RRJackson

RRJackson

Lives in United States Bradenton, United States
Joined on Apr 27, 2008

Comments

Total: 99, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

This fast response is a very welcome change in Nikon's policy. It's nice to see them quickly acknowledge the issue, understand the appropriate fix and offer it to consumers quickly. Nice to see a big company learn from its past mistakes.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2015 at 05:53 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
On article Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

I don't think you could really do it with speed settings. Right now remote lens control units use a knob because the operator really has to do a lot of the pulls to coincide with dialogue and actors don't do things at the same speed every time. You might be able to preset focus points and use a remote knob to do the pulls, though.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 12:26 UTC
On article Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

Smooth and accurate is great, but continuously varying the speed of the pull is half the craft and you can't do that with autofocus. I don't doubt that it will all happen eventually, but nobody has refined the interface to make it usable enough yet. About as close as it gets are remote lens control systems that allow an operator to pull focus without being in contact with the camera. Most of those are still pretty expensive. The only one I've tried is the C-Motion and it's still about $20,000.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2014 at 00:48 UTC
On article Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

Cinematographers don't use AF because you don't pull focus for cinema like you do for stills. A single shot will have several points of focus that need to be hit smoothly and at speeds that work with the overall shot. It's not like shooting stills where you just have to select a point of focus and hit that once to get your shot.

No "serious Cine" lenses have autofocus motors. Or aperture clicks. Zeiss Master Primes, for example. Per lens cost is from around $24,000 to over $30,000 each. No autofocus motors. Zeiss make autofocus lenses for still photography, but not for, "Serious Cinema." That isn't going to change anytime soon.

Canon's own line of Cinema lenses are about $5000 each and manual focus only. There's a reason for this. Professionals don't use autofocus.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2014 at 23:01 UTC
On article Canon announces EOS C100 Mark II (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: lol.
too many folks confuse needs differ between Cinematography and regular videography
e.g. the look of AF, wobbly like Pany GH4/GH3, no AF in 4k (GH4), or fast AF in sports (dSLRs, EOS 7DMkII), or smooth-n-slow pull focus as in Cine (EOS 70D) or fast smooth 'no wobble' AF in Cine/videography (EOS 70D), etc

e.g.
Autofocus Comparison - Canon EOS 70D vs Panasonic GH4
EunJae Im
http://vimeo.com/96882002
"Yes, I think both are working well. I just try AF Mode (49-Area & Custom Multi) on GH4 and it was bit more faster then 1-Area (center). BTW, AF is almost useless at 4K mode." - EunJae Im

Pany's AF in both GH4/GH3 is 'wobbly', unfit for serious Cine, but fine for regular videographers/handicamers where Cine-centric smooth speed-customizable focus pull matters, as would be the case for EOS Cine C-series users, or even 70D Cine users with smooth 'no wobble' Touch AF or AF racking

You realize nobody doing, "Serious Cine" uses autofocus, right? Nobody.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2014 at 00:47 UTC

The hippest polarizing filters, although admittedly not a subtle effect, are the Cokin Polacolor filters. I love the Cokin red/blue Polacolor. Used right it gives that kind of funky offset printing effect that characterizes so many vintage postcards.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/14541448979/

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 12:07 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Caerolle: They finally figured out a pronunciation of 'N-i-k-o-n' that everyone can agree to.

"We are the Knights Who Say, 'Nee-Kon!"

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 20:27 UTC
On article Nikon announces AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: Finally, a replacement for my Sigma 20 1.8 I use for events. And at a reasonable price. At least they got something right for Photokina.

They even beat the Sigma's minimum focus distance, and I like that Sigma.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 10:34 UTC

Do people really buy a Leica based on how fast it will shoot? I mean, it's cool to have the larger buffer, but I thought Leicas were more about the Decisive Moment than Spray and Pray.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 16:37 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Mike FL: How about Rolex releases a special edition by removing the Rolex logo. How is that sound?

People still wear watches?

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2014 at 16:32 UTC
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1038 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?

Back on my old OM-4T there were spot-metering selections to expose for shadows or expose for highlights, but it was just exposure compensation. It overexposed by 2 stops based on the thing you put the spot meter on or underexposed by 2 2/3 stops for the shadow compensation.

Most of the digital camera metering options seem to work in similar fashion. Canon's "Highlight Protection" doesn't prevent blown highlights. It just seems to involve some exposure compensation.

This really seems like the kind of thing that processing should be able to handle. If one of those 91,000 segments of metering is blown out then you pull that exposure back. I'm not saying it always has to be engaged, but I'd like the option.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2014 at 14:04 UTC
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1038 comments in total)

Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?

Link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 22:20 UTC as 46th comment | 6 replies
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

BG_CX3_DPREVIEW: WOW,

this is new, DPR openly dares to quesion the existance of a Nikon.

Great piece of journalism guys, i think you summarised perfectly what most of us think about this 1 series. To behonoust, if Samsung, Pana, Sony or any other but Canon would have made the 1 series, it would have been gone long time. Its because Nikon is known fo rits outstanding DSLRs that people still migth believe the 1 seires must have something.

They have, but the pricetag is simply way off Immediatly half the price , and the thing might start selling, it will blow all PxS away. and PxS i mean the top end of the PxS at 3-400 usd.

The problem with that analogy is that none of Nikon's competitors make a small interchangeable lens camera as powerful as the 1 series. Nikon should be a lot more proactive about publicizing the insane amount of processing power and throughput of the camera. It's not like anything else you pick up at any price level. Even in Nikon's DSLR line they only have 3-4 cameras with as much processing. It allows the 1 to be a very smart, very nimble camera with an amazing way of performing tasks. It's really kind of a glimpse at how compact cameras will behave several years down the line.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: I get the too-expensive part, but the technology is amazing. It's a relatively small-sensor camera (as some have repeatedly mentioned), but it's really compact and has insane processing power. I've stood around in stores shooting with them and been amazed at the ability to shoot several exposures at once and have the camera suggest the best one. The AF is pretty great. The slow-motion video stills (or whatever they call them) are very cool. From the minute you pick up the camera you can tell it's got a ton of horsepower under the hood.

But yeah, it's pricey and the choices in optics are kinda thin, but with the 32mm f/1.2 what more do you need? I mean, it's pricey, but so is the camera. That camera and lens combo is gold, though. And with a 1/16,000 maximum shutter speed? Please. How can people disparage this little camera?

It's kind of hard to assign "value" to something that doesn't have any competition. The Expeed 3A they brought out for the series had higher throughput than the processors in any of Nikon's other cameras until the release of the D4s, D5300 and D3300. And of course the newest V1 has been upgraded to the Expeed 4A.

The amount of processing power on tap makes these cameras capable of much more than other cameras with similarly-sized sensors.

I mean, I get that the expense is an issue, but I also think the average shooter doesn't realize just how powerful they are, either. That's Nikon's fault, certainly. To most people it seems like an X20 without all the retro-cool styling and a much higher price.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2014 at 20:35 UTC
On article Am I missing something here? (627 comments in total)

I get the too-expensive part, but the technology is amazing. It's a relatively small-sensor camera (as some have repeatedly mentioned), but it's really compact and has insane processing power. I've stood around in stores shooting with them and been amazed at the ability to shoot several exposures at once and have the camera suggest the best one. The AF is pretty great. The slow-motion video stills (or whatever they call them) are very cool. From the minute you pick up the camera you can tell it's got a ton of horsepower under the hood.

But yeah, it's pricey and the choices in optics are kinda thin, but with the 32mm f/1.2 what more do you need? I mean, it's pricey, but so is the camera. That camera and lens combo is gold, though. And with a 1/16,000 maximum shutter speed? Please. How can people disparage this little camera?

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 00:45 UTC as 87th comment | 4 replies

I wonder how much DxO got paid to ignore the multi-sample noise reduction of the RED sensor? Or are they going to start testing everyone's camera based on multiple exposure HDR imagery?

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 00:20 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1038 comments in total)
In reply to:

RRJackson: Still no Auto Focus Area Mode selector switch. We just completely lost that with the transition to video. "It's in a menu somewhere!"

Exactly. So instead of flicking a switch with your thumb you scroll through options in a menu like you would in a consumer-level camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2014 at 02:16 UTC
On article Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1038 comments in total)

Still no Auto Focus Area Mode selector switch. We just completely lost that with the transition to video. "It's in a menu somewhere!"

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 18:36 UTC as 167th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Deano255: Couple thoughts:

1) BlackMagic is kicking butt because they think and act like a startup computer company, and not a stodgy old camera company. They believe in giving value for your money, not eliminating features so they can charge you more for "higher-end" cameras.

2) I have been skeptical about 4K as well. Only argument I have seen so far that makes sense is that you can crop a 4K clip and still get a high rez shot - same argument works for the Nikon D800 on the still side. The other-argument is "future-proofing" your footage, so that when the world goes to 4K (which means people will ditch their 1080p Hi-Def flat panels and upgrade to 4K) their content will be able to handle that. But 4K is a resource-hog on the editing side, and the leap from 1080p to 4K is nowhere near as great as the leap from standard def to HD, in the U.S. at least we are in a 1080p 24fps Hi Def world for a long time to come.

If you crop more than about 10% in post you'll have trouble intercutting shots without a noticeable change in quality. That's probably more a factor of the lens than the camera, but it seems to hold up in practice. Personally, I'll crop slightly to correct a minor camera tilt more often than any other reason.

The most interesting features about the 4K Production Camera are the global shutter and the compressed RAW. And of course the larger sensor. The original camera has kind of an awkward sensor size. Hard to put together a lens package for it. Of course, the pocket camera and the non-4K cinema camera are both supposed to have greater dynamic range than the 4K.

The pocket camera seems insanely nice for the size and price, IMO. It also has compressed RAW.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2013 at 15:15 UTC

Pixel density will drive things towards larger sensors. The D800 is already up above 36 megapixels. Even with a 135 sensor you're still working the glass pretty hard at resolutions like that. Stepping up to 645 will add a decade to the high end. It's been kind of a slog to get there because it's been really hard to make larger sensors, but things keep moving along.

Mitchell Feinberg had a 10 megapixel 8" x 10" back built to replace the Polaroids he used to shoot when setting up. In time I think we'll see large format backs that don't have to rely on scanning. Of course, sensors aren't flat like film so there may be severe limits to the range of the movements.

Personally, I'm still waiting for a digital 6x9 folder that doesn't weigh any more than the pocketable beasties of days gone by. Hopefully I'll still have some of my vision left by the time they roll out. ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 01:00 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 99, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »