Henrik Herranen

Henrik Herranen

Lives in Finland Tampere, Finland
Works as a Digital Signal Processing Software Engineer, MSc
Joined on Oct 6, 2005
About me:

Plan: To baldly shoot what everyone has shot before.

Comments

Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Ouellet: What the heck is going down here, people talk about raw, bandwith, artifact of jpeg and so on.
There is a format with better quality and just more options for the same size... And the higher quality is truly visible! All of that for free... That's just great!!! Congratulation to Fabrice Bellard for its job and its free licensing.

About Raw: You could also save your raw file in this format (loss-less). One format that could fits all (with compression).
About Bandwith: No connection? Better quality for same size or smaller size for same quality.
About Artifact: A company do a good job or not of converting to JPEG and/or we should also live with the way this encoder works. It's not a debate on good conversion. Anybody good convert properly if they really want it.
About Better color accuracy: You can have more pixel (if any could ever see the difference) but mainly it also support the ICC (like jpeg).
We (and companies) only have to accept it and we will all live happier :-)

Eric: There is no free licensing. Fabrice Bellard may not require a license, but BPG is based on H.265 which is covered by numerous patents. All in all, you have to pay a license fee for each hardware device containing H.265.

If you were a camera manufacturer, which one would you choose: JPEG that is free, or something covered with licenses, not to even speak of potentially running in trouble with patent trolls.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 07:14 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (206 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: As I read more e-zines discussing this new format, I realize that it really is intended only for use on the Web. Not really as a capture format for digital cameras. And yes, it is preferable to JPEG2000 BUT ... until recently, ****JPEG2000 was the BEST alternative to JPEG.****
And yet, JPEG2000 was never supported by most browsers. So, why do we expect anyone to support BPG? http://www.gizmag.com/bpg-image-format-outperforms-jpeg/35232/

"""Is BPG likely to take over as a successor to JPEG? There’s a few factors running up against it. JPG is more or less doing a good enough job. Designers are comfortable with using it online, it’s well understood, it’s supported pretty much everywhere, and internet connections are becoming fast enough that image download times aren’t the issue they used to be...cool to watch clever people achieving clever things with software, even if the morass of patent law and commercial considerations do end up leaving BPG by the wayside."""

I quote http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/ :
"JPEG 2000 was developed with the intention that Part 1 could be implemented without the payment of licence fees or royalties, and identified patent holders have waived their rights toward this end. However, the JPEG committee cannot make a formal guarantee, and it remains the responsibility of the implementer to ensure that no patents are infringed."

This alone is, to me, a reason not to touch JPEG2000 with a long stick. JPEG is old enough, so it is very unlikely that patent trolls would emerge anymore. The same is not true for JPEG2000, and particularly wasn't in 2000. So why take the risk then JPEG is both good enough and universally supported?

At its time, JPEG solved a real problem. All later developments have, for all their technical brilliance, been incremental upgrades, and not really worth it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2014 at 06:54 UTC
On Canon EOS 7D Mark II Review preview (1174 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: The dynamic range/image quality deficit seen on this camera's sensor, is probably a byproduct of that dual-pixel layout. As I've being suspecting since this sensor design was introduced with the EOS 70D. Putting basically 40 million pixels on an APS-C sized sensor is going to have a cost - image quality wise.

Your assumptions make no sense to me.

7D2 is one of the first Canon Dual Pixel cameras, and though still behind the best competitors, it has more low-ISO dynamic range than any non-dual pixel Canon camera.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2014 at 17:54 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Look at the transition zones between the hands and the background trees in the "Shallow depth-of-focus" shot. Even at this small size, they look pixelated and quite fake.

I am still sceptical.

Rishi:
You seem to assume that the "depth maps" come at no cost if this technology is allowed to mature. I, on the other hand, believe that there is a cost that can't be compensated for: every "directional" "pixel" is away from spatial resolution; hence, no high-resolution Lytro images. Ever.

And speaking of Photoshop: if I wanted to create my DoF in Photoshop, why would I need a Lytro camera to begin with? Even phone cameras can give you badly guessed out-of-focus simulation.

Don't get me wrong. As an engineer with a signal processing background, I have the utmost respect for the developers of Lytro. They have invented something truly awesone. It's just that I don't think general photography is where the strength of the system is. They could perhaps find some niche of their own, perhaps in some industrial, machine-seeing application. Or something. But as a consumer photography tool, it's lacking.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 18:57 UTC
On Lytro software update introduces Focus Spread feature article (102 comments in total)

Look at the transition zones between the hands and the background trees in the "Shallow depth-of-focus" shot. Even at this small size, they look pixelated and quite fake.

I am still sceptical.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 08:10 UTC as 23rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Neuroanatomist: 2499 Euro ..... thanks for screwing with us customers in Europe.

2199 € is the official price.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

webrunner5: I would just rather stick to my 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 extender. About the same money and a lot more useful all around. Just walk a little closer. I don't regard this lens as a Birder anyways. Still too short unless on a crop camera.

Why would you use an 1.4 extender with your 70-200? Just walk a little closer.
Actually, why would you use buy a telezoom at all? Just walk a little closer!
If you are incapable of seeing why people want the perhaps most awaited Canon new lens in the last 10 years, that is your loss. I am not buying this lens either, but I see no need to belittle its worth to those who awaited it for so long. After all, according to Canon's MTF's, it will be great even as a 640mm f/8 with the Canon 1.4x teleconverter.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 10:27 UTC

Go Roger, our hero!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2014 at 20:38 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

mazzy80: The 2nd pictures is easy the best from a (composition) photography point of view IMHO.
The 1st make little sense in an astronomy competition...

Agree with the second one being absolutely wonderful. As someone who have shot four total eclipses, I have the utmost respect for the calculations required to get that perfect composition from the shooting distance required for that photo. That's just grand!

As for the first one; it have been really nice without the excessive HDR processing.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 20:09 UTC
On Olympus Capture software now available for E-M1 owners article (35 comments in total)
In reply to:

cjnielsen_nz: I deliberately did *not* check the box that offers to add me to the mailing list for 'tips' however moments after beginning the download I received an email with 'Congratulations! You’re signed up to receive the latest news, promotions and tips from Olympus'

F you Olympus! NOT happy.

You know nothing, Jon Snow... I mean ptox.

Your rant would be OK if the message was sent one time to one person. This is, however, seldom if never the case.

I was there when the first green card lottery spam mail spanned over Usenet in 1994. Many people argued: "You are all wussies. How hard is it to skip one single message in every newsgroup?" I'm certain words "childish tantrums" were mentioned. Then other unscrupulous people decided they could also send "just one" message to each of the 20,000 newsgroups. After a few months, when over 90% of messages suddenly were spam, defenders finally understood their mistake and stopped yapping about freedom of speech. And why not: their voices couldn't be heard over the spam!

What I learned then: There is absolutely NO reason for unsolicitated mail, even less from "respectable" companies because e-mail spam filters which are so essential nowadays that they more often than not are hidden from us, are less likely to eat them.

End of line.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On Olympus Capture software now available for E-M1 owners article (35 comments in total)
In reply to:

cjnielsen_nz: I deliberately did *not* check the box that offers to add me to the mailing list for 'tips' however moments after beginning the download I received an email with 'Congratulations! You’re signed up to receive the latest news, promotions and tips from Olympus'

F you Olympus! NOT happy.

Thorgrem:
That's the excuse of every spammer ever, from the very first Usenet green card lottery.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
On Opinion: Bring on the 70-200mm equivalents article (328 comments in total)
In reply to:

Landscapephoto99: Light capture on m43 at f2.8 is NOT comparable to a FF f5.6. If that reasoning were correct, all of the f2.8 APS-C lenses would really be f4.0 lenses. An f2.8 is an f2.8 on any format in terms of light gathering. DoF, and size, is the only difference.

Ah, yet another one who doesn't understand equivalence.

Yes, f/2.8 on m43 gathers four times the light INTENSITY (light per square millimeter) as a full frame f/5.6 lens. This much is true. But, the full-frame sensor is four times LARGER than the m43 sensor, so the TOTAL LIGHT gathered by these equivalent systems are the same. As are DoF, noise (FF ISO 400 is typically (not always) about as noisy as ISO 100 on m43 given they are the same generation sensors), exposure time, diffraction limit over the image area, and everything else. That's what equivalence means.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 07:38 UTC
On Size matters: Hands-on with Canon PowerShot G7 X article (175 comments in total)

The new G7X sure is closer in size to the S120 than the G1X.

G7X vs G1X Mark II:
http://j.mp/1ubUF5K
G1X Mark II weighs almost double that of G7 X and is significantly bigger in every way.

G7X vs S120:
http://j.mp/1ubUYxy
G7X weighs 40% more than S120. Its width and height is very similar, but it's a whole centimeter deeper. Try changing camera direction to see for yourself.

The G7X might be too big for me, as I currently own an S110 for my pocket camera needs. But the potential IQ benefit from the larger sensor and two stops faster tele aperture is tempting. In low light I consider the S110 a fixed focal length camera, but with the G7X it would be possible to zoom a bit even at less than perfect light. Also, the G7X wouldn't be diffraction limited at full tele + full aperture (S110's f/26 equivalent in the long end is nothing to write home about).

All in all, this camera has a respectably small form factor for what it is: a camera with a 1" sensor and an f/1.8-2.8 4x zoom lens.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 07:49 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

erotavlas: we all know everyone who uses this lens will still end up tweaking their photo's to death in Lightroom and Photoshop making whatever benefits this lens offers with respect to colour, clarity, sharpness, contrast etc kind of pointless.

Let's repeat it once more:
Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is not something easily overcome with Lightroom or Photoshop. Being apochromatic means this lens doesn't have LoCA, or has so little of it that it doesn't matter. To those with enough money or with enough payed assignments that would benefit from this, this alone will make this lens worth it. Also, another thing not easily corrected or cretated in post, bokeh, looks sublime.

This lens is way past anything I could pay for. Still, I can appreciate it for what it is: a unique precision instrument with great artistic potential. I feel no need to belittle it just because I cannot afford it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 10:23 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Zeiss specs look excellent, although it's around 0.8% distortion so saying how minimal distortion is makes little sense. All the optical qualities look very good, and the CA issues are much more important -- APOs do things postprocessing can't fix for other lenses. I'll also admit that my Samyang's "close focus" behavior drives me nuts, and extensions tubes cause a huge degradation in IQ for that IF lens design. Then again, for 1/18 the price....

Fair enough, Prof.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:36 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Zeiss specs look excellent, although it's around 0.8% distortion so saying how minimal distortion is makes little sense. All the optical qualities look very good, and the CA issues are much more important -- APOs do things postprocessing can't fix for other lenses. I'll also admit that my Samyang's "close focus" behavior drives me nuts, and extensions tubes cause a huge degradation in IQ for that IF lens design. Then again, for 1/18 the price....

All together now: "Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration is a distortion!" Zeiss clearly are talking about _all_ kinds of distortions in the image, not just geometrical distortion.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 11:28 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are 85's really known for problematic distortion?

wlad: There are no automatic, non-lossy checkboxes for longitudinal chromatic aberration, like there are for lateral chromatic aberration. This is because LoCA depends on the distance to subject, not where it is in the image. See my first link for the 85/1.2 for details.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:22 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Are 85's really known for problematic distortion?

naftade: Chromatic aberration IS a type distortion. This is not just me being a wiseass, as in its press release Zeiss talks about all kinds of distortions, i.e. any and all issues causing non-desired results in an image. This lens being apochromatic, it is a big selling point of this lens that it doesn't have longitudinal chromatic aberration.

Not only Zeiss, but also Wikipedia uses the same terminology under "Chromatic aberration":
"In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of DISTORTION in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point." [emphasis mine]

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:20 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

fmian: No distortion?
But I prefer my skinny models to look a bit pudgy.. :(

They are not talking about geometrical distortion which is trivial. The main distortion missing from the lens is Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration, which cannot be autocorrected in the same way as geometrical distortion or lateral chromatic aberration can.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:10 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: Wait till Sigma release their 85/1.4 lens. 1/4 price and better quality, like their 50/1.4 ART lens.

Sigma's 50/1.4 Art isn't apochromatic, the Otus 55/1.4 is. There is a real benefit in having a lens that doesn't have longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA, bokeh fringing, purple fringing, or whatever you like to call it).

As a proud owner of the Sigma, it is a fantastic lens, and as my fourth 50 mm lens, finally "good enough" for me. Still, I would very much like to have it without LoCa. See section "Bokeh Fringing" from the link below:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Also Sigma's bokeh isn't particularly smooth.

So no, Sigma 50/1.4 Art is not better than the Zeiss 55/1.4 Otus. Depending on the buyer, it may be better value, and AF is of course very useful. But purely optically, it is not the better lens.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 09:08 UTC
Total: 112, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »