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: 549, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

aliasfox: Sports is an obvious use case. Sports news is usually viewed on the web or newsprint, so 5MP is fine. With the Lytro, the photographer never has to wait for any kind of focusing - no PDAF, no CDAF, no focus lag whatsoever. As soon as Lebron jumps to make his basket, the photographer hits the shutter, focuses later for the perfect shot every time.

With light field, it should be possible to imitate a FF camera at F/2.8 - set the lens at 85mm equivalent and get FF style portraits anytime. An event photographer could use this to tweak images to clients' desires ("I want Mom over there to be in focus" or "Blur the background more, it's too distracting"). It essentially decouples the artistic (DoF) from the exposure (aperture) equation.

Obviously, neither of these are necessarily common use cases, and this field (no pun intended) still has a ways to go. But if they keep developing it, who knows. In 3-4 years we might have a high ISO, fast shooting FF model with 120 MR/16MP output.

"With the Lytro, the photographer never has to wait for any kind of focusing - no PDAF, no CDAF, no focus lag whatsoever."

And yet, the first Lytro had a focusing mechanism. A particularly slow and poorly performing one, at that.

You don't get an infinite range of refocusing. You get in the DOF range of an f16 equivalent, and can then move a narrower (f5.6 equivalent) DOF within that f16 range.

Since you brought up sports, let's shoot that lens at the 250mm equivalent long end. Say your subject is at 50 feet. If you nail the autofocus (something the old Lytro seldom could do), you can now refocus over the range from 44.8-55.6 feet. Not an inch more.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:59 UTC
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: For many years the emphasis was on getting everything sharp (f/64 if need be). If the background was distracting, you found a better background. For the last few years, people want minimal depth of field, even using sharp and expensive tilt lenses to get Lensbaby results. So the Lytro makes perfect sense. You can have as much sharpness or blur as you like, and even assign the location.

With focus no longer an issue and exposure both automatic and extended by HDR, the only thing that remains is for the camera to choose the subject and time of day.

No, you can't. With the lens array they have, information outside the focus range of the decimated array is simply gone. You can refocus a zone of f5.6 equivalent DOF anywhere within the f16 range of DOF where you actually have information. That's all.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:53 UTC
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

MASTERPPA: Here is my question. Can you make a image with it, that everything is in focus (within the range that is) Can you do macro with it? See where I am going here? For macro, this camera would be awesome.. No more macro focus rails..

Roland understands. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:47 UTC
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

km25: The lens is faster then Sony's R10, but who makes it. How good is it? The LCD is a bit low res. The forty MP seems a lot for a 1" sensor. Even if it has a an F2 constant zoom lens, sound like it would noisy. It' s price tag is a high. It will appeal to the buyers who must have MPs at any cost.

*sigh* it does for a Lytro.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:43 UTC
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So - give me some facts! How many native pixels do the 1" sensor have? And how many "lytro" lenses do the camera have? That is all that counts.

Do the 1" sensor have 40 MP?

Do the camera have 5 million "lytro" lenses?

5 million pixels on a 40mp sensor would be a straight 8x decimation. That doesn't really work. 9x would work, a 3x3 matrix, but that's a final resolution of 4.4mp.

Makes sense to me. I figure the new camera has to have less than 5 million lenses, and is interpolating the picture back up to a higher resolution. Hard to get caught doing that at 4.4mp, unless someone examines the raw files. 3x3 would get the DOF range variable between over f5.4-f16 equivalent range.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: I am going to write a blog article about this. I figured out that Lytro light field and Canon dual pixel are just special cases of a more generic class of subpixel sensor cameras. Neither Canon nor Lytro have hit the sweet spot yet though ...

A side effect may be that Canon's patent on dual pixel AF is void.

Moreover, it does probably mean that Canon's dual pixel AF causes diffraction problems at very high fstops. Something worth to be studied ;)

"A 9-pixel (3x3) grid underneath each microlens could give you horizontal, vertical, and diagonal AF sensors."

So could a 4 pixel (2x2) grid.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

0MitchAG: And what is the relevance to photography here? This is not longer battery life; a solar charger for this battery would be useful though.

Lars, are you pushing the 30 pound 1,500 W charger on a cart, or are you expecting StarBucks to start offering charging stations?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

badi: i looked on their website, and it seems that they work into image sensor improvements too. I couldn't find much details but their state is:
"Image sensors utilizing this technology are 5 times more sensitive than existing sensors." (about this so called nanodots technology).
That would be something, right? :)

Every such announcement of "dots", "nano" gadgets, or "quantum" something's that increase sensors has turned out to be a total misrepresentation.

Remember Graphene?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

Expat Nomad: Interesting research.

Begs the question though, in terms of smartphone use, why are phone makers under-designing battery capacity?

5 years ago, you had phones that lasted 7-9 days on a single charge. My arcane BB still lasts 3-4 under pretty heavy use.

I'd be more interested in gains in energy improvements (for example like those in miniaturization for medical devices) that allowed me to charge my battery less.

There are currently 122 processes running on my S4. The thing is never really "off".

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: If this could be adapted to an electric car battery it would be really be something.

Indeed. A Tesla uses a 53 kilowatt-hour battery pack. That's 190 megajoules. A 26 second charge at 90% efficiency would require about 8 megawatts.

It would be something to see.

From a healthy distance.

Or a bunker.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 02:01 UTC

A Samsung S4 has a 9.88 watt-hour battery. That's 35568 watt-seconds. To charge that in 26 seconds at 90% efficiency requires 1520W.

Just what everybody wants, a phone that has a 30-pound, $1000 charger that requires exclusive use of a domestic circuit, like a refrigerator does.

Oh, and the phone is a low voltage device. 1520W at 5V is just over 300A. Anyone know a 300A DC connector that's smaller than a cell phone?

Every year or two for the last 12 years, dpReview has ran a 30-second charging battery story. It's sort of the ultimate solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. Battery technology far outstrips charger technology. 5-10 watt chargers are a practical size, weight, and cost, and 1-2 hours is an acceptable charging time to get that size and weight of a charger.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2014 at 01:53 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

QuarterToDoom: Wow its like a shark feeding frenzy and Canon and Nikon are the ones who are bleeding in water. I don't think there has ever been so much going on in the consumer camera equipment world like in the last 3 years.

Bleeding in the water?

http://www.strata-gee.com/2013/11/12/jvc-kenwood-dramatically-revises-fiscal-forecast-now-says-will-lose-money-year/

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: "The Micro Four Thirds system, originally developed by Olympus and Panasonic, now lists Carl Zeiss, Astro Design, SVS-Vistek, Kenko Tokina, Cosina, Schneider-Kreuznach, JK Imaging, Tamron, View Plus, Photron and Blackmagic Designs as members. Sigma also makes lenses for the system."

I thought Kodak is a part of the consortium too. They have their own m4/3 out now too.

There is no "consortium". It's more like "licensees". That's why there's always so many weasel words in these "somebody has joined four thirds" announcements.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 03:16 UTC

Wonder how many uFT lenses will cover the 25.3mm Super35 image circle.

Weird. If Panasonic hadn't recently dumped all their JVC Kenwood stock (they were JVC's largest single investor for half a century) I'd say "oh look, a Panasonic subsidiary has joined four thirds".

But right now, it makes no sense.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 03:13 UTC as 18th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

SDPharm: Here's my question: take an identical scene with this new Hassy and a Nikon D800, process them to the best one can, then print each to a reasonable size, say, 5 ft wide. Then hang them in a gallery with controlled lighting. Will I be able to tell which one is which when viewing them from a comfortable viewing distance of 3-5 ft?

Indeed. I've seen gallery work done with 6-25 shot panoramas on FF, 100-1000mp, and they were simply stunning.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 02:14 UTC

I can hardly wait to try this on the Linhoff M679. That little gem of a view camera just cries out for a medium format back with liveview. Now, granted the M679 is a little long for the lenses that make good normals and wides on a 55mm diagonal sensor, but there are still a few tolerable offerings. For product, this thing should be a killer.

You can keep the Fuji 645 lenses and body that the vultures slap a "Hassleblad" label on.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 02:10 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

citrontokyo: The price is okay, but let's just say it's no Lunar in the looks department.
Pass.

" let's just say it's no Lunar in the looks department."

That's the best thing about it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 02:04 UTC
In reply to:

fenceSitter: "50 Mpixel CMOS sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor."

On which planet are 1.67 "almost 2"?

I was going to correct you and point out that it has a sensor around 37x49mm, like any other medium format in the $25,000 range, but I checked the specs, and danged if it didn't have a dinky little 33x44mm, a 1.27x crop factor relative to an actual 645.

This camera represents an enormous price jump, first non-Leica 55mm diagonal "economy" tweener sensor to pass the $15k mark. In other words, they went to a lower cost CMOS sensor, and jacked the price of the 55mm diagonal class cameras up by a factor of two.

Jingle all the way, Hasselblad. Cha-ching!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

SDPharm: Here's my question: take an identical scene with this new Hassy and a Nikon D800, process them to the best one can, then print each to a reasonable size, say, 5 ft wide. Then hang them in a gallery with controlled lighting. Will I be able to tell which one is which when viewing them from a comfortable viewing distance of 3-5 ft?

"No, print one like 30 feet wide and you will see" how much nicer FF is at that aspect, after you crop the blad down to 41.6mp.

"Imagine how a highway billboard 60 feet wide will look" at 8mp, because a billboard may be big, but it's seen from a distance similar to a 4x6 at arm's length.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

pdelux: Only Hassleblad could make this thing uglier, I hope they don't get their hands on this... the humanity.

Funny you should mention that. Remember, Hasselblad was the first to give the Foveon a ride, even before Sigma.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2014 at 23:35 UTC
Total: 549, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »