Digital Imaging Technician

Digital Imaging Technician

Lives in Sweden Sweden
Joined on Apr 17, 2007

Comments

Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scales USA: I remember when jpeg replaced gif images. It was painful.

Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's. It was a clear choice due to very limited bandwidth, but the image quality suffered due to artifacts.

I'd go for a new standard, but likely won't live long enough to see it.

> Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's.

You don't have to, there's a javascript decoder. Nice, isn't it?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 21:21 UTC
On BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs article (188 comments in total)
In reply to:

D1N0: jpegs are mainly used on the web. Compatibility is the magic word. When a large percentage of your audience can't view the image because their browser doesn't supported it, it will not be used, no matter how good it is.

Well, I think you missed something. There's a javascript decoder that renders the need for compatible browsers unnecessary.
See here: http://bellard.org/bpg/
BPG will work in (almost) any browser that has JS enabled. Cool ha?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 21:03 UTC

I bet FV-5 is based on the L Camera code, because it has exactly the same problem as L Camera with manual focus. There is no infinity focus. If I set the manual focus to the furthest possible it still just focuses a couple of meters a way (or closer than that) and things further away are not in focus at all.

Manual infinity focus could have real potential with camera phones as DOF is crazy. Basically you could set it to infinity and have focus from something quite close to something really distant. The AF on my Nexus 5 always troubles me (hunting) and it's slow as molasses.

Please fix manual infinity focus and I'll buy it (I actually bought it, but refunded because of this)!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 02:00 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On Ten things you need to know about the Sony Alpha 7 II article (263 comments in total)

I bought the A7 when it came out. It's nice to see the system evolve. But to take pictures with a ILC you need lenses. And Sony, unlike Fujifilm, does not seem to understand this at all.

Give me reasonably fast primes to a descent price. The 35mm 2.8 is too slow and the 35mm 1.4 on their roadmap is too big. How about a 35mm 2.0?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 2, 2014 at 09:59 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Karl Summers: No need for this when you can buy a 5TB home cloud storage unit.

Black Box: You do know the point of a backup, right? If not, it's that the data should reside in at least two places. Statistically, the risk that your house burns down and Microsoft goes bankrupt at the same time is not very big.

We should remember though that these are synchronization services, which is not the same as a backup service. If you somehow screw the data on your drives that will sync to the OneDrive. OneDrive might have some kind of versioning though, but I don't know.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 19:11 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X100T article (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

spontaneousservices: so why do some people actually prefer a camera without flip screen? Don't they appreciate the extra possibilities?

I think you must understand that this is a camera model with a certain heritage (that goes further back than the original X100). The X100T is clearly meant to be used with the VF – that is where they put they're R&D budget for this iteration. A flip screen adds unnecessary bulk. It's also not only about style, it's about an experience. Many people (often professionals, more seldom gear hounds) actually enjoy to work with some limitations.

And just as there's a reason why some professionals (not just oil Sheikhs) prefer Leica M* cameras, I think Fujifilm wants there to be a reason why some people chose the X100*.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 08:28 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X100T article (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Liukas: What about focus speed? Is it better than 100s?

People have commented that it feels "snappier". I'm afraid this could very well be placebo.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 08:11 UTC
On Photokina 2014: Hands-on with the Fujifilm X100T article (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: Time for a survey?
Tilt Screen?
Yes/No?

No

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 08:08 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

Jun2: It is possible to continue to use it until a new OS X version comes along (under which the software wont run) or until the user buys a new camera for which there is no updated raw support — but it's certainly not a permanent solution to continue to use Aperture.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 09:59 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Imaging Technician: So at what focal length does this leave the greatness of f/1.8? I'm mostly interested in what aperture I get at 35mm equivalent. I shoot 98% of my pictures at 35mm and very seldom anything wider than that.

dpmaxwell: f/2.8 was the answer I was looking for :)
Kosmoo: I'm used to full frame, yes. But the aperture will never be f/6 on this camera. It might have the depth of field comparable to f/6, but aperture is aperture – independent of sensor size.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (802 comments in total)

So at what focal length does this leave the greatness of f/1.8? I'm mostly interested in what aperture I get at 35mm equivalent. I shoot 98% of my pictures at 35mm and very seldom anything wider than that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 14:00 UTC as 89th comment | 6 replies

I'm telling you, the CC only version of Lightroom is getting closer and closer — regardless what Adobe has told us before...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 19:22 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On Alien Skin Software's Exposure 6 now available article (20 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digital Imaging Technician: If you'd really like to emulate the tone of a certain film, I think this plugin is based on faulty logic. AFAIK version 6, just as the earlier versions this software, has no idea what the input data might be — so how would it know how to tweak it to? You'd be better off with raw files and Replichrome or VSCO Film for Camera Raw or Lightroom. These use camera profiles for every camera model it supports. What the Replichrome and VSCO lacks however, is grain emulation. They both use the same grain for every film it tries to emulate (using the grain feature of Camera Raw/Lightroom). My solution is to take care of color emulation with Replichrome (and turn off the the grain in Lightroom), interpolate to desired output size and and then add the grain with Exposure to mask possible interpolation artifacts caused by up upressing.

Yes, that is correct.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 09:25 UTC
On Alien Skin Software's Exposure 6 now available article (20 comments in total)

If you'd really like to emulate the tone of a certain film, I think this plugin is based on faulty logic. AFAIK version 6, just as the earlier versions this software, has no idea what the input data might be — so how would it know how to tweak it to? You'd be better off with raw files and Replichrome or VSCO Film for Camera Raw or Lightroom. These use camera profiles for every camera model it supports. What the Replichrome and VSCO lacks however, is grain emulation. They both use the same grain for every film it tries to emulate (using the grain feature of Camera Raw/Lightroom). My solution is to take care of color emulation with Replichrome (and turn off the the grain in Lightroom), interpolate to desired output size and and then add the grain with Exposure to mask possible interpolation artifacts caused by up upressing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2014 at 22:41 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
On Sony a6000 Review preview (764 comments in total)

I would buy this if I could get a 35mm equivalent lens with AF that isn't the size of Alaska (read: SEL24F18Z). It's a clue to me that they still don't have such a lens in their lineup.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2014 at 08:52 UTC as 53rd comment
On Sony Alpha A7 / A7R preview (2372 comments in total)

OK, Dpreview says "Both bodies are made of a magnesium alloy" which makes it sound like they are both identical. The preview from The Camera Store says A7 has a plastic front and some plastic dials.
See video at 3:44: https://youtu.be/bnvgceTEV3c#t=3m44s
Is this true?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2013 at 10:43 UTC as 646th comment | 3 replies

The dream is still alive... Just two weeks ago the DigiPod was presented. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/digipod
I personally don't think there's anything interesting about these ideas if the device isn't full frame. I believe there will be too many technical obstacles. It's probably doomed to be forever vaporware.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 15:03 UTC as 85th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Hobbit13: Most mobile phone cameras have a depth of field that is large enough to do most shots in "hyper focal" any way. So I do not see the use for such small sensors.

But it might be useful to capture 3D movies etc.

What I came here to say. The Lytro camera itself was a joke. Yes, if put something at 20 cm distance from the camera you might be able to achieve shallow DOF that you can later control. Forget it if you are taking a portrait of someone 3 meters away.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2013 at 19:51 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

tcab: What about Fuji x100 raw support - doesn't that need improvement too?

Most people can't get x100 raw to look as good as in camera jpeg, which shouldn't really be the case. I've tried it myself and simply gone back to jpeg - it's just too hard fiddling with the raw files.

Has Adobe forgotten the x100 and the x100s?

X100s improvement are included in this update. I've never noticed any difficulties with my X100 files.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 09:59 UTC
On Adobe's Fujifilm X-Trans sensor processing tested article (137 comments in total)

Great that they have made some improvements. But I must say I'm a bit disappointed. It very much looks like the same mushy watercolor effect (slightly less of it) but with lowered sharpness. This is judging from samples, I have to give it a go in LR.

Lesson learned: just go bayer the next time. I don't think X-trans offers anything that has justified all this trouble.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2013 at 09:47 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »