Joseph S Wisniewski

Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.

Comments

Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This is interesting...

"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 smartphone boasts a 1 inch 20MP sensor, which is likely the same imaging unit we've seen used by other recent high-end compact cameras like Sony's Cyber-shot RX100 III."

So, is Sony, who happens to be the world's biggest manufacturer of large image sensors, using Panasonic sensors in their own cameras? Or is Panasonic, who doesn't make as many sensors as Sony, but is still such a big manufacturer they're in the top 5, using Sony sensors in their cameras, instead of their own?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 18:43 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wedding photographer: I believe that the new perfect portrait lens should have:
1) beautiful pattern bokeh (Yes);
2) accurate and fast autofocus (No);

In my opinion modern lenses have acceptable sharpness (considering possibility of their mediocre autofocus systems).

I think, other parameters such as “flawless sharpness” and especially “No distortion“ should be placed on fourth or fifth place.

However Marketers of Zeiss have other point of view. They look based on synthetic tests of manual sharpness - far from real life.

Zeiss said "neutral" bokeh, not "beautiful", so I'm hesitant to give it that first "yes".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 15:30 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: "The Master" was shot using Kodak 65mm.

The problem is this: No one makes cine cameras any longer. Eventually, there will not be any parts when one needs repairs. That's less than 10 years away.

With quantum advances in raw exposure, PP becomes easier each year. Cinema DNG is one example. Black Magic is giving Red stiff competition.

Readers' thoughts?

Tell me about it. I ran into an "artist" who made lamps from musical instruments that he got by the pound. Bought one that he had made from a moderately rare (and totally fascinating) flute with a wood body and metal head. After I bought it, I told him I was going to remove the flute and scrap his lamp parts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 06:59 UTC
In reply to:

Deardorff: Once again Hasselblad shows their head is still firmly planted deep in their collective ass.

Where is the SQUARE format back?

"it's a shame there's no way to build a rotating mount into the back, but I'm guessing focus tolerances may exclude that."

There is a way. Leaf made nice rotating sensor backs for 6x6 cameras. (Remember the Hy6 debacle?) So I'm thinking what "may exclude that" is Phase One, who acquired all of Leaf's IP four years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Eamon Hickey: Can somebody clarify something for me. The WSJ article includes the statistic that motion picture film sales have fallen from 12.4 billion feet in 2006 to an estimated 449 million feet for this year, a decline of 96%.

The article talks almost exclusively about what media films are being shot with nowadays. But am I right in guessing that those sales figures must include all types of motion picture film, including internegative, interpositive, and release print stocks, not just camera negative film? So it's probably the case that the vast majority of the decline in sales comes from the large-scale switch to digital post-production and (for movies) digital projection?

In other words, the 12.4 billion feet of film sold in 2006 was not all camera negative film was it? Thanks in advance for any answers.

> Roll film needs its own version of the Impossible Project.

There are multiple versions of that. Hang around APUG for a while, people are building roll film coaters in their garages. You've got European companies with anywhere from 6 to 100 people popping up with factories using scavenged equipment from much larger factories.

Of course, modern film tech like tabular grains or Kodak Vision III are going to go away and the films available will look a lot like 1950, but hey...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 22:58 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!

> Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

The Dark Knight is a personal peeve of mine. The super-loud IMAX camera ruined substantial amount of the film's dialog, forcing the actors to do ADR work, trying to lip-sync new dialog to images on a monitor. I know it's Batman, so everybody is supposed to be kind of emotionally flat, but I found the end result to be horrible.

But curiously nostalgic, with overtones of a dubbed Kiung Fu film from the 70s.

Bet the producers were saying "thank God Bain's mouth is covered so his ADR will be more spontaneous and emotionally charged".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

Flashback: I recently cleared my loft of all my old darkroom equipment. Brought back some fond memories.

Some of it went to a Jumble Sale, the rest dumped. I did keep the enlarger lens though. Never use it, but a lovely piece of glass made by Hoya.

Thanks Kodak. Just hang in there...

Get a bellows, mount that enlarger lens up, and shoot some serious macro.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Sigh,

its a shame that nobody saved Kodak, both digital and film division. Most will never know how much we lost.

Kodak, in its heyday, was a joy to deal with. I licensed IP from them twice. They were very friendly to small operations, and gave you terms you could start with and grow with.

A pleasure in these days of patent trolls.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: I hope they are shooting the next Star Wars movies with film. The last three were hard to watch and lacked any character.

> The last three were hard to watch and lacked any character.

I don't think that was a film vs. digital issue...

And the "Phantom Menace", arguably the worst film in the franchise, was shot on 35mm film.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:14 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: "The Master" was shot using Kodak 65mm.

The problem is this: No one makes cine cameras any longer. Eventually, there will not be any parts when one needs repairs. That's less than 10 years away.

With quantum advances in raw exposure, PP becomes easier each year. Cinema DNG is one example. Black Magic is giving Red stiff competition.

Readers' thoughts?

The Master is considered a flop, costing $30M, grossing $28M.

Repairs aren't really a problem. People use to say that parts would be a problem for film cameras, but it turns out that there are so many units sitting in used camera stores, ebay, attics, etc. that all the cameras that are still being used can be repaired for the next 100 years.

So, the cine camera parts supply is secure until people start misplacing or melting down the warehouses full of film gear, or selling it by the pound to people making "steam punk" jewelry.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

> Since 80s, few movies are shot entirely in 70mm any more.

Six in the US. The last to actually make money was 1992's "Far and Away". The other five all flopped. Aside from that, two films shot in 1970 didn't flop, "Airport" and "Patton". The rest crashed and burned.

The last European 70mm film to make money was Ryan's Daughter, also back in 1970.

On the subject of film ruining a movie, did you see "The Dark Knight Rises"? All that truly horrible ADR work was a consequence of the noisy IMAX cameras destroying the original dialogue.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

@nerd2, you missed a few. The projection quality of digital just eats film for dinner. The last movie I saw projected on film, "An Education" was literally ruined for me by film projection. The projector jitter, probably not much worse than I'd been seeing for years in other film movies, exceeded "distracting" and catapulted the experience to "sickening".

Definitely time to outlaw the stuff. Look who's lobbying for it. The owners of the moribund Star Wars franchise, as dead as film itself. Tarantino, because all of life is noir. Aptow, the god of shlock comedy, someone who has yet to produce a film I can even sit through.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

Edac2: Why can't a 60 x 60mm sensor be made? 43.8 x 32.9mm is nowhere near "full frame" and there will be a significant loss of focal length using this back (43.8 is 73% of 60, and 32.9 is only 55% of 60). Perhaps having the sensor plane further from the lens than a film plane compensates for this; then you would just lose some of the square image at the top and bottom of the frame. There would be other compromises, though, such as not being able to use the camera's viewfinder. Would one keep the mirror flipped up to use this back?

> By the way, don't look now but 4:3 is alive and well and going great guns in M4:3 cameras, giving all miniature formats a run.

Of course it isn't. The only thing Panasonic's micro fourthirds has in common with Oly's four thirds is two words. MFT is a short backfocus system that gets its high quality exactly the same way rangefinders like Leica have been doing for around a century, with simple, near symmetrical lenses.

Oly's fabric of lies about telecentricity being necessary and all new lens designs being needed now lies dead and buried.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Edac2: Why can't a 60 x 60mm sensor be made? 43.8 x 32.9mm is nowhere near "full frame" and there will be a significant loss of focal length using this back (43.8 is 73% of 60, and 32.9 is only 55% of 60). Perhaps having the sensor plane further from the lens than a film plane compensates for this; then you would just lose some of the square image at the top and bottom of the frame. There would be other compromises, though, such as not being able to use the camera's viewfinder. Would one keep the mirror flipped up to use this back?

To answer some serious misconceptions,

> To answer the original - the size is reduced because the circle of the lenses, at least the wides, would not produce acceptable corners on a sensor the same size as the film.

And yet, those lenses did produce acceptable corners on extreme high resolution film like Tech Pan.

> The same reason full frame wide lenses had to be redesigned,

Tell that to Leica, whose existing FF lenses, despite the short back focus, are among the sharpest in the world.

> and Oly opted for a new 4:3 lens system,

Which ended up discontinued when the world noticed that Oly's "telecentric" talk was a pack of lies.

> and Nikon went with DX for their initial pro cameras.

Because, at the time, FF sensors cost over $10,000.

> Sensors see corners (extreme angles) differently to film, and the corners would be lousy.

And simple offset microlenses fix that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 02:57 UTC
In reply to:

Dan Nikon: I have a full Hassy V system that includes 9 lenses, 10 backs, 2 x 501CM's and a 500ELX, I use it for fine art in doing darkroom prints, stellar system for peanuts in terms of what it used to cost. That being said, as tempting as this 50 MP back is and I don't find the price too outrageous, I would rather have a 20MP 56mm x 56mm ( that is the full image area ) back that I can impart the same look and feel of the format with, not a cropped version that only slightly outdoes my new D810. Sure, high res is great but I would rather sacrifice MP count for great low light and having it be 6x6.

I never crop my 6x6 images, I shoot to fill a square frame. Hopefully they will sell enough of these to create the basis for R&D to make a proper 6x6 back one day...one can only dream at this point.

> I would rather have a 20MP 56mm x 56mm

Sorry. Megaoixels have almost nothing to do with cost. 2, 20, or 200mp, that 56x56mm back is going to cost over $60k.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

Dan Nikon: I have a full Hassy V system that includes 9 lenses, 10 backs, 2 x 501CM's and a 500ELX, I use it for fine art in doing darkroom prints, stellar system for peanuts in terms of what it used to cost. That being said, as tempting as this 50 MP back is and I don't find the price too outrageous, I would rather have a 20MP 56mm x 56mm ( that is the full image area ) back that I can impart the same look and feel of the format with, not a cropped version that only slightly outdoes my new D810. Sure, high res is great but I would rather sacrifice MP count for great low light and having it be 6x6.

I never crop my 6x6 images, I shoot to fill a square frame. Hopefully they will sell enough of these to create the basis for R&D to make a proper 6x6 back one day...one can only dream at this point.

Or maybe RED only ships about 20% of what they announce.

Just sayin'

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

Edac2: Why can't a 60 x 60mm sensor be made? 43.8 x 32.9mm is nowhere near "full frame" and there will be a significant loss of focal length using this back (43.8 is 73% of 60, and 32.9 is only 55% of 60). Perhaps having the sensor plane further from the lens than a film plane compensates for this; then you would just lose some of the square image at the top and bottom of the frame. There would be other compromises, though, such as not being able to use the camera's viewfinder. Would one keep the mirror flipped up to use this back?

Eyelike did, around 10 years ago. The 60mm square back cost around $70,000.

Sensor cost goes up exponentially with size. The 33x44mm (more or less) sensors are so expensive they end up in $8-15,000 cameras and backs. 36x48mm jacks that up closer to $20-30k, and the biggest currently available for civilian use, 39x52mm, end up in the $30-40k neighborhood.

This hasn't changed much in the last 10 years. If anything, prices have gone up a bit.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

Preamp: That 12.5MPx mode sounds nice. It will probably use a full "bayer quad" as a single pixel, effectively performing supersampling in-camera. Great way to get around demosaicking! Any samples around yet?

You can't get around demosiacing that way. The centers of the red and blue pixels are displaced, so the different color images are skewed in relation to each other, and you still need to interpolate everything into its correct location.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

Black Box: Finally a Hassy camera Luca Alessandrini hasn't put his mafioso hands on... yet!

After Blad's new owners gave to boot to Larry Hansen back in January, two of the first things that the new CEO Ian Rawcliffe did were to shut down Luca's Italian design center and to increase digital back development.

A new V system back is one way of saying "you and the horse you road in on" to Hansen, who discontinued the V and greenlighted Lunar, Stellar, and Solar.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Oh! I would have preferred 30 megapixels and full frame. I'll be able to afford this in ten years time when the price drops to a point I could feasibly purchase one. Maybe!

"now there's also Sony."

There's really no "also" there. Now there's Sony, period.

On Semiconductors bought the remains of the Kodak sensors division from Platinum Equity a couple of months ago, reportedly for 1/3 what Platinum paid for it. Their only remaining customers are in the smaller industrial sensors: red light cameras, inspection, etc.

Teledyne has pretty much refocused DALSA on line sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 01:21 UTC
Total: 521, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »