Bart Hickman

Bart Hickman

Lives in United States Cedar Mill USA, OR, United States
Joined on Apr 17, 2005

Comments

Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

I know, I just was confirming that the file transfer stuff work in Mac iTunes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

Then I'm not sure what the issue is. On the Mac, you plug in your iPhone and select it in iTunes. Then go to the Music tab, check the sync music box, then select the songs you want to transfer. They get copied from the iPhone to the computer in the iTunes media folder.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

Yes, but how did the MP3 files get onto the iPod touch in the first place? And were they shown inside the standard Apple music app? I can transfer files I ripped from CD too.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

All of my iPhone (or iPod touch) music originated either from iTunes on the device or iTunes on my Mac or by ripping CD's on my Mac. When I buy something in iTunes on my iPhone, the next time I plug it in, iTunes will ask if I want to transfer my purchases to the computer. But even if I never plug my iPhone into my computer, I can still re-download everything from the iTunes store on the Mac. It's always worked this way for music and video.

I've also bought music on Amazon. Same situation though. I can get the files onto my Mac and then put them in iTunes. From there they get to all devices.

Photos sync either via iPhoto (which is free) or the Image Capture utility or Adobe Lightroom. I wouldn't be surprised if Picasa imports them too. I believe iCloud photos are also available through a web-browser (I don't know the link--it's not through the usual iCloud interface.)

Are you getting MP3 files on your iPod through some means other than iTunes?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

OldDigiman: Say what? Plug iPhone into charging cable, plug other end of charging cable into computer, on computer navigate to phone's DCIM folder, copy files. Free.

And if you have a Mac, it came with an app called "Image Capture" that downloads all photos and videos (and can delete them afterwards if you like.) Works like Lightroom import. When I first got my first iPod touch, Image Capture popped up automatically. Pretty discoverable.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 04:22 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

Interesting. Didn't know the Windows version of iTunes was limited that way. On OS X, the phone files are all synced to the computer and readily accessible.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 04:17 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

photog4u: Level gauge, one press AF selection and eye sensor activation are all fixable in firmware...please get busy Sony!

It's got to have some sort of gyro to know to auto-rotate photos.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 21:36 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)

Wow. Built in wireless flash control and big boost in AF performance (hopefully). My two biggest complaints of the NEX 6. Only downer is the lower res EVF. Maybe that was needed to hit the relatively low price point.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 04:19 UTC as 274th comment
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

If you do area, then the ratios are
APS-C/m43 = 1.64 (0.72EV)
m43/1" = 1.94 (0.95EV)
You're doing some rounding off in favor of m43. Or maybe you're comparing to Canon APS-C.

This assumes you let your sensor dictate the aspect ratio of your shots. This is why I mentioned that the 1.333 aspect ratio of m43 muddies things a bit. For me personally, it's a non-optimal proportion which I almost never use so for me m43 only really has a useful area of 200mm2 which is 0.9EV less than APS-C.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2013 at 03:56 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

Rikyxxx, the crop factors are 1.5, 2, and 2.7. 2/1.5 = 1.333. 2.7/2 = 1.35. To relative to APS-C, m43 is a crop factor of 1.333. And relative to m43, 1" is a 1.35 crop factor.

In my particular case, I almost never use an aspect ratio of 1.33 because I find it conflicts with most of my compositions. So the m43 is really even worse off for me because I'd always be cropping off the long sides to get my comp to look good. More critically is wide-angle lenses lose about 1mm for me because of this.

Of course for portraits, I prefer a more square aspect ratio, but then low light performance, dynamic range, and wide FOV are never an issue for portraits.

Many people like to shoot to fit particular frame sizes w/o any matting which means 1.33 aspect ratio is just what they want and for them, m43 looks a bit more favorable.

But no matter how you slice it, the RX100 is going to come out looking pretty good in this comparison.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 03:21 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.

Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.

2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)

All low-end zooms will bow upward in that graph (probably the high end ones will too.), but they will not be far enough from linear to change the overall assessment. In fact, the data you showed still gives the edge to the RX100 even if the Pany were linear, which I doubt it will be.

My point is, the chart is very useful to someone trying to weigh cost/benefit between the two kits. Filling the intermediate data won't change the comparison much. It makes it clear that, in this case, you need to not hyper-focus on the sensor size so much.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 15:22 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

TurboElephant: "The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 offers more bells and whistles, but you're limited to its fixed zoom lens and smaller (albeit not that much smaller) sensor."

1" sensor = 116 mm2
43 sensor = 225 mm2

So GM1's 43 sensor s almost twice as big as the RX100, I wouldn't call that "not much smaller" ;)

What cracks me up is the m43 users always saying how the difference between m43 and APS-C is negligible, but then turn around and say 1" is way smaller than m43. The ratios between them are the same (although the comparison is somewhat obscured by the m43 1.33 aspect ratio.)

Anyway, as the equivalent aperture chart shows, the Sony RX100 lens more than makes up for the smaller sensor so it still has better low light gathering ability than the GM1 with that 12-32 lens.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 05:45 UTC
On Panasonic DMC-GM1 preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

manmachine242: There is something wrong with "equivalent aperture" comparison.

Q7 has 1/1.7'' type sensor, multiplier is 4.55.

2.8 x 4.55 = 12.74 (and not f/17 as chart shows)

It's an incredibly informative chart. The aperture diameter of the 12-32 is the same as a 28mm/F7 FF lens at the wide end and a 64mm/F11 lens at the long end. It also shows (somewhat embarrassingly for Panasonic) that the Sony RX100 lens gives it better low light performance than the 12-32 Pany kit.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2013 at 05:38 UTC
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: A blurry lens causes irretrievable damage to the information that was gathered. This loss manifests itself as a bunch of noise in the corrected image. All this software does is let me trade off between sharpness and noise--but the overall SNR is unaffected. The lens in this article looks like it causes at least a couple stops of damage to the image judging by how noisy the corrected image is. There's no free lunch.

I can see cutting corners on CA or geometric distortion since fixing those doesn't really change the noise levels. But sharpness is not something to cut corners on IMO.

You might as well boost ISO and stop the lens down--same diff.

You only know the transfer function of the image itself. But the sensor noise gets added after the lens, so it gets boosted by the de-convolution. In other words, the lens damages the dynamic range (or SNR) of the image irretrievably. Obviously if you have large image details or details with large contrast (black-to-white transitions), then the deconvolution make them more visible (along with the noise). But finer details or lower contrast details (e.g.., textures) are blurred below the noise floor and the deconvolution does nothing to recover them.

Vadims, if item (b) is true (which it clearly is not for the example in the article), then I'd argue you might as well stop the lens down and achieve optical sharpness in the first place. The result will be about the same and you avoid power hungry post-processing (and the cheap lens can probably be even cheaper without the larger aperture setting.)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 04:18 UTC
On Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? article (162 comments in total)

A blurry lens causes irretrievable damage to the information that was gathered. This loss manifests itself as a bunch of noise in the corrected image. All this software does is let me trade off between sharpness and noise--but the overall SNR is unaffected. The lens in this article looks like it causes at least a couple stops of damage to the image judging by how noisy the corrected image is. There's no free lunch.

I can see cutting corners on CA or geometric distortion since fixing those doesn't really change the noise levels. But sharpness is not something to cut corners on IMO.

You might as well boost ISO and stop the lens down--same diff.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 00:53 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

justmeMN: Sony admits that what people really want is a DSLR, an interesting way to design and market a mirrorless camera.

Sony is making actual DSLR cameras (or at least they were until recently.) I suppose the salient difference with the A3000 is the price point.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If everyone thought margins were thin before. Wait a couple of months when everyone else has to drastically cut their prices to keep up with Sony.

We were talking about camera bodies. The difference in lens sizes between m43 and APS-C is negligible as far as material cost or tolerances are concerned (APS-C is slightly more material, m43 needs slightly tighter tolerances.) PS cameras with comparable features aren't that much cheaper and they don't have to deal with a detaching lens mount interface. Cheaper cameras don't have as many buttons, hotshoe, focus rings, and other interconnects.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 15:12 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If everyone thought margins were thin before. Wait a couple of months when everyone else has to drastically cut their prices to keep up with Sony.

How do you know this? Making things small is difficult and expensive--this is a disadvantage of the smaller form factor. Certainly Panasonic and Olympus' reported profits don't suggest they're making much money.

Chasing Sony on price won't be helpful if, as is suggested in the article, customers expect the camera to be chunky-looking like a DSLR. That is, assuming Sony's gambit is correct.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 04:18 UTC
In reply to:

crsantin: Very clever Sony, very very clever. 20 megapixel APS-C with a lens for...$400???That's the initial price too, not the deeply discounted price that comes along at the end of the product's life. The DSLR goes mirrorless. Goodbye micro four thirds, it was nice knowing you.

m4/3 is safe as long as Panasonic and Olympus can make money doing it. So far they aren't making money and neither is Sony. But Sony is doing something to try to change that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2013 at 04:12 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: So it has the size disadvantage of a DSLR, and the lack of fast PDAF for a mirrorless...
can't people just get a grip?

PeterTom, there is no "mirrorless" market segment. There is a low-end-DSLR-body-style market which is what the A3000 appears to be targeting. By the way, making the camera bigger and deeper is a significant contributor to the low cost (it's expensive to meticulously pack a bunch of stuff into a compact body while dealing with noise and power issues.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 19:47 UTC
Total: 104, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »