falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 697, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Donald B: I think you need to compare it to the k3ii at iso 6400 raw .

Made my day.
Logic errors in arguments this large are rare :)

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2016 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Thanks for the additional info.
As a matter of fact, it means the Lytro Cinema is an example of the "Multi-Pixel AF Sensor" with 21 MP and Multi=6x6.
The Canon Dual-Pixel AF Sensor is another example with Multi=2x1.
For some time now, I advocate a broader adoption of Multi-Pixel AF Sensors, specifically Quad-Pixel with Multi=2x2.
OTOH, it is a significant step-back from the original idea of a real Light-Field or plenoptical camera which requires a much higher sub-ray resolution being captured. But this stepped-back specification yields a much more interesting camera overall, still increasing the available depth of field by a factor six.

Just adding to it...
We do not know yet the 35mm-equivalent properties of this camera. But as it looks massive, even F-Stop numbers of 6*N could imply shallow-enough depth-of-field to make this camera operate more like a conventional camera which requires constant focus operation.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 08:26 UTC

Thanks for the additional info.
As a matter of fact, it means the Lytro Cinema is an example of the "Multi-Pixel AF Sensor" with 21 MP and Multi=6x6.
The Canon Dual-Pixel AF Sensor is another example with Multi=2x1.
For some time now, I advocate a broader adoption of Multi-Pixel AF Sensors, specifically Quad-Pixel with Multi=2x2.
OTOH, it is a significant step-back from the original idea of a real Light-Field or plenoptical camera which requires a much higher sub-ray resolution being captured. But this stepped-back specification yields a much more interesting camera overall, still increasing the available depth of field by a factor six.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 08:13 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply

I think the D5 is all about the kind of images you get, not the image quality of each. Don't forget, at daylight an RX100 easily matches the image quality of an DSLR. But the DSLR may catch images the RX100 will fail at.

In my German Nikon forum, the following image from the Bundesliga Bayern Munich game was posted (Player: Vidal) -> http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/picture.php?albumid=30124&pictureid=498687
Credit Michael Weber, IMAGEPOWER
D5 JPEG ooc, AF-S VR FL 600/4 + TC-14E III + strong crop at ISO 8000 f/5,6 1/1250s
Mr. Weber: "Image taken from across the playing ground, the opposite side of the goal and previously, I struggled with mild blur in similiar situations."
That's the kind of images which do actually sell!
Anything else, this DPR article included, can only give a weak impression of how the camera performs, or doesn't. In my German Nikon forum, Michael writes: "I am more than content (with the D5), the more the longer I work with it".

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2016 at 15:50 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Robert Kempen: Leica reports record revenues for the past financial year with 'double digit' profits - unlisted company, of course, so does not need to provide exact profit numbers, but the revenue number is a new record for Leica's photographic division

Bottom line: M, Q & SL are selling like hot cakes and so is the new S

B&H must be smiling...

@Robert Kempen
> unlisted company, maybe, but in Germany business does still follow the rules ;)
-> https://www.bundesanzeiger.de/ebanzwww/wexsservlet?session.sessionid=f96ae031a172c833e3a010224fdbaecb&page.navid=detailsearchlisttodetailsearchdetail&fts_search_list.selected=eccf989a8a489f92&fts_search_list.destHistoryId=61614

They make profit around 38 and 14 million € (2014 and 2015 resp.) but don't shift any of the profit into the next year.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 14:29 UTC

Most expensive tripod ever: microgravitation :)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2016 at 12:41 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

falconeyes: This is a tiny project for a company the scale of FB. Cool but tiny.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see that undercover projects are still making it to the surface in large corporations :)

Tiny it is.
Miniscule team and prototype-level hardware solution.
Roughly equivalent to what a decent engineering university's thesis work would achieve.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

RPJG: Does anyone know why 14 horizontal cameras are required, given the quite wide 19mm-equivalent field of view - e.g., for better stitching results?

@Mark Banas
Assuming the standard 100° FoV (diagonal) of current VR glasses, 2x8k translates to about full HD per eye.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 14:15 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: In the past few years it seems everybody has discovered that you can stick an array of cameras together for 360 capture. The Surround 360 does not seem to be a particularly clever nor cheap way to construct the multi-camera, and I wouldn't call overnight stitching fast. As far back as 1999, my research group showed two different multi-camera 360-degree rigs on autonomous platforms, with real-time stitching and video wall pan/zoom on a Linux cluster (fed captures via 802.11 wireless), in our research exhibit at IEEE/ACM SC99: http://aggregate.org/EXHIBITS/sc99_360.jpg

That said, we didn't do stereo, and the stereo video processing and encoding is far from trivial. I applaud Facebook freely releasing the design and software for others to use and help improve. I look forward to the actual open source release, which they say will happen "on GitHub this summer."

I agree. I am loking forward to learn which algorithm exactly they adopted to compute the stereo disparities. That seems to be at the heart of the news ;)

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 14:07 UTC

This is a tiny project for a company the scale of FB. Cool but tiny.

Nevertheless, I am glad to see that undercover projects are still making it to the surface in large corporations :)

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 14:05 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Mssimo: So video output is VGA resolution?

> they have to provide what they say
No, they do not.
They just try to stay connected to their money flow from venture capital. In the end, Lytro will fail. The only question for the people currently on board is how much longer they can run their party.

FYI, the current trend in 3D image and video aquisition is with a distributed set of ordinary high-res cameras and clever software. Aka structure from motion. Lytro doesn't seem to be part of that. 700+ MP may sound much. But above approaches easily deliver several Gigapixel (from their multiple cameras) and are still cheaper overall whith better depth resolution.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 11:47 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: All of this sounds great on paper.

Only problem is that this is from the guys who are known to promise rather than deliver.

Here is a company which produces Lightfield cameras which actually do serve a purpose and where the company is making actual money rather than trying to impress investors
-> http://www.raytrix.de/

Sometimes, I simply don't get it why performers don't get media attention.

BTW, the more Lytro is entering the industrial market, the more likely they break Raytrix patents ...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 11:29 UTC

All of this sounds great on paper.

Only problem is that this is from the guys who are known to promise rather than deliver.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 00:08 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

falconeyes: Before people get too excited ...
This is a 220mm F4 lens at the long end.

A lens like the Nikon 70-200/4 is both cheaper and lighter than this camera. So it all comes down to actual image quality, how well the lens really resolves.

The diffraction limit for F4 is 1.34µm, the pixel pitch is 2.4µm. So, if this lens is diffraction-limited stopped down to F5.6, it may be a winner. Otherwise, it won't deliver anything a DSLR cannot at the same price and weight (at the long end).

Looking for4ward to an actual lens test. This is where the RX100m3/4 really shines.

Some don't seem to get the point I was trying to make. But don't worry ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2016 at 21:20 UTC

Before people get too excited ...
This is a 220mm F4 lens at the long end.

A lens like the Nikon 70-200/4 is both cheaper and lighter than this camera. So it all comes down to actual image quality, how well the lens really resolves.

The diffraction limit for F4 is 1.34µm, the pixel pitch is 2.4µm. So, if this lens is diffraction-limited stopped down to F5.6, it may be a winner. Otherwise, it won't deliver anything a DSLR cannot at the same price and weight (at the long end).

Looking for4ward to an actual lens test. This is where the RX100m3/4 really shines.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2016 at 23:45 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Amazing camera. Sony continues to push the boundaries of possible. Unfortunately, 600mm is not long enough. Luckily, Nikon B700 shoots 4k video at 1440mm.

A lens is long enough if all pixels become equal brightness due to diffraction ...

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: This certainly isn't a big issue for an event's camera like the D5.

However, the curious part of me still would like to inquire if this is due to:
- No on-chip column-parallel ADCs (i.e., no Sony chip)?
- Too fast (read imprecise) ADC to support 12fps readout?
- Other reason?

Extremely high iso cameras (D5, A7s) don't yet seem to be iso-invariant. Still, I'd like to know why.

So, actually nobody has a clue as of why this is ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 21:32 UTC

This certainly isn't a big issue for an event's camera like the D5.

However, the curious part of me still would like to inquire if this is due to:
- No on-chip column-parallel ADCs (i.e., no Sony chip)?
- Too fast (read imprecise) ADC to support 12fps readout?
- Other reason?

Extremely high iso cameras (D5, A7s) don't yet seem to be iso-invariant. Still, I'd like to know why.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 00:29 UTC as 155th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Snapper2013: Besides photography, it sure would be fun to go hunting game with one of these!
Will the laws ever allow hunting game with a drone?

I see no difference between sniper or drone. Both are lazy man vs. wild animal.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: The problem of shutter-induced blur in VR systems has a long history.

Interesting, vendors (Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, Pentax) don't more seriously test their products against it.

Here you find an in-depth study of the same problem for the Pentax K-7 camera which actually got translated to Japansese to be discussed in the engineering dep.
-> http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k7shutter/index.html

Pentax eventually solved the issue for their K-5 update.

@helltormentor, pls refer to my blog (LumoLabs). The answer is too complex to fit here.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2016 at 00:58 UTC
Total: 697, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »