Dotes

Joined on Apr 19, 2012

Comments

Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (519 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dotes: Why on earth would anyone want uncompressed raw seeing as losslessly compressed raw is usually half the size... And why would any manufacturer even bother including uncompressed raw as an option.

Maybe, but writing twice the data on the flash card is probably as slow if not slower than compressing it.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 14:05 UTC
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (519 comments in total)

Why on earth would anyone want uncompressed raw seeing as losslessly compressed raw is usually half the size... And why would any manufacturer even bother including uncompressed raw as an option.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 12:26 UTC as 60th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

Francis Sawyer: WHAT A JOKE. They act as though bit depth is the biggest problem. IT'S NOT.

The problem is compression level, which is glaringly absent from this sham of a "spec." There's no mention of minimum bitrate or compression scheme.

This means we're still facing a future of fraudulent "4K" or "UHD" that has no more real resolution than a cell-phone video, especially when there's movement in the image.

Low-bitrate, interframe-compressed junk is just that: JUNK.

You are missing the point entirely.

This is a conformance requirement for TVs. It is not the TV's job to care about what compression was used when recording, merely to reproduce signal correctly once it reaches its circuit after decompression, if any is needed.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 12:22 UTC

I am sure it is great and all but what makes it different from all the jpeg optimizers that have been around, like, forever?

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 14:18 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply

Palm sized cameras weighing 500+ grams have always been my favorites!

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 12:57 UTC as 31st comment
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dotes: Why not just shoot a video with continuous AF enabled instead of capturing the EVF with an Iphone?!

Well, surely we don't need the see the focus points as long as we see the subject and how in-focus they are.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 14:47 UTC
On article Analysis: Sony a7R II and RX100 IV autofocus systems (752 comments in total)

Why not just shoot a video with continuous AF enabled instead of capturing the EVF with an Iphone?!

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 23:31 UTC as 81st comment | 4 replies

Lol'ed at "surprisingly light".

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 15:39 UTC as 123rd comment

At 640g might as well use an ILC...

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 15:17 UTC as 40th comment
On article Sony Alpha 7S Review (496 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Here is what I learned from this review.

1. Based on these test results the A7s does not achieve the Maximum Dynamic Range that Sony has claimed at its Base ISO.

2. The A7r achieves a better dynamic range at base ISO than the A7s.

3. The dynamic range and noise response for the A7s exceed that of pretty much all other cameras after about ISO 51,200. However, those results still may not be acceptable at that level.

4. The 1080p @ 60 FPS full sensor readout video in the A7s is the best compressed 1080p @ 60 video you get out of any camera on the market to today.

5. The high ISO video performance is exceptional and unmatched.

6. The cropped A7s 1080p video just isn't worth it.

re 6:
A7s video in crop mode is pretty good and still better than any APS-C photo camera. Also, rolling shutter is acceptable unlike the ridiculous amount in FF mode.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 16:10 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Documentary and Street photography (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jurka: Those pics are empty.

Generalizing much?
There are certainly some excellent images in the gallery.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: A real density of 4 on a flatbedscanner? Would be awesome. I can't believe real optical 6400 dpi eighter.

Please let it be at a good price..

Reviews measured the true resolution of v700/v750 at around 2300-2400dpi. I'd expect similar results with these new scanners. Maybe a bit better because the adjustable height holders and the included pressure glass should help achieve optimal focus and flatness.

Technically Epson can claim the higher resolution because that's the number of pixels the scanner can output. But it is probably further limited by the optical resolution of the system.

There is also a test on Silverfast's website, which measures the max density of the v700 at 3.11 (Epson also claimed 4.0 for v700). That 4.0 is probably some theoretical value. An ADC pipeline limit or whatever.

Edit:
Here's the link: http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/TestReport_ME_DWueller.pdf

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 10:49 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: A real density of 4 on a flatbedscanner? Would be awesome. I can't believe real optical 6400 dpi eighter.

Please let it be at a good price..

Of course it is neither true 6400dpi, nor true 4.0 density. Don't be silly. :)

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 17:22 UTC

One big problem is that this looks like a camera from the camera side. And one significant advantage of smartphones is that they don't look like camears.

I wish that it didn't have a shiny big lens ring and the lens was more subdued into the body.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 20:38 UTC as 80th comment
In reply to:

xtoph: I am somewhat curious as to the basis of the editorializing characterization of these cameras as "popular".
I know people doing professional work on cheaper cameras, and i know people doing projects on arri and red systems, but i don't personally know anyone working with these.
Which doesnt mean much, but as i said, popular according to whom?

Check some rental houses stats.
The c300 might as well be the most used camera in the video world...

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2014 at 10:00 UTC

The A7s can actually limit luminance range, but the option is gamma specific. You'd need to select Cine2 which is a legal safe gamma (16-235).

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 01:05 UTC as 156th comment | 1 reply
On article Red Giant offers subscription to video editing tools (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorg14: I think Adobe is the bellwether. If they succeed, it will open the floodgates and all companies will be asking for a subscription. It's basically apartment renting and car leasing on a smaller scale. Good for business and bad for the consumer.

Good point.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 12:45 UTC
On article Red Giant offers subscription to video editing tools (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

jorg14: I think Adobe is the bellwether. If they succeed, it will open the floodgates and all companies will be asking for a subscription. It's basically apartment renting and car leasing on a smaller scale. Good for business and bad for the consumer.

I disagree.
I am shooting narrative as a hobby. I need access to high end video tools 2 months in the year. If I had to by Adobe Production Premium this would set me back ten times the sum I pay for subscription and I would be stuck with the version I've purchased.

Bootom line, good for the consumer in my book.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 09:58 UTC

Who do I need to bribe for a 38mm eqv. GR?

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2013 at 11:37 UTC as 29th comment | 1 reply
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »