peterwr

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Works as a Webster
Joined on May 10, 2004

Comments

Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-E2S: What you need to know (86 comments in total)

Pic 3: << Don't be fooled, they won't necessarily give you transparent, true-to-life colors >>

Unless you're shooting for ads, catalogues or scientific research, "true-to-life" colours are something of a red herring. What matters is that you get a pleasing, high-quality picture that comes out as you intended. All the Fuji cameras and lenses (still and video) I've used over the years have delivered that, in spades. My Nikons and Ricoh GR, though excellent cameras, invariably take some tweaking - time that I could be using for something more productive.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2016 at 13:21 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bernard Carns: Give me flash sync, DR, global shutter, RAW, 8k, and kiss my DSLR goodbye!
:-)
BC

On its way:

http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/3662-surprise-red-weapon-8k-helium-s35-camera-on-sale-for-ten-minutes

"The other really interesting thing about this announcement is that RED is making a big deal of the ability to shoot still images at 35.4 megapixels, and not only that, but extract those stills from moving video."

:-)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: Will 8K TV also be in 3D :)

Ah, 3D TV. Those were the days. You tell the kids now, and they don't believe you... :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:29 UTC

Now the incompetent media studies graduates with rich parents will need *16K* to allow for camera shake and bad framing...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 18:27 UTC as 61st comment | 1 reply
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miki Nemeth: Thank you Richard for the update on video. Exactly this is what I was afraid of: a great camera with totally crippled video AF system. Maybe firmware update 3.0 in two years will have these issues ironed out.

<< There are only two cameras I'd try to use for autofocus in video at the moment and only one of those will shoot 4K, >>

Do tell... I'm in the market for a dual-mode camera system.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 10:50 UTC

I'm guessing winking at strangers isn't such an issue in Japan...

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 09:32 UTC as 20th comment
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: If I were Simon Stock, and saw basically 99,9% of this board trashing an extremely high end assignment shot for Bentley, I'd sign in and ask everyone here to do any better. Would even give a deadline: 1 month, and sit back waiting for what you guys would actually produce.

But since I'm not Simon, I can't speak on his behalf.

All I can say is that it's super, super easy to criticize other's work sitting behind a keyboard.

Sorry for the harsh words, but what I'm saying is that if one doesn't know any better and stops by this comments page, one would believe this is the most talented photography board on the planet.

99% of the commenters here act like they could actually deliver a better image to Bentley!

<< Several people have commented that the 53 billion pixel math seems wrong (based on the cameras used and the number of frames claimed), that the flare and clouds are inconsistent with the stitching of 700 images, >>

I've been thinking about this for a couple of minutes now, and it seems to me - given that most countries' laws don't allow advertisers to make misleading claims - that the missing gigapixels must be used in the zoom process, so every step of the zoom remains sharp. So it's effectively a multi-layer image, with each succeeding image in the zoom being smaller than the previous one. That would also explain why you can only zoom in on one part of the pic - the surrounding parts of the image don't exist at the higher zoom levels.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 09:36 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

barrym1966: looks like a pile of crap if you use your browser zoom

*All* pictures look like crap if you use your browser zoom...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 09:30 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

alextardif: A fool and his time & $$... does anyone really believe that a target buyer for this vehicle has any interest (or any appreciation) in such geekiness and wants to sit around and zoom in on the most played out tourist-y scene one can capture when visiting SF?

Nice car, but, this is a perfect example of how some marketing "genius" convinced people that this nonsense is, in fact, "EXTRAORDINARY!!!" and wasted however much $$ and people's time on something completely meaningless. Reminds me of a dummy at my company that blew over $10mil on stupid social medial garbage like a "professional blog"/FB/Twitter/LinkedIN only to see 0 yield from it a year later.

<< Reminds me of a dummy at my company that blew over $10mil on stupid social medial garbage like a "professional blog"/FB/Twitter/LinkedIN only to see 0 yield from it a year later. >>

I don't suppose you have any jobs going at the moment...?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

2JoeA7R2: What an obscene waste of money.

<< What an obscene waste of money. >>

The photo, or the car? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:36 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

PaulDavis: Looks like the car was just photoshopped into the image. The angle and perspective of the car doesn't even look quite right. Not sure how you get motion blur on a stitched image as if the camera is following the car?!

This type work should be like a magic trick where people can't figure out how it was done because the technique was flawless. This one looks like the rough draft shown to the boss to show where the project is going.

What a surprise, the passenger chair has perfect lit so we can all see the logo on the seat, even though the sun is clearly at the seats back. Also amazingly there are no reflections on that part of the window.

<< ... and even back up the car a certain distance and turn the wheels such that both B's on the hubs are exactly upright when it rolls back into the designated spot. >>

No need. The hubcap centres on Bentleys have a swiveling, weighted logo so it's always the right way up, even when the wheel is rotating - one of the luxurious little extras you pay the big money for. After all, you wouldn't want people not to know you're driving a Bentley, would you? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:31 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhilM oz: Fake.
- angle of car shadow does not match shadow of bridge poles
- bridge has panning motion blur; but background behind does not
- 1500mm @ 700m on a D810 would give less than 2000 horizontal pixels on the car, no way it would resolve the seat stitching.

I'm assuming the car itself is either a studio shot or a CGI render.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 17:11 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)

Interesting. You can't zoom anywhere else but to the car. I'm wondering why the finished picture had to be such high resolution if the punters can't explore the whole thing. Or is poor Swinney still locked in a basement somewhere, stitching it together? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 11:29 UTC as 83rd comment | 2 replies
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)

Fifty-two FEET? Wow. I take it that's just in the centre. Wouldn't fancy being there when it's happening...

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 11:20 UTC as 84th comment
In reply to:

steve ohlhaber: If they initially thought people want 35-150mm focal length, they already don't get it.

"People" = you, right?

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 21:28 UTC

I'm assuming Yann Arthus-Bertrand is at least investigating drones, even if he doesn't own one yet...

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 21:04 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

agentlossing: Looks like a nice pro-grade camera, as long as the pro doesn't mind using APS-C. That's a lot of money when combined with some of Fuji's better primes, but I guess you gotta find writeoffs where you can! I can't personally imagine spending this much, but then I'm not the target market, obviously.

<< Canon had "the nipple" for so long before it is now a "standard". Of course, it is called a "joystick" . Is a nipple a "joy" stick :) >>

I'd like to propose the term "Joynipple". I feel this covers all the bases and sums up both the appeal and the utility of the device. On the IBM ThinkPad, they even used to be pink. ;-)

I'll get my coat...

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 09:29 UTC
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1275 comments in total)
In reply to:

Brianroger: Well written as always Richard Butler, but please FOREWENT the hybrid viewfinder? Eschewed surely? Rant over, enjoying your wise and balanced reviews and first impressions.

<< I don't even know what forwent means. :-) >>

It means the same as forgoed. :-)

... but according to the OED, it's not actually a word. They don't list a past tense for forgo/forego. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster does, though only for the for- spelling, not fore-. Two nations, divided by a common language, as George Bernard Shaw said... :-)

/pedantry

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 08:55 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marksphoto: not so game changing imho. If i have f1.4 lenses I am in the same boat as these 3.5 and up lenses... with less weight and I dont have to break the bank...

@deep7: << The concept is just physics but it's become religion here... >>

Agreed - that's pretty much what I was thinking.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 06:15 UTC
In reply to:

ekaton: Lipstick the pig, Leica. Hassy is innovating meanwhile.

<< Disposable camera + photocopier = Black and white. >>

Ah, but that's not *photography*, dahling - that's *Art*.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 09:51 UTC
Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »