Roland Karlsson

Roland Karlsson

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Programmer
Joined on Feb 23, 2002
About me:

Collector of K-mount and M42 stuff. Main camera K-5. Also interested in camera technology, e.g. Foveon. Also interested in computer based image analysis and transforms.

Comments

Total: 1250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everlast66: The biggest Lytro problem is that they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist!

A lot of the fun when taking photos is to decide what do you want in focus and how much separation (or no separation at all). It would be much less exciting to just snap photos around and then spend most time on the computer fiddling with sliders.

If it was giving you quality (resolution, DR and ISO) comparable to APSC or FF cameras and in addition give you some limited focus adjustment to correct slight back/front focus issues it would have much more success.

"Arm chair critics"? So, show me an example where you can get just as sharp images with Lytro as without. Maybe for macro? An example where you do adjust the focus to perfection in post processing. maybe a portrait where you adjust so that the eyes are tack sharp.

Personally I am 100% sure you cannot do it, for two reasons.

1. The Lytro has to few pixels, so you can never get enough resolution.
2. The light fields has too few light rays, so you can never focus accurately enough.

So, yes - it is all fine a and dandy to embrace new technology and being positive. And many here are, light field technology is fun.

But you also have to be realistic and see it for what it is. You will need LOTS of detectors in you sensor to get a Lytro camera with high resolution and many light rays.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 25, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: Here's a different perspective on this topic, IMHO:

For a new format to succeed, it would also need to be a capture option that cameras offer. ***Not just a format for use on Web sites.***

That would require all camera companies AND all software manufacturers get on this bandwagon. But they won't. The concept of a familiar JPEG format (especially for 90% of the population who are snap shooters, at best) is essential for the market. The fact that BPG is far superior is not relevant. It boils down to marketing and what the public will accept, as the camera manufacturers see it. Too many consumers would find a new image format to be an extra complication to deal with.

Serious shooters already have RAW capture as an alternative to JPEG. And snap shooters are happy with JPEG; they just don't know any better, and 90% do not even *want* to know.

Fortunately, you cannot have Copyright or Patent on algorithms in civilised parts of the world.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 19:03 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: Here's a different perspective on this topic, IMHO:

For a new format to succeed, it would also need to be a capture option that cameras offer. ***Not just a format for use on Web sites.***

That would require all camera companies AND all software manufacturers get on this bandwagon. But they won't. The concept of a familiar JPEG format (especially for 90% of the population who are snap shooters, at best) is essential for the market. The fact that BPG is far superior is not relevant. It boils down to marketing and what the public will accept, as the camera manufacturers see it. Too many consumers would find a new image format to be an extra complication to deal with.

Serious shooters already have RAW capture as an alternative to JPEG. And snap shooters are happy with JPEG; they just don't know any better, and 90% do not even *want* to know.

I really do not like wavelet compression. Yes ... it does not have the problem with squares as JPEG has for high compression. But, I rather have those squares instead of the loss of detail in low contrast areas you get with wavelets. I have seen lots of images where the houses are sharp, but the ground looks like water.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 19:24 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a little surprise. Is this effect new? It is an obvious function when you have a light field camera? If it has not been there before - why not?

Yes, I understand what it can do. You can set a range that is sharp. I still think this is trivial and should have been possible from day one.

Actually, you could set a sharpness curve so that it is sharp at 1 and 3 and 5 meters and unsharp in between, before and after. This kind of control is possible - it is only a matter of user interface design.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 18:56 UTC
On Art nouveau in the Nature's Delicate Beauty challenge (28 comments in total)

One wonders how it is taken. Indoor? Outdoors? Is it found like that or is it put on the straw and carried to a suitable background. Etc ...

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 17:45 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a little surprise. Is this effect new? It is an obvious function when you have a light field camera? If it has not been there before - why not?

My point was simply - it is very surprising that the software could not make wide DOF images as one of the very first options.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everlast66: The biggest Lytro problem is that they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist!

A lot of the fun when taking photos is to decide what do you want in focus and how much separation (or no separation at all). It would be much less exciting to just snap photos around and then spend most time on the computer fiddling with sliders.

If it was giving you quality (resolution, DR and ISO) comparable to APSC or FF cameras and in addition give you some limited focus adjustment to correct slight back/front focus issues it would have much more success.

It might not even stick if it is good. For normal photography, it needs to be 1 MP to be accepted and 10 MP to be widely accepted. And to be good, Lytro probably needs 100 times the amount of pixels, i.e. 100 - 1000 MP. One day that might be peanuts, but not soon.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 12:20 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Everlast66: The biggest Lytro problem is that they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist!

A lot of the fun when taking photos is to decide what do you want in focus and how much separation (or no separation at all). It would be much less exciting to just snap photos around and then spend most time on the computer fiddling with sliders.

If it was giving you quality (resolution, DR and ISO) comparable to APSC or FF cameras and in addition give you some limited focus adjustment to correct slight back/front focus issues it would have much more success.

@Barney - there are two difference between autofocus and light field - auto focus do not seriously degrade the image and auto focus do not change how you can view/print the image. Lytro is a bit like lenticular photography and maybe also like stereo photography. Fun stuff that has a hard time becoming widely used. Now, stereo photography was rather common 120 years ago or so and we have (the toy?) View Master.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 08:27 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a little surprise. Is this effect new? It is an obvious function when you have a light field camera? If it has not been there before - why not?

Eh, Lytro have been around for some time. And the functionality was described as brand new.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 08:18 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)

I am a little surprise. Is this effect new? It is an obvious function when you have a light field camera? If it has not been there before - why not?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 20:34 UTC as 9th comment | 7 replies
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Hmmmm .... whatever it can do - it sure is ugly.

I thought I should get some replies? Yes - I think it is ugly. It looks like this perfectly fine looking lens is attached to a plastic container of some sort. Now, I have no plans to buy it. But if I had, I would (illogically of course) be affected by the ugliness.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Not that I can afford such a camera, but the fact that it's a crop sensor compared to a real full frame 645 camera seems a let down.

@dmian - you said it was a crop camera and the FF was the real thing - and it was then discovered you meant a film FF. Of course - people was somewhat confused. Of course, the film vs digital arguments was made, you should have expected that. We all know that, in most respect, a crop sensor is by far superior to FF film. So - why doing the claim you did? And then becoming annoyed when it happened?

I can admit you have a kind of point. The lenses are made for FF and the camera format supports FF - so it is a kind of waste to crop. Unfortunately the FF sensors are too expensive though, and film is not really comparable. It is another kind of user experience.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 10, 2014 at 18:58 UTC
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (242 comments in total)

Hmmmm .... whatever it can do - it sure is ugly.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 22:42 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies
On Medium well done: Two takes on the Pentax 645Z article (242 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: Not that I can afford such a camera, but the fact that it's a crop sensor compared to a real full frame 645 camera seems a let down.

I would hardly think your FF scans rivals the digital crop sensor. At least for 35 mm cameras, APS-C digital sensors outshines FF film scans greatly, in most respects. I guess that is true also for the 645 format.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2014 at 22:38 UTC
On Pentax K Series challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

Solar Ben: I really enjoyed voting in this challenge. Lots of pictures that i like!

agree - it is quite amazing. Usually I do not care for many pictures in the competitions. But this time I have a hard time pointing out images I do not like.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 10:19 UTC
On Pentax K Series challenge (9 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I like 1, 4, 7, 14, 15 on the first page.

he he .... I did say nothing about the second page :P

But ... on that page I did like 29 and 32 and maybe 21.

BTW - pictures of pretty girls and kittens do not really have to be good, as long as they are pretty. But I do think 32 is a good image, even though the pretty girl might just fool me.

BTW again - the level of the images generally is quite high in this competition - so when I say I like some, it does not mean I do dislike any other.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 10:18 UTC
In reply to:

Dheorl: I called this when olympus first introduced their 5-axis IS.

You get a sigh - for reminding us you did tell us the obvious :P

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 18:47 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: Olympus are the most innovative of all the Camera manufacturers. Remember live view first appeared on an Olympus camera. Olympus film SLRs had TTL flash metering long before the other manufacturers. When Olympus innovates, all the others soon follow. The original Olympus OM 35mm film SLR was the first compact film SLR, soon all the others followed. They may not have the resources of the bigger manufacturers to sustain their technological leads, but they are always ahead of the curve with innovation.

@SteB - methinks you are a bit one eyed, But - of course - I should really not be so cruel to take you out of your fluffy and rose Olympus fan dream :) There is lots of invention in digital cameras - and most are not made by Olympus. But - it does not really matter - does it?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 5, 2014 at 18:43 UTC
On Consumer SLR Camera Roundup (2014) article (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

David M Warwick: Why do we need 24Mp on a beginner's/starter's DSLR as most would not be tell the difference from a camera with half a many pixels and save card space.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. But ... if you are saying that you can improve noise and dynamic range by having less pixels ... you are wrong. Not by much anyhow.

What you do gain by having less pixels is speed and image file size.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 26, 2014 at 20:38 UTC
On Sony debuts 21MP stacked CMOS sensor for smartphones article (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: You can't bend the laws of physics. Sensors can be made any which way, but the small ones will never, ever match the larger ones. Back illuminated, electron-multiplying, it doesn't matter. They are modest enhancements that produce a slightly better product, but a 1/2.3" sensor will never be a m4/3, APS, etc.

Yes, smaller sensors just have to be better per area in order to be able to compete at all.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2014 at 21:27 UTC
Total: 1250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »