pgb

pgb

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Video editor / Technical Director
Joined on Sep 7, 2003
About me:

Take more photos and switch off the computer.

Comments

Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Eazy123: LOLing at all the people calling for his crucifixion/Nikon to sue him or whatever. The prize was a freaking trolley bag.

I wonder how some of you you handle real issues in life. If someone cuts you off in traffic, do you run him off the road and blow his head off? Come on, man...we live in a world where someone will pay a million dollars for a photo of a POTATO.

Springthing, I'm sure the legal profession would be very happy with the situation and would encourage it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 17:29 UTC
On article Heavy hitter: Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM first shots (329 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eugene232: Sony started create affordable FF system..
and then forgotten about..

Why don't Sony make something like the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 for $500. It would get people hooked and then they would upgrade later after the initial purchase hit, like Canon and Nikon have done.
I'd buy a 6300 tomorrow if this was available. Battery drain and lens keeps me away, I could live with just the power consumption.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (612 comments in total)
In reply to:

MHJ19: Meh. Cannon is still trying to screw their loyal customers by purposely limiting the feature set, all the while Sony is racing ahead with exciting innovations with every release. Even Nikon is waking up and making cameras with way better specs than the Canon equivalent. Really hate to get out of the canon systems but may just have to. Screw the Corporate a-holes at canon!

For an AF tracking test, shoot a roller coaster, train arriving at a station, a moving light with a gobo of an eye or go to a facility and hire an industrial robot doing a repeatable sequence of transformations for extreme overkill like this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX6JcybgDFo

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 18:04 UTC
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (612 comments in total)
In reply to:

JRFlorendo: According to Digital Camera World; "The sensor gets a modest resoltuion upgrade, from 18 megapixels to 20, but the real work here has gone on behind the scenes, with the NEW ON-CHIP A/D converter design and Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology for faster, smoother live view autofocus."

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2016/02/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-hands-on-review/

Doesn't Sony have an A/D per column? So an A/D or so on chip may not be quite the same as the analogue multiplexers would still add errors but a big step forward regardless.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

nathantw: The culprit is film. Everyone is going back to it. LOL

and Super 8.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

bakanecko: 2015 Sony cameras are not volume sellers, all premium priced and segmented for higher level photographer, no surprise here.

@Don, `a proper Canon / Nikon Milc system'
That reminds me when Bill Gates described Wintel as a
`sensible computer platform'.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 19:45 UTC
In reply to:

Andreas Voigt: "...more RX and a7-series cameras. Operating income went up by over 20%, however, due the aforementioned shift to higher-end digital cameras"

That’s no surprise. Over the years Sony managed to double the price of the RX100 series (model I to IV). And their latest a7 series got a 50% premium price hike.

But it makes me wonder how the strategy (trying to compensate declining sales by increasing the price) is going to work out over the long haul.

The A7R2 does have premium features, high mpx, ibis, bsi and it's the newest product. You would expect to pay more.
Isn't the Canon 5DS a similar price ?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

TSeiler: People are switching to cell phone cameras. DSLRs are now dinosaurs. The only ones who don't understand that are the ones who have invested a giant sum of money into dead technology. In a few years your giant DSLRs will be as worthless as film cameras are today. You can argue with me and call me all the names you want but it won't reverse progress. No one with a brain wants to haul around a camera the size of a toaster.

Elgo, and the lens range is unbelievable for 2016.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

Combatmedic870: For a second I thought they used panda skin or something with the permission of Chinese government. I was about to flip out!

But I like the idea of these cameras. Atleast they stand for something. They could atleast donate 1 dollar made from each camera and adopt a panda for christ sake....

Luke, only if it was taken for scientific research.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 06:45 UTC
In reply to:

Retzius: Anything to fleece the rich these days. Leica will do anything to make a quick buck.

They could have at least pretended they had other motives by giving a percentage of the sales to wildlife preservation or something.

Ridiculous.

When I red the headline I initially thought they were doing something useful. I hope there's still some pandas to shoot, maybe they should include a few read only limited edition shots in the camera taken by a really important photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 06:42 UTC

Superb photos, it really gives them some dignity. I wish DPR had stayed on them a lot longer in the video, far more interesting than the two shot. Aaron is doing something different.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 07:06 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

DonM999: Color negative film, but you get back a positive film to view? I'm glad scanning is included in price. Does anyone remember just how fuzzy Super 8 Kodachrome was and now they are going to introduce film grain as well? I wish they had done this in 16mm so the film would be worth viewing. Does Kodak have a low cost scanning service for the box of Super 8 films I already have?

You would get back a developed negative. You would also need a widescreen projector as they are using more of the film due to dropping the sound stripe.
An 8mm scanning service is a good idea for un-spliced film. Kodak made some pro scanners in the past.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2016 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

MikeF4Black: Cravat, scarf, ascot. What is the world (as we know it) coming to (in the backwater that calls itself Seattle)?

"See you in a bit" gave the whole game away.

I for one was relieved no end there was no footage showing a subject (slightly) left of center, gazing (staring?) left, out of the frame, and that there was no obvious cabling in view.

That sort of thing really annoys me, so I'm glad the team has upped its game.

Yes the side on `ear' shot really annoys me too. It distances the viewer from involvement, did someone enter the room ? I would be clicking my fingers, `hey, the camera is over here'.
Of course a 1+1 interview would be a different matter but no ears please.
It reminds me of the jerky cam genre a while back.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 18:33 UTC
On article The good, the bad and the analog: CES 2016 'Best of' (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

wildkat2: The Kodak Super8 camera is a Hipster tax.

$500-750 for the camera
$20 for a film pack
$50-70 to process said film
All for roughly 2 1/2 minutes
thats $.60 a SECOND
And of course you can't edit it unless you digitize it.
A year from now you will be able to buy those for $50 on craigslist

Smiler, yes pre 1992 that was true. This same workflow is the norm today with digital cinematography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avid_Technology

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 20:29 UTC
In reply to:

Rob Klein: Having been a long time user of Super 8, back in the days of Nixon and Reagan, I find the retooling of this device as somewhat of a gamble by Kodak. Unless they want to keep the workers in the film plant busy for a month or so, this product is destined to be the Edsel of Kodak. Yes, we all love the look of film and nostalgia for days gone by, but seriously, are you really going to sit around the projector and watch whatever? Eumig must be loving this!

EzeE, you could do a 50K scan and it would look the same as 1K that would look great too. Standard 16mm was considered to be slightly more than 1K res. Super 16 was probably HD at best. Just because it's film doesn't mean it has infinite resolution.
Stop spreading this mis-information and potentially wasting someones money thinking they are buying 4K or even HD. That video is mostly Super 16mm, the few 8mm cutaways has been processed to look very grainy and desaturated or I hope it has. That cliched look can be so easily achieved in post from any medium.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

fruehlein: I often think analog is the better digital.
If somebody has filmed his move digital on full HD, he is out of luck now, because he can't sell it on 4K now. And if somebody captures now a film on 4k he will not be able to sell it later on 8k.

Look at 2001 from Stanley Kubrick, it was available on DVD in a great quality, than on BD in a great Quality and now you can watch it on 4K in still an amazing quality, I'm pretty sure it will be sometimes available in 8K too, because the quality is all there on analog film.

Super 8 will not be that high res, but it still we be great to watch and finally we have to wait again to see the outcome, this will make us more excited and also more thoughtful about filming something.

Even the new Star Wars was captured a lot on analog film.

I enjoy the digital world with my DSLR's but I enjoy even more shooting a 40x30cm wet plate (talking about physical resolution :) or my analog medium format camera

ezee, is that Vimeo clip Super 8 ? They refer to Super 16 which is a lot bigger and may have 2k in it.

For 16x9 Kodak has dropped the mag stripe making the image a bit bigger.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

expressivecanvas: I don't have a clue what Kodak is attempting to accomplish here, realistically speaking, but the whole idea seems like crapola.

One question I was left with at the end was about resolution... what will be the final resolution of the files Kodak delivers? Regardless, even if the digital files are in 4K or better (which I highly doubt) the total cost is absolutely absurd when compared to the rest of today's video options.

What a bunch of crapola though. Are Kodak's execs on crack and think it is 1980? (I guess that makes two questions I have...) My advice to Kodak... go ahead and make one for Spielberg and then try to develop something more marketable.... perhaps a digital Brownie?

EzeE, are you sure it was S8, quote -
`no. the bolex rx5 was converted to super 16mm'

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

fruehlein: I often think analog is the better digital.
If somebody has filmed his move digital on full HD, he is out of luck now, because he can't sell it on 4K now. And if somebody captures now a film on 4k he will not be able to sell it later on 8k.

Look at 2001 from Stanley Kubrick, it was available on DVD in a great quality, than on BD in a great Quality and now you can watch it on 4K in still an amazing quality, I'm pretty sure it will be sometimes available in 8K too, because the quality is all there on analog film.

Super 8 will not be that high res, but it still we be great to watch and finally we have to wait again to see the outcome, this will make us more excited and also more thoughtful about filming something.

Even the new Star Wars was captured a lot on analog film.

I enjoy the digital world with my DSLR's but I enjoy even more shooting a 40x30cm wet plate (talking about physical resolution :) or my analog medium format camera

Upconvert the HD to 4K and if anyone can tell the difference just say it was an aesthetic choice in the grade. Good stories don't really need high quality, boring ones do. 35mm / 2K / HD is fine unless it's a croc.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 18:10 UTC
In reply to:

filmamigo: I don't know who is more annoying -- old guys who were so amazed by digital that they slag anything analog -- or young guys who think anything more difficult to use than their cellphone isn't worth bothering with.

Nobody -- including Kodak -- thinks that Super 8 is going to be a consumer medium for people who want a quick family video. Super 8 is an artistic medium. It's a gateway drug for filmmakers to understand filmmaking, which INCLUDES things like double-system sound (picture on film, sound on seperate recording.) Shooting film in any medium, still or motion, is now an aesthetic choice. Potentially an expensive aesthetic choice. I'm glad Kodak is investing in the ecosystem needed to keep film available for those of us who wish to use it.

Why do you feel like you have to slag an artistic medium? Do you take your Nikon D810 into the art supply store and insult the people buying oil paints?

All digital cinematography uses double system and many Dslr shooters.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 18:02 UTC

I'm sure the film will have a different look to video that some will find
very appealing but shoot for two hours and you could have bought this -

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/products/blackmagicursamini

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 14:49 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
Total: 174, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »