Tonio Loewald

Tonio Loewald

Lives in United States Arlington, VA, United States
Works as a Consultant
Has a website at http://loewald.com/
Joined on Jul 25, 2005

Comments

Total: 247, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Archiver: While the sentiment of a forever lens is wonderful, and the design technology seems to be groundbreaking, a true 'forever lens' is manual focus, and can be serviced by technicians without needing access to parts that will eventually no longer exist.

And/or has solder with lead in it…

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2016 at 03:55 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

I've no idea whether Samsung stole any specific technology for their cameras, but they have a terrible record on everything else, and are infamous for simply willfully infringing patents, designs, etc. and simply fighting the resulting lawsuits until the patent holder is exhausted (in essence they're the opposite of a patent troll). As a simple example, go look at a Samsung dishwasher and then go find the almost indistinguishable Bosch dishwasher it was based on. Now, if you're opposed to the very idea of patents — and that's a respectable point of view these days (usually from people who like to pirate MP3s and claim they're sticking it to the man) — then by all means love Samsung. But don't pretend they're no worse than anyone else. The US government lies. The Russian government lies. I'd rather live in the US.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2015 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: I was going to comment on how the USA has influenced Barney's speech when I saw 'reckon' in the second sentence. But after a quick google search I learned the word is common in British English, which is surprising considering it's only common here in the south. Interesting how certain words have uncommon bedfellows.

http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2006/06/reckon-and-figure.html

...my old un is all tore up.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2015 at 17:04 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

Samsung made Trinitron TVs without paying Sony license fees and simply fought the lawsuits until it was forced to pay (I actually used Samsung's incredibly cheap trinitron clones at the time; if I had known they were stealing Sony's IP I wouldn't have).

So yeah, guilty as charged. I prefer to pay the people who invent the stuff I use.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
On article Gear of the Year Part 4: Dale's pick - Samsung NX1 (407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: I can only imagine the hundred of million or even billions Samsung spend building that back-lit APS-C sensor and finally when Samsung think it overtook SONY in sensor technology A7RII crash the gate with its FF size back-lit sensor.

Samsung smartly decided to give up and not spend another few million/billion racing with a company controlling 70% of the sensor market.

If it's typical Samsung they didn't spend billions, they simply stole other companies' work. Samsung is infamous for breaching patents, making huge inroads in market share, and simply letting the lawsuits happen (and destroying evidence when necessary). It doesn't matter if you have to pay out hundreds of millions in damages if you've already carved out market share.

They're probably out of the camera market because the weren't getting market share, and so the lawsuit was going to be a huge loss not offset by having grown a business in the mean time.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/05/05/patent-lawyer-samsung-couldnt-tell-the-truth-if-their-lives-depended-on-it/

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2015 at 20:53 UTC
In reply to:

belle100: I don't care whatever they do with this camera, so long as they finished testing all the "A" series and Tamron's lenses on D810 or D800E.

I find it odd that DxO defaults to showing lens ratings on some random camera that was more-or-less standard when the lens was reviewed rather than with the best current body.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 9, 2015 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

John_Y: I posted this at a lower level (in response to another comment. Thought it might be useful to others):

If one wants to be a purists, RAW truly does not exist If one defines it by "Throwing data away". The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away". Anyway the Sony RAW process is a result of engineering decisions and trade offs which all manufactures do. It is "unfortunate" that we have the technology and tools search look at and magnify . Based on the amount of technology and efforts Sony has shown since the acquisition of Minolita they are probably working on these corner case observations. Probably not a firmware fix but down in ASIC design/ code.

If your work is impacted by the results of this design, then you probably do not want this as your tool.

'One must still sample fast enough to preserve the highest "frequency component"'

One simply samples as best as one can and stores what one gets. Let's suppose you have an analog sample with theoretically >14-bit precision, but your A/D converter outputs a 12-bit signal (which will also have an error rate). All you can do (with a digital system) is record the 12-bits you get. You can store those 12-bits losslessly or you can store them lossily, but the point is storing what you've got losslessly is *the best you can do*. You're always going to suffer some kind of loss between reality and your digital signal — whether it's in the lens, the sensor, or the A-to-D conversion is kind of immaterial — they're just a system that emits bits as far as your recording system is concerned.

The fact is that Sony was getting a 14-bit signal and then storing it lossily, and that was stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNsZkfh0APB2dX2maSadW0fSlqxozOz4NMzafBf < Check these out, not even one artifacts compression yet.

Strange. I just tried again and I just got a 404 page again.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

John_Y: I posted this at a lower level (in response to another comment. Thought it might be useful to others):

If one wants to be a purists, RAW truly does not exist If one defines it by "Throwing data away". The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away". Anyway the Sony RAW process is a result of engineering decisions and trade offs which all manufactures do. It is "unfortunate" that we have the technology and tools search look at and magnify . Based on the amount of technology and efforts Sony has shown since the acquisition of Minolita they are probably working on these corner case observations. Probably not a firmware fix but down in ASIC design/ code.

If your work is impacted by the results of this design, then you probably do not want this as your tool.

'The act of using an A/D converter to digitize an analog signal " Throws data away".'

Sure but it's data you couldn't practically store. Storing analog data on a wax cylinder is lossy too. Only when you convert to digital is there even a prospect of lossless capture.

Another case where cameras mess with data before storing "RAW" files is mapping out hot pixels (actually I'm not sure if they do it in the camera, or pass the hot pixel data in the RAW file for the RAW converter to use; the latter would be "purer").

Anyhow, the point is kind of moot since Sony just announced they're fixing the issue in firmware (in the A7R ii and the A7S ii at any rate).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNsZkfh0APB2dX2maSadW0fSlqxozOz4NMzafBf < Check these out, not even one artifacts compression yet.

Indeed, the 404 page renders perfectly.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 04:31 UTC

This is actually very similar to the Amiga's "HAM" video mode, which was OK for displaying images but terrible for storing them (because the Amiga had such low resolution — as did most computers back then — you could see the color fringing very easily in almost any on-screen image). Why on earth you would do this to RAW files when simply saving them as is would be technically simpler baffles me.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 13:41 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

falconeyes: combined with an RGBW array (as pointed at in the patent), the polarizingfilters could be used underneath the W pixels, thereby providing both polarizing information (at a 4x lower resolution, of course) and increased highlight sensitivity for improved dynamic range (because of course, the sensel polarizing filters will eat just as much light as do lens polarizing filters).

What's interesting then is that polarizing filtering can be applied in post, as can added highlight recovery.

However, while interesting in a patent, all the extra complication may simply not be worth it.

The diagrams show a standard RGGB 2x2 grid with a 2x2 grid of rotated polarizing filters underneath it. Now they're going to lose some amount of sensitivity via transmission — let's say they absorb 50% of photons in the first layer and then 50% (of the remaining 50%) of photons via polarization in the second layer. Now on the upside, with unpolarized light, they've got a full resolution white channel getting 25% of the light. With polarized light it's a bit weirder (you could even imagine polarization moire, e.g. from metal louvres or wire meshes). So basically they're giving up one stop (bit?) of color sensitivity, and gaining a full resolution white channel that's two stops worse, and a (roughly) half resolution polarization channel that's two stops worse (but that's almost certainly more than enough).

They could probably capture 90% of the light in the color layer and toss the full resolution benefit and have plenty of polarization data. Better than SLT, say.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

jtan163: Interesting - B&H is listing the 200-500 as Nano Crystal and SIC.
With 3ED that sounds like a real bargain.

This really interests me even if B&H is wrong.
I've been eyeing off second hand orignal versions of the 80-400, but this is kinda sounding decent.

Have to see the test shots, but mmmmm....

It's not nano. B&H made a mistake.

The old 80-400 won't touch this (but it does get down to 80mm). The MTFs for this lens look outrageous.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

disraeli demon: Still no affordable, compact 24mm f2 lens for APS-C - I guess if you're into primes, Nikon (and Canon) expect you to upgrade to full frame.

@kewlguy. What f2 24mm affordable lens does Fuji make? Is it the $1000 f4 zoom?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 16:00 UTC
On article Going solo: DxO introduces 20MP 'ONE' connected camera (127 comments in total)

The Olympus A01 is a better implementation of the same basic concept (also better than the Sony options). Heck, it's even cheaper (including the bundled zoom lens or, say, the Olympus 17mm f2.8 or Panasonic 20mm f1.7).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 00:51 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: Canon and Nikon are sleeping and Sony is going to EAT their lunch!

Exactly. Not only that but Kodak actually invented the CCD, shipped the first DSLR (with Nikon), and with Apple released some of the first consumer digital cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: Why the mormalization wasn't done by upscalling the d810 samples from 36mp to 50mp and then comparing DR?

Since DR has nothing to do with sharpness this would be worse for the Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: Canon and Nikon are sleeping and Sony is going to EAT their lunch!

Well yeah, but I was trying to be open-minded.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 22:55 UTC

Given that the original post includes the text of the agreement, you can't really accuse him of being misleading. And yes, Firefly Entertainment has perpetual global rights to the images (it's in the text of the agreement) and the artist requires Firefly's permission to make more than one use of the image. So, while technically the artist still retains some rights (i.e. the right to republish the image given Firefly's permission) that's about it.

Oh, and I love the reference to "film" in the contract.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 01:43 UTC as 52nd comment
On article Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: Canon and Nikon are sleeping and Sony is going to EAT their lunch!

@mmitch I didn't say Canon or Nikon were going anywhere, so you're labeling a statement you invented as stupid. It may be that Canon and Nikon stay around forever as niche players.

Religious/brand wars come from the fact that buying into religion/brand is expensive and the cost of switching religions/brands is high, so the zealots try to convince themselves they made the "right" decision. (It's also why no-one preaches like a convert.)

Nikon and Canon may well be around forever, but they'll likely become niche players like Leica. (Canon makes a lot of money on other stuff, not all of which will disappear.)

My main point is that cameras are first and foremost computers and camera companies suck at software (they suck at computer hardware too). Eventually this is going to kill them. I'm sure Blackberry and Nokia seemed eternal five years ago; now Blackberry is barely in business and Nokia is out of the phone business.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 01:21 UTC
Total: 247, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »