gerard boulanger: Why buying/carrying that when you can put 2-3 extra batteries in your pocket?
The last time I did significant video, I had three CF cards and three batteries that got rotated together. We did have a handy AC outlet for charging the batteries. If we didn't, we still could have charged them using an inverter connected to a car's cigarette lighter.
CF capacity was 32 GB. We rarely got close to filling them up. We generally ran out of battery first - this using a 5D Mark II.
I can see this being useful if the shoot involves long clips. If, like in our situation, you're shooting mostly relatively short clips, rotating batteries and cards works just fine.
We actually rotated more frequently than we needed to, because this was part of a 48 Hours Film project, so we wanted to get files to the editor ASAP. I suppose we should have aded Card and Battery Runner to the credits. :)
If anyone follows the links for still use (because video is not available on the classic) on a Canon 5D, be aware it doesn't use the battery type linked under the title 5D. That battery pack is for 5D Mark II and Mark III. The 5D uses a different battery pack.
Victor Engel: Not 500 times longer than in NYC but 500 times longer than in the previous facility, which happened to be located in NYC.
What has cave paintings got to do with anything?
Whoops. That should have been posted in reply to jkoch2's post.
Not 500 times longer than in NYC but 500 times longer than in the previous facility, which happened to be located in NYC.
Charlie boots: This sounds more like lightroom calibration to match the camera than camera calibration as the calibration is only appliccable when using lightroom and is only appliccable to a specific light colour. Change the location and the light and one needs to recalibrate for the new light situation. This then means that for each photo shoot there needs to be a new calibration. How does one then manage within lightroom as it is not possible to automatically have lightroom change claibration profiles automatically to match each photo shoot. This has to be done manually.
The main point of accurate color is CONSISTENT color. Use it as a starting point to make your faux colors consistently relative to a standard.
Vamp898: After several tests i can summarize that you dont have any advantage using this on a Sigma SD1.
If i take a completely uncalibrated Test-photo of the Color Checker with the Sony a99 and the Sigma SD1, the Sigma already shows all colors correct where the a99 seems obviously to change the colors to somewhat liking i dont know.
So for the Sigma owners, you most likely dont have any advantage as you already have a good camera.
So the Sigma SD1 knows about all possible light sources? I doubt it.
WalPhoto: The information is partially incorrect - you can NOT create "a general" profile for all lightening situations combining the ICC profiles! This is not "my opinion", this is the fact color correction works. The ICC includes a mathematical matrix transformation from one color space (the concrete colors, how they came) to another color space (how they should have come). So, let's say you light a scene with a strong blueish light, e.g. flash, say with a blueish filter, to have the example even better understandable. Now you create the ICC: it will transform all the blue-cast colors to be more yellowish. This will DESTROY any image when applied to a total different lightening, say yellowish (candle light)! And interpolating those 2 extremes cancels their original reason for creation. I was running an ICC profiling service a few years ago, so I understand it a bit. Peace, Andrej
But you can create two different profiles, process the image separately with each, and then combine them in two layers as appropriate.
Those are yellow and green flowers. What's white is the leaves, but I suppose most people do think of them as petals.
panchoskywalker: I wish they'll come with equivalent lens for FF bodies.
Given same design, 1.6x larger in each dimension.
I can't get Agfa Rapid film or process my exposed Kodachrome film anymore either.
brunobarolo: With a one stop improvement, Panasonic may finally bring their sensors to the level where Sony sensors are today. Nice :-)
I'm skeptical this will have wide use. I see the potential for color cross talk that varies by lens and aperture.
Thank you, Steve. I'll have to recheck the original, but I don't believe I did any blurring. What you see is natural blur from a narrow depth of field I think. I used a 135mm f/2 lens, and if the EXIF shown can be believed, I unusually did not shoot at f/2. Any processing of the corners was probably post-crop vignetting, using white instead of black, in Lightroom. Again, I'll have to check the original to confirm.
Michael Ma: I'm reminded every day by this rover just how fortunate we are to live on a planet like Earth. Blue skies and oceans, green landscapes, and every hue, saturation, and luminosity available to us from nature. Imagine if we lived on Mars and we put on probe on Earth. Every cell of my being would have an endless yearning to be at such a beautiful world one day, even if it was just for a second. But we are already here. Wow, what a incredible gift!
Earth is more beautiful to you precisely because that's where you grew up. Your very essence has been calibrated over the eons to take maximum advantage of what is available. If you had the same background but on a Martian setting, you'd be able to see things on Mars we don't, and Earth would look bland by comparison.
I still think the best pictures from Mars were the stereo pictures taken in the 70s. I used to check out the Mars book with included stereo viewer regularly from the local library. With the leaps and bounds of technology development since the 70s, what we're getting back should be better than what we're getting. Just my opinion.
Interesting. I'm interested in the circumstances behind this picture.
Mssimo: When did 1024 x 768 8" screen become "low-res." This article needs a new title. It may suck for photographers but for other reasons like its crap 5MP camera and low storage.
Mssimo, you need to check your math. 1024x768 is less than one megapixel.
tbcass: The new camera test scene has both positives and negatives. On the positive side everything appears to be on the same focal plane which eliminates the problem of focal point differences. On the negative side there seems to be less dynamic range in the scene (Light and shadow areas). I also liked the glass bottles in the old one. Overall it may be better because the main complaint of the old scene was the difference in focal points when trying to compare cameras. No one test can do it all.
In my view, everything being in the same focal plane is both a positive and a negative. I think it would be good to have a small number of items in a different plane so amount of blur resulting from sensor size is readily apparent. Yes, it also depends upon aperture. However, given the same f-number, the amount of blur will vary with sensor size. Seeing that in a test photo is a good thing, as long as it doesn't distract. So it should be very clear that it is in a different focus plane. This would be useful for testing 3D cameras, too.
NewYorkEd: The blue text on the black background is a headache to read - BUT, what I am seeing now is harder to read - The grey text on the black background. Am I going blind?
I agree. I cannot stand the bluish cyan color on black. I weighed in on this when I first noticed it. I've also said before, and I will repeat it, that particularly for a photography site, bright text on a dark background is not good because the eyes accommodate to the predominant brightness, which is the background. The result is that the text is overexposed on the retina, creating an afterimage of horizontal lines. Viewing pictures, we then see afterimage lines on the images unless we wait long enough for our eyes to compensate. This problem is much reduced with dark text on a light background. Images displayed on a dark background, on the other hand, is just fine.
When reading this review, I find myself wondering if there are two iPhoto apps. Were I to review the app, I'd give it a score of D or maybe D+ if I'm feeling generous. Here are some of my gripes:
Syncing takes forever and frequently doesn't complete. Sometimes, things get totally confused. Try changing your album structure or the directory where things are synced, and you're likely to have a huge mess.
EXIF data from a camera are not ported to iPhoto. This article seems to indicate working with EXIF is one of the features. I'll take another look, but I couldn't figure out how to get EXIF from my computer to iPhoto.
Part of why iPhoto is so slow is that it doesn't sync your photos to the device. It creates "optimized" versions of the pictures and syncs those. This uses up extra space on the computer, and you wind up not even having your pictures on the device.
How hard is it to create a hierarchical folder structure? It's easy as pie, yet completely absent in the app.