Erik Magnuson

Erik Magnuson

Lives in United States Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Has a website at http://www.pbase.com/maderik
Joined on Dec 29, 2000
About me:

This is what I'd like to appear on my public 'posters (sic)
profile.'

Comments

Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: I think that PP focus point change is useful but I can't imagine average shooter is going to bother with post-processing who actually make up the bulk of camera sales also considering the ever increasing use of phonecameras. But for the enthusiast and pro video shooter it can be a valuable facility in hand. But again producing a video system which includes movie quality lenses will be very expensive operation that has to compete with established brands and systems. Good luck to them. They have a very steep hill to climb.

The current 4MP output has lower sharpness and resolution than a conventional 4MP camera. How much less? The previous version was less than 1/3 the output frame height in actual resolution. Extrapolated to the Ilium sensor, there would not be 1080 lines of detail.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 02:14 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: I guess in video surveillance there is a bit more demand / use for lytro's tec.
Well my best guess is that the "additional 50m$ funding" and the shift to video is coming from that distinct market by investors from security / defense stuff..
To a big investor / group 50mio$ isn't that much.

For photography, hate to say it - but the product was doomed from day one.
interesting proof of concept maybe - maybe a nice niche product for artists to play with - but certainly nothing "productive". (or at least I have not heard of a single Pro who went and bought any Lytro to use professionally, maybe to play around with in their spare time...)

And how many casual sports photographers are using 4K video for stills? 4K video is highly compressed compared to Lytro raw and can be reviewed at 30 FPS.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:56 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: I think that PP focus point change is useful but I can't imagine average shooter is going to bother with post-processing who actually make up the bulk of camera sales also considering the ever increasing use of phonecameras. But for the enthusiast and pro video shooter it can be a valuable facility in hand. But again producing a video system which includes movie quality lenses will be very expensive operation that has to compete with established brands and systems. Good luck to them. They have a very steep hill to climb.

I'm assuming 1920x1080 with sharpness in the ballpark of current cameras. Say 720 lines actual. The only Lytro resolution numbers i've found published was just over 300 lines for the 1080x1080 camera. The current Illium frame size is actually a bit too small even if redistributed to 16:9 format.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:45 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: I guess in video surveillance there is a bit more demand / use for lytro's tec.
Well my best guess is that the "additional 50m$ funding" and the shift to video is coming from that distinct market by investors from security / defense stuff..
To a big investor / group 50mio$ isn't that much.

For photography, hate to say it - but the product was doomed from day one.
interesting proof of concept maybe - maybe a nice niche product for artists to play with - but certainly nothing "productive". (or at least I have not heard of a single Pro who went and bought any Lytro to use professionally, maybe to play around with in their spare time...)

@HowaboutRAW. Casual sports photographers don't want to wait either. How many shoot raw with current cameras? First you need to add enough HW to get better FPS and a useful size buffer that does not freeze the camera while saving to storage. Then a battery big enough to power it all. Now the user goes home and has to transfer a few tens of gigabytes to his computer so he can begin the tedious task of looking through them? They will find few users willing to put up with that much friction.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:35 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

oselimg: I think that PP focus point change is useful but I can't imagine average shooter is going to bother with post-processing who actually make up the bulk of camera sales also considering the ever increasing use of phonecameras. But for the enthusiast and pro video shooter it can be a valuable facility in hand. But again producing a video system which includes movie quality lenses will be very expensive operation that has to compete with established brands and systems. Good luck to them. They have a very steep hill to climb.

A hypothetical I2 needs 10x more bandwidth (chip to ram) and processing than it has today (e.g. 3FPS to 30 FPS.) To store a useful length video clip it would need much, much more ram to SD card bandwidth (40 megarays * 30 FPS = 1200 M/s. Or it would need a fast video compression scheme that doesn't compromise the depth mapping (trade compute power for I/O bandwidth.) You have to imagine real hard and a number of years in the future before this is practical.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 21:27 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: I guess in video surveillance there is a bit more demand / use for lytro's tec.
Well my best guess is that the "additional 50m$ funding" and the shift to video is coming from that distinct market by investors from security / defense stuff..
To a big investor / group 50mio$ isn't that much.

For photography, hate to say it - but the product was doomed from day one.
interesting proof of concept maybe - maybe a nice niche product for artists to play with - but certainly nothing "productive". (or at least I have not heard of a single Pro who went and bought any Lytro to use professionally, maybe to play around with in their spare time...)

Sports camera for what market? These days time to publish is critical - so transmission of images from the field is common with pros. Lytro file sizes make this prohibitive. Image review, selection, and rendering workflow is also inadequate for fast work.

Also which video market? The Hollywood market has access to render farms that make processing feasible, but cinematographers are very picky when it comes to the look from lenses. Home video suffers from storage and computational limits.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 15:37 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: The technology itself is very promising (and used for MS hololens too) but it is still strictly limited for industrial 3D sensing applications, or kinnect.

Why? Because you need 60X resolution to get the same output as other cameras. 60MP sensor for 1MP output. 120MP sensor for 2MP output. 4K is 8MP, and you need 480MP lytro sensor (and seriously fast computer to calculate each rays).

The only MTF50 measurement I've found for a Lytro was the older model at slightly over 300 lines for the 1080 pix high output or ~0.3x linear. This included sharpening. Conventional sensors tend to be around 0.8 for in-camera and 0.9 for sharpened raw. Even optimistic extrapolation to the Illium would suggest that for a flattened 2D image, sharpness would be much lower than what you get from a 4 MP conventional camera. Of course this applies only to the plane of best focus for the conventional camera. It would be interesting to see how much defocus it takes to equalize the results.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 13:29 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

This is a 23mm lens that only focuses to 20cm (200mm). Macro lens optical rules would not apply. Neither focal length or extension would account for the described f-stop limits. For 1.5 stops, the focal length would need to grow as if a 1.7x converter were added.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 02:06 UTC
On A second glance: two takes on the Leica X article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

nemark: To David Wentworth:
"a 35 mm equivalent f/1.7. The camera would not allow me shoot at f/1.7 when within a certain distance to a subject. Instead, the aperture would automatically "correct" to f/2.2 or f/2.8, even when in full manual mode."

I suspect that it is the same reason why did East Germany Jena Zeiss do the same thing with some of their lenses (2.8/35mm Flectogon and 3.5/135mm Sonnar at least). And the reason is simple: as you focus closer and closer, your lens moves further from film/sensor surface becoming "a longer focal length, while diameter of the hole ("aperture") that passes light to the sensor remains same. The ammount of light that reaches sensor is reduced. That is also why 2.8 macro lens when set to 1:1, becomes actually f5.6 (in other words, you`ll need for 2EV longer exposure).

Isn't the lens internal focussing? If so, there is no extension/bellows factor to worry about like with an old extending macro.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2014 at 19:37 UTC
On Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount article (267 comments in total)
In reply to:

BarnET2: Why on earth does Zeiss want $949,- on a simple 1920 based design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens#mediaviewer/File:DoubleGauss1text.svg

The OPIC from taylor and obson from 1920 looks very similar.
So no R&D in lens design nor in mechanics since it has no AF nor IS.

I just can't fathom where the money has gone too here.

Ford actually made 50 Model T's in 2003 to celebrate Ford's 100th anniversary. They reportedly cost about $250k each. The original 1908 Model T cost about $22k in modern dollars but volume matters..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2014 at 14:17 UTC
In reply to:

Bob Meyer: You comment that:

the a7S's low-light advantage is less clear-cut when shooting VIDEO. The low-light advantage will only be available when working with shallower depth-of-field than the GH4 can offer (which may be desirable, depending on what you want to achieve). However, if your composition requires a certain depth-of-field, the sensor size advantage is lost as soon as you match the two.

AND

Both cameras have sensors close enough to the state-of-the-art that there's no way the GH4 can make up for the difference in sensor size, which should give the Sony a 2EV advantage, in low light.

The first applies to still photography as much as video, and the second ignores DOF . If you need more DOF, you need to stop the lens on the FF camera down two stops, exactly matching the light falling on the smaller 4/s sensor. Sometimes a FF camera's ability to generate shallow DOF is an advantage, sometimes not.

@carlton foxx: Funny you should say that because that's exactly the opposite of what I see. Sometimes DOF is shallow for isolation and sometimes deep to include multiple elements even for scenes next to each other if the POV is different. Sometimes focus will shift from one subject to another to redirect your attention (which only works with relatively shallow DOF). DOF obviously doesn't change within a single take or camera angle unless the light also changes (i.e. rare inside/outside transitions.) It's highly variable depending on the DP's style. Did you ever see Star Trek TOS where ever ytime they changed to show a female closeup the lens was suddenly coated with Vaseline?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

Jahled: Is this the same 'US Copyright Office' who granted Amazon that white background patent? It's all a bit far out and mental isn't it

No, that's the Patent and Trademark office.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 11:21 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?

don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...
but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...

Or?

Not really - the ARW2 format only encodes 13 bits. And if you use sequential shooting mode, the camera internally drops to 12 bits.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:50 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhendrix: Seems renting a camera instead of all that gadgetry would have been less costly. Makes for a good article I guess. Looks a little bit like my leaf blower.

The point is now you can buy or rent *this* setup. It sounds like they used mostly off-the-self parts anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 14:29 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: What I fail to understand is that at the budget both chevrolet and the marketing / video company has... and obviously the whole rig is more expensive then about a dozen of the A7s... why go for that option instead of other available options that are more specifically geared towards cinematographic work?

don't get me wrong, I quite like the A7s and it is actually something I might buy... but I'd do so especially because at its price point it's hard to find rivals...
but if I'd have the kind of funds to assemble the rig as shown, I don't think I'd really go for the a7S...

Or?

You don't get both 14-bit RAW and 4K at the same time. In fact you don't get 14-bit raw in any video mode. If you are recording the HDMI output, you are getting only 8 bits per Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2014 at 14:26 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

The monkey was not "working" by any law or custom you can cite.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

You asked what the legal difference was between an assistant and a monkey. As you say below, you have no authorship if the assistant is on his own time. The monkey is always on his own time.

If you were shooting in public and a random stranger takes a photo of your set, do you have copyright *on that photo.* No, you cannot use that photo w/o his permission because you have no agreement with him. He may have limited rights due to other IP issues, but you cannot claim copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:50 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

Exactly, now you see the point: who's time was the monkey on then? His own ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Again, just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you are the copyright holder.

Copyright law doesn't actually define what a photographer is when it assigns copyrights ownership. It only works on authorship.

That is why assistants, like this monkey, are never given copyrights, because they do not author the photograph.

At a photoshoot, I could go to my unpaid intern, without a contract, give him the camera, and tell him to take a creative shot, and I would have copyright.

Most people here have no idea that a real working professional photographer would have very little to do with operating a camera, which is why assistants taking photos are common.

And most working photographers spend most of their time planning a shoot. Mario Testino recently stated he spends about 2/3 of his time planning.

I think because most photographers here are amateurs, they think of photography as that limited view of operating a camera, like what a pro's assistant would do.

A human can agree to an oral contract; a monkey cannot.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many amateur photographers here have no idea what it takes to make a pro-quality photo. Why haven't they figured out that taking a photo isn't the only creative act when authoring a photograph?

Do they not consider the production, planning, setup, styling, lighting, editing, post-processing, and publications creative acts in photography?

Because that's part of photography at the professional level, protected by copyright. Pros spend far more time planning than shooting.

Just because you can operate a camera, doesn't mean you own the copyright. When you give a person your camera to take a tourist photo of you, they don't get the copyright.

That is why professional photographers have assistants take photos for them, and they don't even need a contract stating that they're assistants doing work-for-hire, since it's the default situation - you never see these 'work-for-hire' contracts in the real-world.

Copyright law doesn't protect assistants, only the photographer.

@vfunc Assistants are employees performing their duties. You don't own what they do on their own time even if you give them the idea.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 21:31 UTC
Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »