GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 926, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

PieterB: The datastreams for 4K are, if I am not mistaken, 16x the datastream of 1080P.
It seems to me that if you want edit videos, you will need a very powerfull computer and a very large HD.

I already edit 4K on Premiere on my Mac with no problem whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 05:45 UTC
In reply to:

stdavid: This a little off topic but still relevant IMO.
Police departments here in Canada are studying the use of police wearing cameras both still and video as part of their uniforms.
The City of Calgary is doing a pilot study:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/facial-recognition-body-cameras-used-by-calgary-police-target-of-privacy-probe-1.2824803

Captura, it is happening in a lots of places, but the issue is how they should be used. The US Department of Justice has a study called "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program". The file can be found in Google. Very strong guidelines for when the camera should be turned on, he fact it should not be turned off, and when it should immediately be grabbed by a supervisor.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 05:38 UTC
In reply to:

stdavid: This a little off topic but still relevant IMO.
Police departments here in Canada are studying the use of police wearing cameras both still and video as part of their uniforms.
The City of Calgary is doing a pilot study:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/facial-recognition-body-cameras-used-by-calgary-police-target-of-privacy-probe-1.2824803

I agree with you completely. But everything depends on an independent court system not accepting evidence that is not incontrovertible. As with a dashcam, old footage can roll off the end. But if you are involved in any controversial incident, you should be able to stop and save the last half hour or however long.

In some jurisdictions they are considering an auto record function, so that as soon as a confrontation is in progress, the camera starts. For example, as soon as officer steps out of car. There are ways to cheat it, but they are visible.

I recently spent a lot of time at the protests in Hong Kong. Enough to know that protesters themselves should keep cameras running at all times because the public have no clue how shamelessly the police lie and lie and lie.

And also, running cameras are protesters' best defence against paid "patriotic" thugs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 03:30 UTC
In reply to:

balios: What if I'm standing 15 ft away from the incident, but have a 15 ft long selfie stick?

The police will claim the selfie stick is a weapon. They themselves often use telescopic truncheons. And they can even claim to mistake an iPhone for a gun.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 00:33 UTC

Look up "Spain gag law" or "Ley Mordaza" and you will find frightening things about the authorities' determination to shut down videos of cops behaving improperly.

Several other countries are considering similar legislation.

Just a few provisions:

Photographing or recording police – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
Peaceful disobedience to authority – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
Not formalizing a protest – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
For impeding or stopping an eviction – 600 to 30.000€ fine.
For presence at an occupied space (not only social centers but also houses occupied by evicted families) – 100 to 600€ fine.
Random identity checks, allowing for racial profiling of immigrants and minorities.
Police can now carry out raids at their discretion, without the need for “order” to have been disrupted.
External bodily searches are also now allowed at police discretion.
The government can prohibit any protest at will, if it feels “order” will be disrupted.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 00:32 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

icexe: You know I can actually understand why the police don't want to be filmed. Videos can be edited or taken out of context to portray an incident as unprovoked police abuse.

Courts can view ANY edited video put before them with scepticism. Only an uncut time coded shot is really reliable evidence. Luckily, in the case of HK's protests, that has been available. And cops have been caught lying because of it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

stdavid: This a little off topic but still relevant IMO.
Police departments here in Canada are studying the use of police wearing cameras both still and video as part of their uniforms.
The City of Calgary is doing a pilot study:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/facial-recognition-body-cameras-used-by-calgary-police-target-of-privacy-probe-1.2824803

I have been working with video cameras of all sizes for decades. I also have a friend who supplies arms and resources to police departments and paramilitary organisations. Not the most moral of jobs, but it's his life.

The tech is available now. Time code is the easiest thing in the world to install. Even dashcams, not much bigger than police video cams, have it. Timecodes can also be external, i.e. synched to internet clocks, to avoid tampering. Whether people wish to apply it is another thing.

Not many "incidents" last longer than thirty minutes. Courts just need to make it clear that any break in time code compromises the evidence of video cams to the point of rendering "evidence" useless. I would think any defence lawyer worth his salt would.

If you view this footage, you see every camera, including body cams, has a time code.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69b_1391652971&comments=1

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 00:03 UTC
In reply to:

stdavid: This a little off topic but still relevant IMO.
Police departments here in Canada are studying the use of police wearing cameras both still and video as part of their uniforms.
The City of Calgary is doing a pilot study:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/facial-recognition-body-cameras-used-by-calgary-police-target-of-privacy-probe-1.2824803

Lawyers should insist all body cameras have time codes, and breaks in the time code automatically get video evidence thrown out. It really is that simple.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

I have seen first hand police behaviour at protests, most recently the Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong. YOU are wrong. The reason they don't want to be filmed is their lies get thrown out by the courts once the video makes them obvious.

As a language examiner, I have interviewed, and I do not exaggerate, hundreds of police officers. It certainly attracts people of a certain mentality and they certainly mostly believe courts and human rights are their enemy.

To be any use legally, police body cameras really should have time code running, and ANY jump in the time code should get them thrown out of court as evidence. Immediately.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 12:12 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: You know I can actually understand why the police don't want to be filmed. Videos can be edited or taken out of context to portray an incident as unprovoked police abuse.

They can also prove misbehaviour, and I have seen DOZENS of videos showing that, and judges throwing out cases where cops said someone hit them and the video clearly shows they did not. .

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 12:09 UTC
On Nikon D7200 real-world samples gallery posted article (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Sigma Art range? Better say, Sigma Industrial Microscope range.
I looked at the landscape pictures and waved off. Why?

Today's trend to insist so much on sharpness of the lens, turn scenes into a flat mishmash of sharply depicted details and no sense of atmosphere, or space someone would want to get into and feel cozy, and not cut onto sharp edges of everything.

Unless one focuses onto something in very close distance, and that blurs the background, the sense of space, much needed and is achieved by the proportionate lack of sharpness, is gone.

I absolutely hate new range of Zeiss and Sigma lenses just for that.

They don't offer the alternative of opening up? The fact that something is there does not make it compulsory.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 03:19 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Selfie-Sticks article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

sethmarshall: amd we wonder why our forums are filling full of morons.

In the home of brand wars and fanboys this has to be irony

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 02:17 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Selfie-Sticks article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: Where are the selfie sticks for our DSLR and mirrorless cameras?

They are called tripods, gorillapods, long arms, random strangers, and self timers on cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
On DPReview Recommends: Selfie-Sticks article (137 comments in total)

Pretty sure this is an April 1st provocation but I am sick of the bellyaching about selfie sticks.

Photographers have ALWAYS taken pictures of themselves in front of assorted tourist features and the amount of room needed (as no one can be between the camera and the subject) has always been exactly the same. It certainly beats giving your camera or mobile phone to a random passer by to shoot you and your friends. (Particularly inadvisable if that passer by is wearing sports shows and can run fast.) It is also no bigger a problem in terms of space taken up than a tripod and a camera on a self timer.

Yes, they, and LCD screen cameras of ANY kind should be banned in venues such as concerts, but this isn't much of a real problem as most are shooting at the stage, not themselves in an anonymous crowd.

As a friend's kid once said to him: 'The fact that something didn't exist when you were born does not automatically make it a bad thing." The kid was right, My friend was wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 02:08 UTC as 43rd comment | 6 replies
On Sony Alpha 7S Review preview (483 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: I have been very tempted to go the A7II route, but I have to say the reports of cooked raws, plus my own experience that Sony raws are not as flexible as others', concerns me.

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/sony-craw-arw2-posterization-detection

You might want to do the usual troll thing of having no gallery before you talk, as you so often do, about others who shoot for professional use requiring good cameras for "Facebook snaps".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2015 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: It's gunna be f6.3 or something crazy at 400mm isn't it? Canon powershot team doesn't seem to understand what focal lengths and apertures people want, only "more zoom".

I continue to believe this is a dummy lens, and - from your posts - you have a down on this camera for no good reason whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 11:25 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: It's gunna be f6.3 or something crazy at 400mm isn't it? Canon powershot team doesn't seem to understand what focal lengths and apertures people want, only "more zoom".

Based on the sun coming up, the Roman goddess Aurora exists. Before they actually existed the G1X MkII and the RX1000 were "impossible".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: It's funny to read the comments and see how many times people can post virtually the same thing...a variant of "this guy is clueless...out of touch...head in sand, etc." And then go on to complain about Canon sensors.

So the main indictment from what I see is that Canon sensors have less DR at low ISO than the competition. OK. But does that merit the vitriol? Does that mean their cameras are worthless? Aren't there other measures of a camera system...like lenses, support, ergonomics, color signature, QC, etc?

There's also the indictment that Canon doesn't pursue mirrorless with enough seriousness...with no admission that the mirrorless market isn't that big and is stagnating.

If you need more DR, then fine, go to another brand. But Canon has the most customers and most pro's stick with Canon, and it's not because they cannot switch. It's because Canon is for them the overall strongest system.

Now Canon is not perfect; no company is. But let's have some perspective.

My experience of Sony raws is that they are never as flexible as those from my other brands (with the exception of Fuji which is a disaster). And I have been saying this since long before the "compression" controversy. I have long used Sony for video shooting. I shoot 4K video on an AX100 right now. And I am tempted by the A7 range because I can use my EF lenses on them. But this really does put me off.

And if "everyone" cooks their raws. only some websites seem aware of how they may cheat dynamic range measurements by doing so.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 06:42 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: It's funny to read the comments and see how many times people can post virtually the same thing...a variant of "this guy is clueless...out of touch...head in sand, etc." And then go on to complain about Canon sensors.

So the main indictment from what I see is that Canon sensors have less DR at low ISO than the competition. OK. But does that merit the vitriol? Does that mean their cameras are worthless? Aren't there other measures of a camera system...like lenses, support, ergonomics, color signature, QC, etc?

There's also the indictment that Canon doesn't pursue mirrorless with enough seriousness...with no admission that the mirrorless market isn't that big and is stagnating.

If you need more DR, then fine, go to another brand. But Canon has the most customers and most pro's stick with Canon, and it's not because they cannot switch. It's because Canon is for them the overall strongest system.

Now Canon is not perfect; no company is. But let's have some perspective.

@Great Bustard. Sony has those cooked raws.

"But every argument against Sony's sensors not being any big deal over Canon's sensors is the same argument that can be made that FF has nothing over APS-C"

But I thought Canon were dumb because "mirrorless is the future", smaller sensor or not?

Too much of the debate here is "He who wants to beat, finds a stick".

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

Thoughts R Us: It's funny to read the comments and see how many times people can post virtually the same thing...a variant of "this guy is clueless...out of touch...head in sand, etc." And then go on to complain about Canon sensors.

So the main indictment from what I see is that Canon sensors have less DR at low ISO than the competition. OK. But does that merit the vitriol? Does that mean their cameras are worthless? Aren't there other measures of a camera system...like lenses, support, ergonomics, color signature, QC, etc?

There's also the indictment that Canon doesn't pursue mirrorless with enough seriousness...with no admission that the mirrorless market isn't that big and is stagnating.

If you need more DR, then fine, go to another brand. But Canon has the most customers and most pro's stick with Canon, and it's not because they cannot switch. It's because Canon is for them the overall strongest system.

Now Canon is not perfect; no company is. But let's have some perspective.

The DR issue is situational and for me very rarely an issue. Half the people who bang on about it do not understand that. More would be nice but it's not a deal breaker. It is still preferable to cooked raws. It is the new pixel count. For those who believe, nothing else matters.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2015 at 04:46 UTC
Total: 926, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »