply to:

Sonyshine: Why don't more camera makers build this into their cameras?

Too expensive to build this into a consumer camera; this device is sold somewhere close to cost. Providing sufficient battery power can be a significant factor too.

With an expensive camera you don't want it built-in - in most cases you want a modular solution where you can choose from a variety of encoder boxes, according to your needs or the particular shooting location.

You can plug a $100 camcorder into one of these and get good results, if your network's adequate.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 09:57 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I don't understand the need for the device.. it compresses the uncompressed HDMI for streaming? Couldn't the tablet or PC on your backpack do the same?

You're right, Azurael - most video input or "capture" devices require a USB 3 or Thunderbolt port, and few tablets have these. In addition, the software hasn't been developed for them. And these tablets might not be able to handle the speeds of a ~raw 1080p HDMI video stream anyway - let alone a 4K one!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 09:43 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

They all need a Content Delivery Network - or you have to set up your own, expensive infrastructure. And all worthwhile CDNs cost money or require advertising.

The Livestream Broadcaster has a lower price (minimal markup, I'm sure), which Livestream can afford to do because it only streams in conjunction with their CDN, or with their software (Studio) and another CDN.

But since Livestream has possibly the best overall solution for cost-effective streaming, it's still worth looking at.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 09:34 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I don't understand the need for the device.. it compresses the uncompressed HDMI for streaming? Couldn't the tablet or PC on your backpack do the same?

Most PCs that have enough power are too bulky, plus they cost more. Few (if any) tablets are powerful enough.

It takes a digital HDMI video stream and converts it into a digital computer network stream - which is not natively designed for constant, steady streams, but rather bursts with various "random" delays. The advantage of this unit is it can monitor the bandwidth and dynamically adjust the quality of the stream, thus avoiding most drop-outs. Any encoder which can't dynamically monitor and adjust the output rate to the network's (often cellular) bandwidth will have trouble providing a watchable stream.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 09:22 UTC

Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!

Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 05:32 UTC as 12th comment | 4 replies

"It also has an integrated lens motor allowing for focus, iris and zoom to all be controlled from an ARRI hand unit, wirelessly. This makes the ALEXA Mini 4K an excellent choice for use with a drone."

I find this statement dubious. Only those with very high budgets might do this. The risk of damage using a drone can be reasonably high, so you'd have to be able to afford to rent or buy a number of units and somehow get them insured.

Most independent filmmakers need not apply (at least for drone use).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2015 at 01:57 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (2983 comments in total)
In reply to:

birdseed007: The truth is that the Pentax 645Z blows this and every other Canon or Nikon camera into the weeds for image quality and weather sealing which is why DpReview haven't reviewed it and nor have DXO Mark because they don't want to upset Canon and Nikon who pay the bulk of their advertising dollars.

The 645Z isn't for everyone (sports shooters) but it has brought the cost of superior image quality into levels that serious enthusiasts and professionals can realistically afford. With a range of 16 lenses covering extreme wide angle to 400mm telephoto it can do pretty much everything.

Canon is facing an onslaught from powerful new upstarts like Samsung and Sony plus a revitalised Pentax who under Ricoh have a turnover twice the size of Nikon.

Canon sales of DSLRs/ILC down 17%
Compact cameras down 32%
and those numbers got worse in Q4, the Christmas selling quarter.

Canon have been resting on their laurels for too long, fortunately the competition is acting as a spur to innovation

I don't think anyone produces new lenses "quite fast." Canon and Nikon are certainly no exception.

Creating a whole new system is a big deal, no matter who you are. So far Canon, for example, hasn't made much of a big deal out of the M system - which is why they have so little to show for it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 02:24 UTC
Total: 489, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »