PIX 2015
kb2zuz

kb2zuz

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Digital Imaging Techician
Joined on Jun 6, 2006
About me:

Specializing in Fine Art reproduction, color management, retouching, printing, and
digital asset management.

Other jobs I've held in past lives, in no particular order:

Studio and Location Shoot Photo Assistant
Digital Tech
Equipment Rental
Photographer
Photo Lab Technician (Dip & Dunk Film processing)
Durst Lambda and wide format inkjet operator
Retoucher
Design/Layout
Educator
Inkjet Printing R&D

Comments

Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On DJI Phantom 3 Standard photography drone unveiled article (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

pdussart: The marketing of this drone is a shame.

The acquisition cost is 30% higher in Europe than in the US. Same product. This is a DJI decision. A cost of ownership of more than 1200+ USD instead of 799 in the USD.

A rip-off.

Let's wait for a Chinese copy

US does not have VAT. Individual states (and some cities) can have sales tax, but that is not reflected in the MSRP as the rate varies.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 19:02 UTC
On DJI Phantom 3 Standard photography drone unveiled article (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sarge_: I was so hoping this would be a unit with ability to control better cameras, like the Sony RX100 units. As an architectural photographer I've been waiting for an affordable way to get a decent camera in the air, but this is still no improvement on a GoPro rig, or their other proprietary Vision cameras.

If you're reading, Phantom, I need a larger sensor for low light (dusk use) and the ability to zoom between 24mm-70mm equivalent. The camera technology and the flight tech are all there, we just need a real-time interface and controller.

I would think Phantom could sell a lot of these in the $1,500 range. Ideally they'd be software upgradable so you could fit better cameras as they become available.

I won't invest in a drone, which should work for many years, that comes with a camera that is out of date in a year or so, and which doesn't measure up to professional standards on any level.

This is not the drone you're looking for. The Inspire is a much more professional drone in terms of controls. But if you want something where you can use your own camera, you're looking for the DJI Spreading Wings line... modular design and customizability do not come cheap.

There are other drones out there by other companies and designs you can make yourself that will accept different cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 18:58 UTC
On Canon EOS 5DS / SR First Impressions Review preview (3439 comments in total)
In reply to:

keith Bennett: I would request that Canon, in a software update for the R, offer the option to switch off the self cancelling filter - so your R would become an S which is a perfectly fine camera….with slightly softer noise?

I don't think it works that way. If it's anything like the D800 vs the D800e... they are two different optical filters. The reason that the R just doesn't remove the filter, is it would have different optical properties and focusing distances so it would require a lot of changes to the design. Instead on the one where there is AA filtering, they use two filters, one that blurs in one direction and one that blurs in the other. In the self-canceling version they flip the 2nd filter so that it undoes the initially blur (it's not exactly blurring, it's birefringence shifting light based on it's polarization, so that can be undone before it hits the sensor).

Also the AA filter doesn't soften noise, noise is in the sensor, the AA filter is an optical filter before the sensor... this process has to be done before sampling (before the light hits the sensor) to be effective in combating moiré properly.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 13:14 UTC
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1472 comments in total)
In reply to:

VikingPhotographer: Please stop using "Full frame" it do not give any meaning ! There are larger sensors than "Full frame"/24x36, just call it 24x36 :) Thank you very much !
If anything "new" to be made in photographic terms it´s about Lenses, it do not give any good meaning anymore to only use focal length in millimeter, far better would be angle degrees :) Then it is much easier to compare Lenses for different formats :)
Happy New Year :D

I prefer the term "135 format" as it's closer in logic and nomenclature to "APS-C format"

I have had some issues with the term full frame when I'm trying to describe a "full frame" 645 sensor vs a slightly smaller crop when comparing 40MP vs 80MP sensors.

However the bigger problem with the term "full-frame" is it implies it's an end-state... full. That's not the case. Bigger isn't always better and even if it was there's medium format and large format.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2015 at 21:31 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (207 comments in total)
In reply to:

kb2zuz: Why is someone making yet another standard, we already have JPEG2000 which can save 16-bit files and no one uses outside of server applications where you want tiling and JP2 is better than a pyramidal tiff. We already have WebP which seems very similar to this standard and already works with at least some web browsers has and no one uses it.

The JPEG2000 standard isn't. There is fear that some of the libraries that leverage JP2 might have submarine patents... or at least that's how members of the JPEG2000 committee described it to me.

Edit also the patent argument is Something that has been said for 15 years... that argument may be moot at this point if the concerned patents predated it by a couple years.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (207 comments in total)

Why is someone making yet another standard, we already have JPEG2000 which can save 16-bit files and no one uses outside of server applications where you want tiling and JP2 is better than a pyramidal tiff. We already have WebP which seems very similar to this standard and already works with at least some web browsers has and no one uses it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 22:08 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Flashback: Please, please, please put this sumptuous sensor into a compact mirror-less body.

I really don't care how much it costs!

Depends on the lens and the design. A longer focal length lens will not be as much a problem, and wider angle lenses won't have as much issue if they use a retrofocal design. However a non-retrofocal ultra wide angle may have some issues (some of which can be corrected for light light fall of and color shift) but softness may well be an issue (though some people will be find with that).

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 17:13 UTC
On Pentax 645Z added to studio comparison database article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Flashback: Please, please, please put this sumptuous sensor into a compact mirror-less body.

I really don't care how much it costs!

As and you shall receive: http://www.digitaltransitions.com/page/phase-one-a-series

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2014 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Color filter in digital era? We still need polarizing filter because the sensor does not record polarized information of rays but we can simply change WB (or apply a color filter) to get the same effect.

Just a Photographer, read the description. It's a Polarizer and a Warm-Up filter in one: A spokesman for Lee told DP Review that the warm-up element of the Landscape Polariser is the equivalent to adding an 81A warm-up filter. They were asking about COLOR filters, not ND.

Yes ND and polarizers are still useful filters, but that's not the question being asked here.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 16:11 UTC
In reply to:

ScottRH: The D810 looks like the body D700 users may go for since the FPS is up. It should not take long to see if all of the D800/E issues are fixed.
But then again, a D710? !

I'd more expect a D900 in a year or two… a baby D4 like the D700 was a baby D3.

The reality is that only a handful of people will buy a $3,000 camera every 3 years. Which is why Nikon and canon flip-flopped between markets. The 5D Mk II was aimed more a studio and landscape photographers while the D700 was a sports/wildlife photographer's dream. This generation the 5D Mk III is a sports/wildlife camera and the D800 is more suited for studio/landscape. The D810 just says Nikon isn't ready yet to make a completely new camera, but they can make some improvements to the D810 that might satisfy some of those who are now waiting for a replacement of their 5 year old D700 (and can't drop $6,500 on a D4s)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 15:30 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: Nice camera. However, I must say the latest releases of digital cameras are getting awfully expensive. Even for an admittedly pricey hobby, the cameras and lenses released within the last couple of years really are pushing the boundaries of "affordability" for the amateur or hobbyist.

Cliff, I disagree with ruggedness as being the standard indicator of what is "professional." By that definition A $600 Pentax K-50 is more professional than the Hasselblads we use in the studio here. Not every photographer has the same needs.

I find that the controls tend to be more consistently what a seasoned professional shooter will point to when comparing a camera they feel is "less professional." Many cases ruggedness is needed by a professional and the camera that is more rugged will feel more professional. Obviously their are several factors in the decision and ruggedness can be one for certain people, but it's hardly a consistent one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 16:20 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

Falko: While Nikon's traditional fan base may not be bothered by the lack of wireless, 4k video, 1080p at high frame rates, focus peaking or an articulated touch-screen, I think it makes the D810 look old fashioned before it's even out the gates.

And if it looks dated now, how's it going to look in two or more years during the typical lifespan of this product? Remember this is not a cheap camera and even now you can buy a Sony A7r with the same sensor size and resolution, Wifi, focus peaking and a tilting screen for two thirds the price...

Different cameras for different users. For many people the A7r is a much better camera. For me my D800 is a better camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:36 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

ipecaca: Wich of these improvements couldn't be implemented in a firmware update?

Physically rebalancing the mirror, physically removing the optical low pass filter, and upgrading the processing chip are physical changes. The processor upgrade definitely is needed for the higher FPS. It also allows for more complex noise reduction for higher ISO without slowing down the FPS.

Some features like zebra striping in the video and the highlight priority metering probably could have been able to be implemented in firmware, but there is a chance that they needed the speed or features in the new processor to implement them (or these features might be designed into the processor so it makes it easier to do than it would with a firmware update). These probably could have been done in firmware.

sRAW probably needs the faster speed to crunch the numbers quickly without slowing down the FPS. Maybe the could have implemented it via a firmware update, but I'm betting there would have been compromises if they did. But I can't say for certain.… I'd say 50/50 chance.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

lensberg: Looks like an incremental augmentation of the D800 / 800E ... Whether its worth it or not is anybody's guess... At least it seems like a better thought out product line implementation compared to the mockery of the D610 ...

And coming to think about it... why is there no 4K video capability...?! May not be used all the time, but considering the price point, it would be nice to be somewhat future-proofed in the video specs department...

Why can't Nikon introduce a new model with a brand new sensor altogether...? Or have Sony not licensed one out to them as yet...? I'll bet when the 5D Mark IV is out, it will incorporate a new sensor, image processor, AF module and 99.99% sure it will have 4K video under its belt...

Yes, it's an incremental change. You're crazy to think that Nikon is aiming for D800 and D800E users to sell their cameras and replace them with this. There will be a few, but the target are the people who've been holding out on the D800 because the fps was too slow or they wanted a few more video features (because Canon has the Magic Lantern hack), or maybe they were holding on to their Medium format digital a little longer. This will not sell as well as the D800 did initially, but it will allow Nikon to keep selling the camera and stay relevant until the next generation is set.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:25 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

select: nice improvements, but the lack of 4k video, wifi and gps, is a shame for a camera that costs over 3k euros

Wifi and GPS in camera have inherent problems. You generally see these features in entry level and enthusiast level cameras for two reasons. 1) They often use more plastic in the bodies and they aren't as weather sealed, this is adventageous if you're trying to get radio signals through without the use of an external antenna. 2) If the features don't work perfectly an amateur/enthusiast is not going to care as much, the features are still fun. If however you need the features to work consistently and accurately, you're not going to be happy if they fail or are problematic while working on a paying job. Most professionals will prefer to use a separate WiFi adaptor that is more reliable (or use a physical cable in some case). Similarly for GPS they will use an add on antenna that has a clearer line to the sky or they'll use a separate geo-logger that won't drain their camera's battery.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:21 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

viking79: Go price how much OLPF glass costs, and quickly see Nikon is saving tons of money not including any AA filter at all. Rough guess is a full frame filter is going to cost $100 US +/-.

Seems like a small upgrade, Nikon must be feeling a lot of pressure from the competition to push it out so soon.

It's not just about manufacturing costs (which you're estimating base on purchasing one for yourself through a specially vendor, they're buying in bulk and the price would likely be significantly less than half that). There's a lot of design work that has to go into a new camera. They designed their image processing around the old sensor with the AA filter and with the AA canceling filter, and in both cases with that. They also have to plan out and design the manufacturing line, get regulatory approval in every country they plan to sell it, pay lawyers to file patents, etc. This leads to a cost of million and millions of dollars before they sell their first camera.

Now the biggest issue is that it's practically guaranteed that this camera will not sell as much as the D800 did (because many of the people who wanted a camera like this already bout a D800/E and only a handful are likely to upgrade from a D800). So they have to make more per unit to pay off the development costs.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 16:12 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: Nice camera. However, I must say the latest releases of digital cameras are getting awfully expensive. Even for an admittedly pricey hobby, the cameras and lenses released within the last couple of years really are pushing the boundaries of "affordability" for the amateur or hobbyist.

Marcelobtp, I agree with you. "Professional" is not a binary choice where this camera is professional and that camera is not. It's closer to a continuum where something like a D5300 has controls that are more designed for an entry level user. For an extra $300, the D7100 is far more professional in it's controls. The D300s has a few features and nuances with it's button layout that are even more professional (though slightly compared to the difference between the D5300 and the D7100), however there are people who will pay $500 more (and take a hit in specs like megapixels, dynamic range, and high ISO performance) for that improvement.

Yes some of those people are just hearing that it's more professional and want it, but most are people who need a specific feature or ability and will pay.

I could get professional results with a D3300, but as a professional that doesn't want the camera to get in the way, I'd probably just be more frustrated with the camera in use.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 15:51 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1611 comments in total)
In reply to:

Retzius: Nice camera. However, I must say the latest releases of digital cameras are getting awfully expensive. Even for an admittedly pricey hobby, the cameras and lenses released within the last couple of years really are pushing the boundaries of "affordability" for the amateur or hobbyist.

This is a more "professional" camera, not exactly intended for hobbyists. You can get a very good entry level DSLR like the D3300 for $600 (which includes a zoom lens), or you can get one with more professional controls an autofocus like the D7100 for $1,100. If you really want full frame, the D610 can be had for $1,900 and is a very good high-end enthusiast camera.

To complain this is not affordable for amateurs is missing the point of the camera. It would be like going to a guitar store and seeing the one high-end $15,000 guitar in a glass case and complain that the prices are too high while ignoring the rows of guitars on the wall priced under $500.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

bob elkind: Why does the photographer own the rights to these photos?

If the photographer hired the Waltons as models for his photos, and the Waltons signed a model release, then yes -- the photographer owns full rights.

I suspect that the Waltons hired the photographer to photograph them, the Waltons did not sign a model release (why would they?), in which case the photographer does not own the rights to these photos.

Model release has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. Model releases are only really needed to prove you have the right to use their image (particularly if say you were going to use them in an advertisement).

The only way the Waltons would have copyright would be if they employeed the photographer full time (as defined by IRS laws).

You take a photo, you own the photo. Unless you are employed full time (not on a contract) as a photographer working for someone else. Then that person (or company) owns copyright. Model release has nothing to do with copyright.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 03:49 UTC
On Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures article (166 comments in total)

If they go ahead with it, then you should be able to get the original files taken at a WalMart portrait studio.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 03:44 UTC as 19th comment
Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »