GabrielZ

GabrielZ

Joined on Feb 3, 2012

Comments

Total: 445, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Sony may split off its imaging products business (71 comments in total)

This splitting off of subsidiaries at Sony should have been done years ago. It might of prevented their fall from grace some years back. Even though I think they're doing better now.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 12:49 UTC as 4th comment
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: No whether sealing...I thought it had that. Mute point though, so beyond my and most other people's budget its funny.

Yes 'moot' is what I meant not 'mute'. LOL

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 07:20 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1118 comments in total)

No whether sealing...I thought it had that. Mute point though, so beyond my and most other people's budget its funny.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 23:24 UTC as 141st comment | 3 replies
On article Samsung announces in-house 12MP dual-pixel sensor (48 comments in total)

The sensor in the S7/S7 Edge. Is it really a Sony design or actually this Samsung one manufactured by Sony like it does for other companies too?

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 19:02 UTC as 4th comment
On article Canon announces budget-friendly EOS Rebel T6 (1300D) (895 comments in total)

Regurgitating ancient tech...no thanks.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 18:59 UTC as 103rd comment
In reply to:

GabrielZ: This all seems very interesting but I still don't understand how dual sensors, folded optics and algorithms can achieve 5x optical zoom quality if there is no actual optical zooming going on. How is this achieved? The article wasn't clear to me on that...layman explanation of computational imaging please?

@otto k - A little clearer now, thanks. But if its blurry at the edges that's not true optical zoom quality. Do they use algorithms to then de-blur the edges...if not, how's this a good idea?

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

SteveSFO: I hope someone... anyone.... Polaroid, here's your chance to get back your heritage.... make an agreement with Fujifilm OR buy back the production equipment and process and keep this art form alive !!

Typo! I meant 'first' not 'fist' of course. Can't edit comments on the smartphone!

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

SteveSFO: I hope someone... anyone.... Polaroid, here's your chance to get back your heritage.... make an agreement with Fujifilm OR buy back the production equipment and process and keep this art form alive !!

Theoretically a nice idea, but I doubt it will ever happen because it's just not commercially viable anymore. That's why Fuji stopped production in the fist place.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: Every time I hear about ceasing of this or other silver-halide material, I feel sad. And I'm pretty sure, that it is not only nostalgia. Almost each of these products was also mean of artistic expression, impossible to be fully replicate by digital. Don't get me wrong - digital is awesome, IQ of images is awesome, printers does very good job on premium quality papers... But I feel we loose something.

I personally don't miss film. But I know what you mean.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 20:08 UTC
In reply to:

TriezeA72: Most films have sad endings

Anymore? That was fun!

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

Bowlomatic: I'm definitely an "old bore" who laments the passing of film...even though I started my transition to digital around '92 with a Leaf back on my Hassy ELM....I've owned every film format from 35 to 11x14 (two of those), shot every type of Polaroid film there is (even Polavision), shot for clients including Polaroid for advertising & collateral in-studio and internationally, and still own two vintage Polaroid cameras, an SX70 and a 195B that were signed for me by Dr. Land around 1987 (my then studio was nearby to his "Rowland" Institute in Cambridge, (I used to see him outside on rare occasion, but that's another story)

I don't shoot film anymore, haven't much since about 2000, but I love seeing someone on the street with a film camera as opposed to the masses with DSLR's, battery grips, giant cheap zooms, shoe mount flash...taking a picture of a f***ing squirrel in the Boston Public Garden...

Maybe the loss of this Fuji instant won't matter much to those who still shoot film, more to those doing it in-studio, and I defy anyone to tell me a good scan from a perfect 120 frame ( ah, my Fuji 6x9), wasn't / isn't a beautiful thing...won't mean much to those who see us "old bores" as that....but I guarantee you never got to do what I got to do, was paid to do, a lot as a.matter of fact...shooting film.
It's all gotten cheaper and easier since then, everyone's a photographer.
Unfortunately, although many are good, very good, most suck.

I transitioned to digital in 2005 and haven't looked back! Don't miss anything about film at all. I also have a lot of film cameras lying around too: A Nikon F, Practica BC-1, a Minolta AF camera ( I forget the model designation, even though it was my last film camera before going digital) and a couple of Polaroid instant cameras too. One a monochrome model from the 70s and a colour one from the early 80s.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

km25: Digital maybe able come to rescue, a small sensor , maybe one inch. It would be a camera, to make a picture of a forcing screen. It would be in a light tight box. This would give the photographer a good idea of what they are working with.

@Bill1969 - Bloody hilarious!

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Should've done this 10 years ago. Heck, they should discontinue all film now.

There is the new APS-C D500 you know.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: FWIW, active part of the sensor is not 6.69x5.55mm, that's the whole package, active portion is ~5.6x4.2mm (~1/2.3").

That makes more sense.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 19:42 UTC

This all seems very interesting but I still don't understand how dual sensors, folded optics and algorithms can achieve 5x optical zoom quality if there is no actual optical zooming going on. How is this achieved? The article wasn't clear to me on that...layman explanation of computational imaging please?

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 15:57 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (377 comments in total)

Pentax's 'Limited Primes' are they FF or optimized only for APS-C?

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 14:58 UTC as 50th comment | 6 replies
Total: 445, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »