rurikw

rurikw

Lives in Finland Kotka, Finland
Works as a architect
Joined on Dec 15, 2004

Comments

Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

rurikw: A couple of things I don't understand.
1. Photon gathering ability and sensitivity are mentioned in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. I understand that the amount of light entering peripheral sensels will be greater in a curved sensor. But why should a curved sensor be more sensitive than a flat one? And why should the sensitivity vary with position? If they actually meant that the photon gathering ability increases in the centre as well, I'd like to know how that is achieved and what it has to do with curvature. If they refer to the decrease in residual electronic signal (=noise?), OK that should improve s/n ratio but sensitivity? Maybe someone can tell us how sensitivity is defined here, a complex topic I am sure.
2. Why should a curved sensor be more challenging for interchangeable lenses and zooms than a flat one? Until now they have all had to be designed for the flat standard. Now they will have to be designed for a new curved standard which, according to this article should be EASIER. Obviously there needs to be different lens designs for different sensor radia but that is another story and a potential disadvantage of this tech. Of course it would be great to be able to vary the shape of the sensor but why should it be more desirable on curved sensors than it would be on the old flat ones. Lenses designed for flat sensors surely vary as much as those designed for curved ones? I understand the wisdom in advancing cautiously and try out the new designs in simpler settings first, but that is again another thing.

@ Richard Schumer
rurikw: From the article above: "Sony also found that the bending process improves the sensor's fundamental performance. The strain introduced into the sensor upon bending widened the energy band gap and decreased dark current (residual electronic signal present in the absence of any external light). Both of these achievements should contribute to increased image quality."

Yes I read the whole article but the above quote came after they had claimed 1.4x sensitivity in centre so I interpreted it as an additional benefit and not related to the sensitivity gain as the word "also" implies. Then of course I don't know the first thing about energy baond gaps and dark currents (sounds scary:-(). The geometry is the only thing I can relate to.

Re:2: There will be no "curved standard." Each focal length appears to need its own curve. That's in the article, too. ;o)

Why should it be more difficult to design lenses for a standard curved sensor than it is now for the standard flat one? I imagine the standard could be optimised for normal lenses so WA and tele would be compromised but still less so than now. The flat sensor isn't optimal for any lenses, the standard curved one could be for some. Of course this ALSO gives the opportunity to make really super-optimised sensor-lens combinations as well. So if this comes off there is likely to be a plethora of different standards and one-off solutions.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 10:20 UTC
In reply to:

rurikw: A couple of things I don't understand.
1. Photon gathering ability and sensitivity are mentioned in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. I understand that the amount of light entering peripheral sensels will be greater in a curved sensor. But why should a curved sensor be more sensitive than a flat one? And why should the sensitivity vary with position? If they actually meant that the photon gathering ability increases in the centre as well, I'd like to know how that is achieved and what it has to do with curvature. If they refer to the decrease in residual electronic signal (=noise?), OK that should improve s/n ratio but sensitivity? Maybe someone can tell us how sensitivity is defined here, a complex topic I am sure.
2. Why should a curved sensor be more challenging for interchangeable lenses and zooms than a flat one? Until now they have all had to be designed for the flat standard. Now they will have to be designed for a new curved standard which, according to this article should be EASIER. Obviously there needs to be different lens designs for different sensor radia but that is another story and a potential disadvantage of this tech. Of course it would be great to be able to vary the shape of the sensor but why should it be more desirable on curved sensors than it would be on the old flat ones. Lenses designed for flat sensors surely vary as much as those designed for curved ones? I understand the wisdom in advancing cautiously and try out the new designs in simpler settings first, but that is again another thing.

By splendic (2 hours ago)

@ rurikw "Sure, but that applies only to the edges, what makes the centre 1,4x more sensitive?"

>The article claims it... "may be due to a better ability to collect oblique light rays entering the peripheries of the lens."... So it sounds like they're not really sure, but that kind of makes sense.

Yes but what causes the ability to collect light from a wider angle? Certainly no way curvature could help there? I know there is an ongoing effort to make sensors thinner to have more shallow light wells so they could collect more light from oblique angles but that hasn't anything to do with curvature and is not mentioned in the article.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

rurikw: A couple of things I don't understand.
1. Photon gathering ability and sensitivity are mentioned in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. I understand that the amount of light entering peripheral sensels will be greater in a curved sensor. But why should a curved sensor be more sensitive than a flat one? And why should the sensitivity vary with position? If they actually meant that the photon gathering ability increases in the centre as well, I'd like to know how that is achieved and what it has to do with curvature. If they refer to the decrease in residual electronic signal (=noise?), OK that should improve s/n ratio but sensitivity? Maybe someone can tell us how sensitivity is defined here, a complex topic I am sure.
2. Why should a curved sensor be more challenging for interchangeable lenses and zooms than a flat one? Until now they have all had to be designed for the flat standard. Now they will have to be designed for a new curved standard which, according to this article should be EASIER. Obviously there needs to be different lens designs for different sensor radia but that is another story and a potential disadvantage of this tech. Of course it would be great to be able to vary the shape of the sensor but why should it be more desirable on curved sensors than it would be on the old flat ones. Lenses designed for flat sensors surely vary as much as those designed for curved ones? I understand the wisdom in advancing cautiously and try out the new designs in simpler settings first, but that is again another thing.

@ HowaboutRAW
"But why should a curved sensor be more sensitive than a flat one?"
> It's about better alignment with the incoming light rays. That's the idea.
Sure, but that applies only to the edges, what makes the centre 1,4x more sensitive? Is photon gathering ability due to better angle of incidence the same as sensitivity? I should have thought they are two different things.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 05:22 UTC

A couple of things I don't understand.
1. Photon gathering ability and sensitivity are mentioned in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. I understand that the amount of light entering peripheral sensels will be greater in a curved sensor. But why should a curved sensor be more sensitive than a flat one? And why should the sensitivity vary with position? If they actually meant that the photon gathering ability increases in the centre as well, I'd like to know how that is achieved and what it has to do with curvature. If they refer to the decrease in residual electronic signal (=noise?), OK that should improve s/n ratio but sensitivity? Maybe someone can tell us how sensitivity is defined here, a complex topic I am sure.
2. Why should a curved sensor be more challenging for interchangeable lenses and zooms than a flat one? Until now they have all had to be designed for the flat standard. Now they will have to be designed for a new curved standard which, according to this article should be EASIER. Obviously there needs to be different lens designs for different sensor radia but that is another story and a potential disadvantage of this tech. Of course it would be great to be able to vary the shape of the sensor but why should it be more desirable on curved sensors than it would be on the old flat ones. Lenses designed for flat sensors surely vary as much as those designed for curved ones? I understand the wisdom in advancing cautiously and try out the new designs in simpler settings first, but that is again another thing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21 UTC as 124th comment | 8 replies

Once again hard to tell which are more enjoyable, the photos or the comments;-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 13, 2014 at 13:40 UTC as 21st comment
On Olympus patent describes Google-Glass-like device post (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turbguy1: I have been waiting for a wearable viewfinder for a decade! Why not bluetooth it to a "real" cam??

Exactly! There should be a choice of evf, screen or glasses, and a choice of different specs and price categories in each and we would be talking business.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 10:21 UTC
On A GoPro Hero's journey into a dishwasher article (168 comments in total)

Very erotic but could have been cut to 1min or less.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 14:54 UTC as 50th comment
On Samsung NX30 Review preview (418 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raw Jaw: "Flip-out LCD helpful for video and tripod work"

Sorry, but this 'Pro' comment indicates to me the reviewer has no knowledge of what a fully articulating LCD can be used for.

The real value of the NX30's fully articulating LCD is for handheld vertical stills from floor level to overhead, (eg. Toddlers to Stage Performers).

This is critical for Event Photography and is something a DPReviewer should know about or learn about before picking up a camera to review it.

I actually quite frequently shoot architecture ( such as stair rails) in cramped quarters at awkward angles where the fully articulated screen (on my Sony r1) is essential. So, to me the nx30 is unique since (sadly) being the only aps-c mirrorless with such a screen. The other alternative of course is the Panasonic G or GH series with m43 sensor. The advantage of the Samsung in this context is the availability of cheap but good UWA primes (Samyang) whereas M43 have none (waiting for the Kowa 8,5mm but that one will probably be 1000€+). Also the choice and price range of UWA zooms is wider.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2014 at 04:46 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

bzanchet: Wel, that is it. I love the DPreview web site, but I started having doubts after the images from my Sony RX100 were so much better than the samples posted here.
I recently bought the Canon G1XmkII even though I didnt like the images posted here, and again, my jpegs were wonderfully better than the ones taken by the reviewer.
I was following the shooting experience with the a6000 from the image-resource web site and was considering the camera. Today, I saw the images here and again, they were diferent from the other web site samples.
I dont know if it is the photographer, but here the pictures seems always out of focus, always mushy and grainy, except from the high end Canon and Nikon full frame cameras.
Also the other web site you can compare side by side pictures, multiple studio shots with a lot of diferente settings and cenarios, as with the DPreview you have only one studio scene.
Sorry guys, I am searching on others places from now for my upcoming cameras.

Thanks again, you are right, the softness occurs only in the low iso daylight scenes. Interestingly though the IR images show no similar softness at similar shutter speeds, maybe they used the electronic shutter.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2014 at 06:10 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

bzanchet: Wel, that is it. I love the DPreview web site, but I started having doubts after the images from my Sony RX100 were so much better than the samples posted here.
I recently bought the Canon G1XmkII even though I didnt like the images posted here, and again, my jpegs were wonderfully better than the ones taken by the reviewer.
I was following the shooting experience with the a6000 from the image-resource web site and was considering the camera. Today, I saw the images here and again, they were diferent from the other web site samples.
I dont know if it is the photographer, but here the pictures seems always out of focus, always mushy and grainy, except from the high end Canon and Nikon full frame cameras.
Also the other web site you can compare side by side pictures, multiple studio shots with a lot of diferente settings and cenarios, as with the DPreview you have only one studio scene.
Sorry guys, I am searching on others places from now for my upcoming cameras.

Thanks Timbukto. I was asking because I was looking at dpr's test images of panasonic g6 and they were way softer than those from about any other camera. I asked about it on the m43 forum and was recommended to check the IR comparometer and the difference vanished. So can I trust that IR gives the correct impression and something is wrong with dpr's test images from the g6? Sorry for going off topic as this has nothing to do with the Sony a6000. Just want to be sure I am not missing something important.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2014 at 04:50 UTC
On Sony a6000 First Impressions Review preview (899 comments in total)
In reply to:

bzanchet: Wel, that is it. I love the DPreview web site, but I started having doubts after the images from my Sony RX100 were so much better than the samples posted here.
I recently bought the Canon G1XmkII even though I didnt like the images posted here, and again, my jpegs were wonderfully better than the ones taken by the reviewer.
I was following the shooting experience with the a6000 from the image-resource web site and was considering the camera. Today, I saw the images here and again, they were diferent from the other web site samples.
I dont know if it is the photographer, but here the pictures seems always out of focus, always mushy and grainy, except from the high end Canon and Nikon full frame cameras.
Also the other web site you can compare side by side pictures, multiple studio shots with a lot of diferente settings and cenarios, as with the DPreview you have only one studio scene.
Sorry guys, I am searching on others places from now for my upcoming cameras.

Timbukto: what's retarded about the IR comparometer?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2014 at 04:16 UTC

"Can be useful for interior and architectural photography". Why this lack of enthusiasm? Heavy moustache distortion like the 14mm or what?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2014 at 05:04 UTC as 10th comment

The 8.5mm if not prohibitively expensive (afraid it might be, huge amount of lenses in there:-() could make me an m43er. I guess 93.5x11.7 should read 93.5x70.1?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 16:40 UTC as 40th comment

Very enjoyable low-fi pics with good composition, light, color and above all that humorous twist. Really make me want to try Instagram if that's what gives the look.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2014 at 06:06 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On CES 2014: Best of the show (minus the bendy TVs) article (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: The Samsung 16-50 should be 24-75, not 25-75m

I have read that the crop factor is 1.54 so it should be 24,64-77mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 11, 2014 at 15:49 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Review preview (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

rurikw: Beautiful minimalist design but can't understand the decision to cripple it by leaving out the hot shoe. Its inclusion would hardly have compromised the design in any way. Don't like fixed screens either but this is one of the few cameras where I can understand that choice.

Yabokkie now you are talking business. There could be connections on top, bottom, left, right, front, back. A tiny core that can be expanded forever.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 18:58 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Review preview (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

rurikw: Beautiful minimalist design but can't understand the decision to cripple it by leaving out the hot shoe. Its inclusion would hardly have compromised the design in any way. Don't like fixed screens either but this is one of the few cameras where I can understand that choice.

Calm down. We are just commenting on the choices made by Panasonic. This is the comment section, right?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 11:41 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Review preview (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

rurikw: Beautiful minimalist design but can't understand the decision to cripple it by leaving out the hot shoe. Its inclusion would hardly have compromised the design in any way. Don't like fixed screens either but this is one of the few cameras where I can understand that choice.

Besides flash a hot shoe can be used to attach an evf or smartphone (which mounted on a ball head makes an articulated screen) and, I am sure, many things I can't think of. Rather useful for such a small and cheap component.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 06:47 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Review preview (348 comments in total)

Beautiful minimalist design but can't understand the decision to cripple it by leaving out the hot shoe. Its inclusion would hardly have compromised the design in any way. Don't like fixed screens either but this is one of the few cameras where I can understand that choice.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2013 at 05:15 UTC as 56th comment | 6 replies

It's certainly got the blues. Must be lonely up there in those lofty spheres.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 20:24 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 79, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »