Matthew Bartok

Matthew Bartok

Joined on Oct 17, 2011

Comments

Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10

This is Sony, I seriously doubt that they will dedicate this new design to just fixed-lens point and shoots only. Think about the benefits to having a curved censor on a video camera, this is where the new design will truly shine.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 21:11 UTC as 49th comment | 4 replies
On Mobile Arts Festival touted as world’s largest article (21 comments in total)

How are they presenting these photographs ? I would assume that they are not enlarged prints hanging on a wall. I am not saying that these images are lacking in artistry or vision, just quality.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 19:19 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: Really sad to hear this, but I believe in the coming years people will experience digital photography overload and there will a collective nostalgia for the simplicity and experience of making film photos, which will reinvigorate Kodak.

@T3 The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that all of us who are nostalgic about film are just amateurs out and about happily snapping away roll after roll of 35mm film and printing it out in a bathroom temporarily converted into a darkroom, which of course is something that I have done and do miss. Your point however is off the mark because most of us who have worked with film in a professional or enthusiast capacity would never use 35mm if given the option over medium or large formats. Our "nostalgia" stems from the fact that we lost a lot of the benefits associated with film photography that are now lost or restricted with digital. You seem to forget that the film aspect was only half of the equation, the other half being the print, especially from large format. Most people today will never bother making a print more than 8 1/2 x 11 in. For me the nostalgia for film was the fact that I could make a 16x20 print from an 8x10 negative and have it look amazing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 19:11 UTC
On An introduction to OLED article (67 comments in total)

This technology has a lot of promise for a lot of different areas. First of all a refresh rate 1,000 times faster, assuming an lcd refreshes as 60hz, an oled could refresh up to 60khz. This would be an amazing solution for stereo monitors and shutter glasses, which at the moment are stuck at 120hz or 60hz for each eye. Even doubling that would be a huge improvement. Also, any time a technology uses less to give you more is always a win, the fact that you don't have to backlight or filter the lightsource should make the quality of the image that much better with lower distortions.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 20:16 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Charly Diaz Azcue: Seems to have a decent output quality but man the design is pretty ugly

The look of the camera is related to the accessories that are added onto it: matte box, external monitor, focus and zoom controls, etc. A nice looking professional 35mm cinema camera is just as ugly when nothing else is attached.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

shaocaholica: I've worked with a ton of middle-to-big commercial productions shooting DSLRs and I will assure you none of them are going to jump on this $20k camera any time soon. For that kind of money you might as well go Red but then again, that kind of money is hard to come by even for what you would think of as high budget productions.

This camera is not being marketed as the next big thing for uploading videos to youtube. Of course you can create amazing content that looks amazing with a DSLR setup, but you have to figure what the output is going to be. This system is being marketed as a usable replacement to a 35mm motion picture film camera which the film stock alone would probably cost twenty thousand dollars. Of course in five years this tech will be standard in every DSLR for a tenth of the price : )

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

olyflyer: So, finally Canon joined the mirrorless competition... Nice camera if one is interested in video and has pocket money to buy it.

Vadimka, I believe that you are confusing the difference between a film camera and a video camera. Most video cameras, even high-end broadcast video systems for live t.v. in the 50's and 60's to today are purely mirror-less systems due to the fact that the viewfinder is an electronic feed from the sensor. Also, esentially all Dslr's that can take video are "mirror-less" due to the fact that when using the video function the mirror is locked up allowing a live feed to the viewfinder from the sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

f8pc: What's the point of having the lenses an inch from each other? The 3D is hardly going to have any effect...

Can't wait for 3D to die out.

They are assuming that most people will be taking photos/video, especially in stereo, of subjects that are around five to ten feet away. Such as a group portrait of some freinds or pics of your kids at the park etc. Anything beyond twenty feet will lose the effect. This camera was not designed for taking grand vistas in stereo. Like most compact consumer cameras it is meant to capture everyday moments at a relatively close range.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Ah yes, a pro using an iPhone. No matter what awards he wins, he (or she) is no pro at all in my book if they use an iPhone instead of something like a d-SLR or a mirrorless compact. I'm no pro, but even I know better than to regard a smartphone as a serious imaging device.

People are intimidated by SLRs, yet will prance & dance for a camera-phone? That's sure silly. Camera phones can immediately publish the images around the world seconds, while SLRs are "offline" unless an EyeFi card is inserted--yet the SLR intimidates? How silly is that? And yes, since an SLR or mirrorless can be connected via a smartphone & an EyeFi card, why not that route if real-time publishing is your goal?

Smart-phone cameras are fine for soccer moms & teens snapping themselves acting giggly at a bar, fine, no problem with that. But serious photographers? Oh puh-leeze.

I think you missed the point. A pro is somebody who under restrictive circumstances, such as a warzone, can utilize the tools available to them to achieve their goal. He is not taking glamour shots for Vogue magazine after all.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2011 at 22:24 UTC

I see this as an opportunity to better establish the separation between those who take pictures and those who create pictures. As the article states, the majority of users do not need anything beyond what constitutes as a basic functioning camera. This is similar to the mass appeal of the brownie camera when it was first introduced. And to this day people still lug around those huge 8x10 cameras and pack around all those lenses and film holders, why? Because quality matters. Our work will only look better when compared to what can be achieved through the lens of a smart phone. Also, camera companies should redirect research and developement to professional and mid-range camera systems which will give us better and higher quality tools for the work that we do instead of waisting time attempting to simply things for the masses.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2011 at 22:05 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 10, showing: 1 – 10