Francis Sawyer

Francis Sawyer

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 23, 2004


Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Review preview (584 comments in total)

Does Panasonic really prevent third-party batteries from working with their cameras? If so, no one should vote for this rip-off with their money.

Send a strong message that this anti-customer offense will not stand.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2013 at 10:00 UTC as 56th comment | 5 replies
On Canon Korea teases new camera, EOS M2 or SL1/100D? article (259 comments in total)

Canon: totally out of ideas, and detached from the world of photography and filmmaking. They're just crapping out one embarrassing product after another now.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2013 at 00:20 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Review preview (513 comments in total)

What's up with the abysmal resolution of the screen, though?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2013 at 22:01 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply
On MirrorCase may make iPad photography less awkward post (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

joe6pack: The iPhone mirror case position is completely awkward. Why would someone not want to look at the screen while taking photo or filming?

Unless of course you don't want people to know what you are doing.

Who said you don't want to look at the screen? That makes no sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 12:30 UTC
On MirrorCase may make iPad photography less awkward post (11 comments in total)

"In addition to correctly orientating the image"

"Orientating"? Come on, guys. Don't you do any copyeditating?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 12:29 UTC as 2nd comment

"pound royalbaby"?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2013 at 12:14 UTC as 12th comment
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)

Still no intervalometer for time lapse. Ridiculous and inexcusable.

Does it finally have legitimate downscaling of the image to video resolution?

Higher bitrate and better codec?

Come on, Canon.

Posted on Jul 2, 2013 at 09:53 UTC as 440th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Cy Cheze: 4k video will be available in $300 consumer models, soon enough. People will shout, "Hey, must have!" But then they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs bitrates, a $20k viewing screen, and dermatological enhancements--all for the sake of an image that looks the same at usual viewing distance. 4k video also demands a tripod, or super-duper stabilization, or any advantage is lost. The ability to crop 4k video might be attractive, except that the CPU and rendering time requirements are substantial. Easier to shoot with two mere HD cameras: one long, the other wide.

" they will discover that 4k video demands perfect lighting, oceans of memory, 250mpbs"

Perfect lighting? NO. Why would the resolution change the necessary lighting?

Your bitrate comment is on the money, but sadly people will gobble up fraud "4K" at 5 mbps the way they gobble up bullshìt "HD" at the same bitrate.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Seems like Canon are still leading the way with video in SLRs.
Congrats to them from a Nikon user.
Whatever gripes some have it's better for the industry as a whole that some companies keep 'pushing the envelope'.

Canon led the way years ago and then gave up. They still don't have real downscaling of their images for video; after years of development time and complaints, they're still using line-skipping and producing video with hideous aliasing and moire.

And they're still shooting to crappy codecs with decimated color information at laughable bitrates. Canon was the manufacturer that other video-camera makers were worried about. Not any more. They blew it, hard.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Sad Joe: 4k is the future - unlike the poor current 3D systems. Yep - roll on 4k at bargain prices - sure to come just before 4K 3D !!

No, shitty, pathetic-bitrate, compressed-to-hell crap being peddled as "4K" is the future, just as sham "HD" is the norm today.

Take a look at the "HD" on YouTube. You're going to get the exact same garbage blown up to "4K", at the same sorry bitrate.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 22:06 UTC
On Epson announces VS220 and VS320 budget projectors article (24 comments in total)

"SVGA"? "XGA"? What year is this?

State resolutions IN NUMBERS. Not the alphabet soup that died out in the early '90s.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2013 at 22:02 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: So 15/12 fps is a new video standard ? I guess if you are making a Keystone Cops movie it's ok but I would stick with 1080p60 for any action shots.

"They do a lot of time lapse imagery."

Doing time lapse with this POS would be incredibly dumb, when you could get a point-&-shoot for less money that would kick its ass by a huge margin in every way.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:44 UTC
In reply to:

Corwess: European GoPro Fans are all Pi**ed!
Why? 449 EURO = 585.16$

50% higher in Europe than the US.

GoPro used to have Prices and now they serioussly started to Pi** off people big time!

Its a good camera. But to expensive!

Dear GoPro really?

"There are NO TAXES in the USA for these things"

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:42 UTC
In reply to:

ferroz: I only have Canon EOS 1110D . But I can do lot of things from it. Awesome shots and trick pictures. Get more artistic pictures with fantastic ideas at;

Shove your spam. Again.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:41 UTC

Moronic. They add this useless "4K" instead of a decent bitrate.

These cameras record garbage-quality images. They use excessively high-resolution chips and pathetic bitrates. Same boring mistakes, over and over.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:40 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

silentstorm: What kind of standards is CEA upholding???

Last i studied form my text books, 4k resolution is referred to horizontal resolution having 4000 or more pixels. 4096 is what i understood from Zeiss research decades ago.

Why is 3840 consider 4k resolution????? So that makes 1920x1080 a 2k video standard too??? WHAT A JOKE!!!!

Is our standards getting lower?? Or did someone goofed?

"1920x1080 is "2k" in digital cinematography"

No it isn't.

"So they're not calling 1920x1080 "2k""

He didn't say they were. He said it's AS IF they were.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:34 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: What I would have really loved: a standard for TV and PC Monitors (and other display devices?) that sports a similar colour and contrast quality (or even a higher quality?) as the new iPad Retina displays ...a standard that ensures that photo colours/contrast can be easely rendered (without device calibration) in the same way on all display devices that support that new standard.

I do not care at all about UHD.

What does color and contrast have to do with resolution? Nothing. You're drawing pointless parallels with the "Retina" display.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

wus: Again, as already when introducing the HDTV "standard", the industry association fails to specify a minimum frame rate.

1080 @ 24p is already ridiculous, before we move to 4K we should really introduce a higher frame rate for the standard 1080p material that renders fast movements sharp AND smooth. IMHO this is much more inportant than increasing the resolution.

After trying 24, 30, 50 and 60 p with full HD resolution I would think the minimum should be around 72 fps. And for any upcoming 4K standard we should aim at a minimum of 100 fps, and 200 fps for 3D material so that the effective frame rate for full 3D reproduction remains at 100 fps.

24 FPS is too low, but 48 is fine. Beyond that, and you're bloating the hell out of the data payload for diminishing returns.

We can't even get HD at 24 FPS with a decent bitrate. 4K? HA HA HA.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:31 UTC

Once again let's go with some wack dimensions that don't match anything currently used in Hollywood. Why require 4096 pixels across? Eh, 3840 is good enough. Nobody will notice a 6% degradation, when the compressed dog crap they're watching only delivers VHS resolution anyway.

16:9 didn't match anything being used on feature films either, but did that stop the geniuses setting the standards? Nope.

And of course there's the issue of bitrate, which makes almost everything called "HD" today a fraud. Just wait until you see 4K at 3 Mbps.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:28 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

munro harrap: What can move that many pixels at a fast enough refresh rate? It wont be workable for 20 years. There will be enormous problems with noise and lag and rolling shutter etc on any capture devices, but, that said there is now going to be a screen with enough resolution to exhibit my stills on, or yours in a museum or gallery- the way they should be seen

This has nothing to do with noise, lag, or rolling shutter. What do you think movies are typically shot on now? Yep: 4K cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 20:24 UTC
Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »