shaocaholica: It seems like the limitations of highlight clipping for a sensor without a color filter array could be solved by something like the Fuji EXR system where there's are 2 sets of photosites where one set is highly sensitive for shadows and the other set is less sensitive for highlights. Not sure how much resolution you'd lose with this approach but it would be cool to have the extra DR.
There would be some color artifacts, but another approach would be to use a sensor similar to a Foveon sensor, where the bottom layer only gets what the top layer doesn't. Maybe it could function a completely different way -- absorbing the overflow by bloom rather than transmittance.
By the way, I noticed some moire in one of the sample photos -- a cityscape. The bright wall near center of the frame shows moire. It's not very objectionable, but it's probably useful to study where moire can impact an image.
Direct link |
Posted on May 16, 2012 at 13:50:12 UTC
Lights: I find the images at Google+ look pretty good, but to me it has a very confusing interface so far. Facebook vice versa. Yep on the images. Low resolution, photographers copyright embedded, anything you can do, including unobtrusive watermarks. Something will get stolen sooner or later. For myself, I don't care much if it's personal use (some other opinions will vary on this) but I've found a lot of photos from friends have been used for anything from illustrations on Ebay, to illustrations on photo sites, to use in books and magazines. I've had a couple of mine used too on web sites. So be aware as others say. Tineye is good to find copies on the net, but how to find usage in magazines and books? If they are making money from your shots, shouldn't you be?
You don't think the FB interface is confusing?
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 13, 2012 at 17:56:31 UTC
newbeltane: IMHO I suggest that which site(s) you use depends on your needs. If you just wish to share 'snaps' with friends then FB is probably the way to go (if you are on FB). if you wish to show your photos off in the best possible way to the widest audience then Flickr is probably the best. if you wish to sell your images then I suggest you look at RedBubble, Deviant and Zazzle. If you are on G+ then it seems that its better than FB at showing off your images but then your audience may not be as great as FB.
Which one is best for you depends on your needs and existing networks, as well as issues of whether you really want to share hi-res images with anybody and everybody.
I like zenfolio for all of the above, including sharing on facebook.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 13, 2012 at 17:54:11 UTC
OneGuy: A widely available parameter on a given camera is the 'minimum focusing distance.' Knowing the sensor size, can I calculate the (optical) magnification just from this parameter? Or do I have to use a ruler at that distance to get the object size?
I checked (quickly) DPR specs on Oly PM1 and did not find the optical magnification ratio (proportion) there -- only 'Live View Magnification." Is this the same thing? If not, what would be the benefit of including the optical magnification on the DPR spec sheet?
The sensor size is irrelevant. You can approximate the magnification from the focal length and minimum focus distance, but it's very important to know what the MFD is measured from.
At 1:1 magnification, a simple lens is exactly half way between the subject and focal plane. Additionally, the distance from the lens to the focal plane is exactly twice the focal length.
This information can be used to approximate the magnification, but lens design will generally affect this. Best is to do an actual measurement if the information is not readily available.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 1, 2011 at 16:54:40 UTC
ptodd: I understand what magnification is; reassuring to have this knowledge consolidated.
What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special? Using a smaller sensor, lower magnification ratios will yield essentially similar results (in terms of subject size relative to captured image, of course other variables like DOF will be different).
For example, why is it useful to the poster with an HS10 & close-up filter to directly compare the magnification ratio of their system to a user of a 35mm SLR? It seems to have little direct bearing on the subjects they will be able to capture or the images the will be able to produce. The magnification may be useful as an intermediate value for calculation, but why insist that only 1:1 is 'true macro', when for practical purposes the capacity of the system is so dependent on other factors?
I suppose the answer is that it is useful when comparing lenses of different focal length for use on the same size sensor (which in the old days was more fixed).
@Mostly Lurking, your information is incorrect and/or includes typos. In general, A:B is macro if A is greater than or equal to B. You say 1:1 to 1:10 is macro photography. That is incorrect. It would have been correct of you had said 1:1 to 10:1.
Not sure what 10:10 is supposed to be. Usually, one of the numbers is 1. It doesn't need to be, though. It's just a ratio, which can also be expressed as a number. A 1:1 macro image and a 1X macro image are the same thing. A 3:2 macro image, 1 1.5:1 macro image and a 1.5X macro image are all the same thing. The image is 1 1/2 times the size of the subject.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 1, 2011 at 16:48:10 UTC
Renard DellaFave: All I want to know in the end is maximum pixels-per-inch (or resolvable lpi at best aperture) I can get of the subject, and at what distance that happens. I can see why magnification exists as a figure, now, though, since it's the only number that ignores the camera and just talks about the lens. Seems odd to me since it has been 15 years since I had a lens that wasn't integral to its camera. The use of "1:1" as anything special seems kind of like it only is for te same reason the year 2000 was special.
It's somewhat arbitrary, but it's also not arbitrary. For a simple lens, it is macro if the lens is as least as close to the subject as it is to the focal plane. For a non-macro lens, it is always closer to the focal plane than to the subject. The lens is exactly half way between the focal plane and the subject at 1:1.
Of course, the lenses we use are not simple lenses, so the actual situation varies from this by lens design.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 1, 2011 at 16:32:02 UTC
EXX: Second example: I take again a Sony A77 (24 megapixel APS-C) and a Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D (6 megapixel, APS-C).I put the same macro lens with magification 1:1 on both cameras and take a picture of the ruler at maximum magnification. I will end up with 2 pictures that show the same: 24 mm of the ruler. However, when I crop the A77 picture down to 6 megapixel, I suddenly have again 2 pictures with the same resolution of 6 megapixel, one showing 12 mm and the other 24 mm of the ruler.
Would it be a good idea to start using a kind of "35mm equivalent magnification factor" by involving the sensor size, just like is is done for the focal length? So a 0.5x lens would have a 0.75x "35mm equivalent" magnification on APS-C.
No, that would be a bad idea, just as using 35mm focal length equivalences is a bad idea.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 1, 2011 at 16:26:35 UTC
micahmedia: Copyright isn't always "right". Do you think Matthew Brady's pictures should be copy written? Lewis Hine? What about a newspaper who has a photographer under contract and chooses not to publish their photos for political reasons?
In this case the ripoff is blatant and it sounds like justice is happening.
It's right, not write, so it's not copy written but copyrighted. Or were you trying to make some pun on the word, in which case, I didn't get it?
Direct link |
Posted on Oct 24, 2011 at 13:57:08 UTC
Fine Art: The mission to fix the Hubble telescope cost 1.5 Billion $. If all the braniacs at NASA couldn't do it in software for a billion what are the chances it will be in your photoshop upgrade for $300?
Presenting a perfect deconvolution as something you will get in your consumer software is plain fraud. Deconvolution is real, it works. I use it a lot. It is not going to do miracles.
You can buy deconvolution in other software now. I recommend Images Plus. Ive been buying it since version 2. I get nothing for recommending it.
The problem with the Hubble wasn't motion blur. It was focus blur. There's a big difference between the two. In the case of motion blur, the picture is actually in focus (well, it doesn't need to be, but then there are two kinds of blur).
Direct link |
Posted on Oct 19, 2011 at 20:16:14 UTC
On article:8428889007
(13 comments in total)
"All the new video capable interchangeable lens cameras lack manual audio control and the Sony cameras have a proprietary hotshoe mount for microphones. There’s no control over gain so in many circumstances a lot of background noise will be picked up by the camera."
The amount of background noise picked up doesn't really change much. It's the level of the noise that changes.
Posted on Sep 6, 2011 at 15:00:00 UTC
as 2nd comment
dopravopat: Yeah, two polaritzers stacked on ech other, the front one being a linerar. It works fine, but the linear polarizer I had was a cheap one, with green color cast. If the price for this filter is more than the price of a linear and circular polarizer of equal quality and size, I wonder who will buy this.
If the front one were linear, you would see an effect of the polarization on the photo. They must both be circular polarizers oriented in opposite directions:
1/4 wave filter, linear polarizer, adjustment space between layers, linear polarizer, 1/4 wave filter.
The first and last layers "randomize" the polarity so that you don't get a polarizing effect, such as cutting reflections, darkening a band in the sky, etc.
Direct link |
Posted on Aug 2, 2011 at 17:01:58 UTC
Marcel: Just wanne know if they also support Vertical (view) plaback. I also hate advertisment on visualmedia (YT-Vimeo) so I created my own HD player ( existing software) for Horizontal and Vertical playback.
You mean like this? http://vimeo.com/2631590
Direct link |
Posted on Aug 2, 2011 at 14:48:06 UTC
Sorb78: Yeeehaw I was able to register despite using a free web based email account :)
I was going to start a campaign complaining about the horrible white text on a black background when I noticed the poll which says that 81.6% of you are morons. Congratulations. There is just 2 765 people siding with me so I guess the site will stay unreadable.
There's actually a very good reason to prefer black on white to white on black for a photography-related site. With black on white, the overwhelming color is white, which causes they eye to constrict to prevent overexposure. With white on black, the overall color is black, so the eyes dilate. this causes overexposure by the white text. This overexposure causes afterimages of the text to imprint on the retina. Viewers of photos then see horizontal banding in the photos. If you're tired of the horizontal banding posts, vote pro-choice or for black on white!
Direct link |
Posted on Jun 27, 2011 at 20:14:30 UTC
How can you do that without bending your toes? I think because of the toes, it looks to me more like you're standing and leaning against a pane of glass.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 5, 2010 at 06:10:14 UTC
as 1st comment
Interesting. I just spotted it on google maps. I'm most interested in whatever that is just to the east of the south towers. Is that where they put the ashes?
Victor
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 4, 2010 at 23:53:17 UTC
as 1st comment
Austin, TX , Canada
shaocaholica: It seems like the limitations of highlight clipping for a sensor without a color filter array could be solved by something like the Fuji EXR system where there's are 2 sets of photosites where one set is highly sensitive for shadows and the other set is less sensitive for highlights. Not sure how much resolution you'd lose with this approach but it would be cool to have the extra DR.
There would be some color artifacts, but another approach would be to use a sensor similar to a Foveon sensor, where the bottom layer only gets what the top layer doesn't. Maybe it could function a completely different way -- absorbing the overflow by bloom rather than transmittance.
By the way, I noticed some moire in one of the sample photos -- a cityscape. The bright wall near center of the frame shows moire. It's not very objectionable, but it's probably useful to study where moire can impact an image.
No ISO 200? That seems odd.
Lights: I find the images at Google+ look pretty good, but to me it has a very confusing interface so far. Facebook vice versa.
Yep on the images. Low resolution, photographers copyright embedded, anything you can do, including unobtrusive watermarks. Something will get stolen sooner or later. For myself, I don't care much if it's personal use (some other opinions will vary on this) but I've found a lot of photos from friends have been used for anything from illustrations on Ebay, to illustrations on photo sites, to use in books and magazines. I've had a couple of mine used too on web sites. So be aware as others say. Tineye is good to find copies on the net, but how to find usage in magazines and books? If they are making money from your shots, shouldn't you be?
You don't think the FB interface is confusing?
newbeltane: IMHO I suggest that which site(s) you use depends on your needs. If you just wish to share 'snaps' with friends then FB is probably the way to go (if you are on FB). if you wish to show your photos off in the best possible way to the widest audience then Flickr is probably the best. if you wish to sell your images then I suggest you look at RedBubble, Deviant and Zazzle. If you are on G+ then it seems that its better than FB at showing off your images but then your audience may not be as great as FB.
Which one is best for you depends on your needs and existing networks, as well as issues of whether you really want to share hi-res images with anybody and everybody.
I like zenfolio for all of the above, including sharing on facebook.
OneGuy: A widely available parameter on a given camera is the 'minimum focusing distance.' Knowing the sensor size, can I calculate the (optical) magnification just from this parameter? Or do I have to use a ruler at that distance to get the object size?
I checked (quickly) DPR specs on Oly PM1 and did not find the optical magnification ratio (proportion) there -- only 'Live View Magnification." Is this the same thing? If not, what would be the benefit of including the optical magnification on the DPR spec sheet?
The sensor size is irrelevant. You can approximate the magnification from the focal length and minimum focus distance, but it's very important to know what the MFD is measured from.
At 1:1 magnification, a simple lens is exactly half way between the subject and focal plane. Additionally, the distance from the lens to the focal plane is exactly twice the focal length.
This information can be used to approximate the magnification, but lens design will generally affect this. Best is to do an actual measurement if the information is not readily available.
ptodd: I understand what magnification is; reassuring to have this knowledge consolidated.
What I don't understand is why '1:1' is so special? Using a smaller sensor, lower magnification ratios will yield essentially similar results (in terms of subject size relative to captured image, of course other variables like DOF will be different).
For example, why is it useful to the poster with an HS10 & close-up filter to directly compare the magnification ratio of their system to a user of a 35mm SLR? It seems to have little direct bearing on the subjects they will be able to capture or the images the will be able to produce. The magnification may be useful as an intermediate value for calculation, but why insist that only 1:1 is 'true macro', when for practical purposes the capacity of the system is so dependent on other factors?
I suppose the answer is that it is useful when comparing lenses of different focal length for use on the same size sensor (which in the old days was more fixed).
@Mostly Lurking, your information is incorrect and/or includes typos. In general, A:B is macro if A is greater than or equal to B. You say 1:1 to 1:10 is macro photography. That is incorrect. It would have been correct of you had said 1:1 to 10:1.
Not sure what 10:10 is supposed to be. Usually, one of the numbers is 1. It doesn't need to be, though. It's just a ratio, which can also be expressed as a number. A 1:1 macro image and a 1X macro image are the same thing. A 3:2 macro image, 1 1.5:1 macro image and a 1.5X macro image are all the same thing. The image is 1 1/2 times the size of the subject.
Renard DellaFave: All I want to know in the end is maximum pixels-per-inch (or resolvable lpi at best aperture) I can get of the subject, and at what distance that happens. I can see why magnification exists as a figure, now, though, since it's the only number that ignores the camera and just talks about the lens. Seems odd to me since it has been 15 years since I had a lens that wasn't integral to its camera.
The use of "1:1" as anything special seems kind of like it only is for te same reason the year 2000 was special.
It's somewhat arbitrary, but it's also not arbitrary. For a simple lens, it is macro if the lens is as least as close to the subject as it is to the focal plane. For a non-macro lens, it is always closer to the focal plane than to the subject. The lens is exactly half way between the focal plane and the subject at 1:1.
Of course, the lenses we use are not simple lenses, so the actual situation varies from this by lens design.
EXX: Second example: I take again a Sony A77 (24 megapixel APS-C) and a Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D (6 megapixel, APS-C).I put the same macro lens with magification 1:1 on both cameras and take a picture of the ruler at maximum magnification. I will end up with 2 pictures that show the same: 24 mm of the ruler. However, when I crop the A77 picture down to 6 megapixel, I suddenly have again 2 pictures with the same resolution of 6 megapixel, one showing 12 mm and the other 24 mm of the ruler.
Would it be a good idea to start using a kind of "35mm equivalent magnification factor" by involving the sensor size, just like is is done for the focal length? So a 0.5x lens would have a 0.75x "35mm equivalent" magnification on APS-C.
No, that would be a bad idea, just as using 35mm focal length equivalences is a bad idea.
micahmedia: Copyright isn't always "right". Do you think Matthew Brady's pictures should be copy written? Lewis Hine? What about a newspaper who has a photographer under contract and chooses not to publish their photos for political reasons?
In this case the ripoff is blatant and it sounds like justice is happening.
It's right, not write, so it's not copy written but copyrighted. Or were you trying to make some pun on the word, in which case, I didn't get it?
Fine Art: The mission to fix the Hubble telescope cost 1.5 Billion $. If all the braniacs at NASA couldn't do it in software for a billion what are the chances it will be in your photoshop upgrade for $300?
Presenting a perfect deconvolution as something you will get in your consumer software is plain fraud. Deconvolution is real, it works. I use it a lot. It is not going to do miracles.
You can buy deconvolution in other software now. I recommend Images Plus. Ive been buying it since version 2. I get nothing for recommending it.
The problem with the Hubble wasn't motion blur. It was focus blur. There's a big difference between the two. In the case of motion blur, the picture is actually in focus (well, it doesn't need to be, but then there are two kinds of blur).
"All the new video capable interchangeable lens cameras lack manual audio control and the Sony cameras have a proprietary hotshoe mount for microphones. There’s no control over gain so in many circumstances a lot of background noise will be picked up by the camera."
The amount of background noise picked up doesn't really change much. It's the level of the noise that changes.
dopravopat: Yeah, two polaritzers stacked on ech other, the front one being a linerar. It works fine, but the linear polarizer I had was a cheap one, with green color cast. If the price for this filter is more than the price of a linear and circular polarizer of equal quality and size, I wonder who will buy this.
If the front one were linear, you would see an effect of the polarization on the photo. They must both be circular polarizers oriented in opposite directions:
1/4 wave filter, linear polarizer, adjustment space between layers, linear polarizer, 1/4 wave filter.
The first and last layers "randomize" the polarity so that you don't get a polarizing effect, such as cutting reflections, darkening a band in the sky, etc.
ucdcrush: Not that expensive for a company, but who else would spend $200 when Youtube can host 1080p videos for free?
Does youtube provide free hosting with custom branding?
Marcel: Just wanne know if they also support Vertical (view) plaback. I also hate advertisment on visualmedia (YT-Vimeo) so I created my own HD player ( existing software) for Horizontal and Vertical playback.
You mean like this?
http://vimeo.com/2631590
Sorb78: Yeeehaw I was able to register despite using a free web based email account :)
I was going to start a campaign complaining about the horrible white text on a black background when I noticed the poll which says that 81.6% of you are morons. Congratulations. There is just 2 765 people siding with me so I guess the site will stay unreadable.
There's actually a very good reason to prefer black on white to white on black for a photography-related site. With black on white, the overwhelming color is white, which causes they eye to constrict to prevent overexposure. With white on black, the overall color is black, so the eyes dilate. this causes overexposure by the white text. This overexposure causes afterimages of the text to imprint on the retina. Viewers of photos then see horizontal banding in the photos. If you're tired of the horizontal banding posts, vote pro-choice or for black on white!
xlynx9: DPR: This is really cool. I think you should remove the News Discussion Forum now.
There is (are?) news not on dpreview.
How can you do that without bending your toes? I think because of the toes, it looks to me more like you're standing and leaning against a pane of glass.
Interesting. I just spotted it on google maps. I'm most interested in whatever that is just to the east of the south towers. Is that where they put the ashes?
Victor