BJL

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 17, 2002

Comments

Total: 346, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: The adapters must contain a glass element to enlarge the image circle to 645 crop format. (except for the Fringer which takes native 645 lenses).

Adaptors for many MF mounts are already available
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/lens-mount-adapters/gfx
These just cover even more options

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 12:48 UTC
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom_A: I would have expected adapters for vintage medium format system lenses, to aboud any corner vignetting.

Lots of MF lens systems are already covered by adaptors announced earlier. For example:
https://fotodioxpro.com/collections/lens-mount-adapters/gfx?page=2

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 12:39 UTC
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: The adapters must contain a glass element to enlarge the image circle to 645 crop format. (except for the Fringer which takes native 645 lenses).

Lenses for 36x24mm usually project a circular image of at least 43.2mm diameter (the diagonal length of the 36x24mm frame) but often the image circle is larger than this bare minimum. In particular, longer focal length lenses often have an image circle of diameter far larger than needed, not much less than their focal length—those images are then "cropped" by the 36x24mm sensor. Also, the image circle is not a hard boundary; there is often just a gradual decline in image quality and brightness for some distance beyond the 36x24mm frame.

So there might many lenses that cover the 44x33mm frame (55mm diagonal) with at worst slightly weak corners, and for the rest one can still crop to various shapes. For example a 4:3 shape of about 35x26mm or a square of 30x30mm both fit in the same circle as 36x24mm.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

@IR1234 Of course I am not the slightest bit surprised that yet another online discussion is guided more by tribal loyalty than attention to the facts of the case—this is one of the most pervasive bad side-effects of modern hyper-factionalized online communication, where people can choose to hear mostly only echoes of their own opinions and priorities, and join a virtual mob to shout down dissenting views.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

@Roland Karlsson OK, I agree on that: a lot of posters here either have very poor reading comprehension and/or just jump with tribal loyalty to take the photographer's side.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

"Prince never have claimed that he did. Prince's claim is that the image is a part of his piece of art."
This does not change the fact that one generally needs permission to reproduce another's work even if used as part of another creative work. How does this differ from a creative work like a book that reproduces photographs and adds new creative material in the form of commentary on them or poems inspired by them, or such?

P. S. I do not dispute that Prince has created a new work; just that he should "pay his suppliers".

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

Roland, I read what you said: as far as I can tell, the image itself was _not_ transformed (in contrast to other derivative works, like some by Andy Wharhol and Shepard Fairey, where significant color manipulation was done). Instead, the original photographic image was duplicated intact, with other stuff added _around_ it. This is the reason for my "picture reproduced in a book" comparison, and probably for the judge's observation that "Prince has not materially altered the composition, presentation, scale, color palette and media originally used by Graham."

Aside: in the case of Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster based on a photograph of Barack Obama taken by Mannie Garcia, the copyright claim was more or less conceded in a settlement, even with Fairey's significant manipulations of the image itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: There is a great misunderstanding in many posts here. Many here think he just has copied images and claimed he is the photographer. And indeed - if he had done that - he is a simple thief. But no - that is not what he has done.

Look at the image above. It looks like an Instagram post made by rastajay92.

So what Prince has done is combining an image, by Donald Graham with an Instagram frame that says rastajay92 and then adding a text he finds suitable. A kind of transformation, which is what he also claims.

So - the judge is wrong when he says that Prince has done no alteration. 100% wrong. So, indeed, if that is the motivation why to convict Prince, it is totally wrong.

What the judge needs to show is that the altered image breaks the Copyright law. If he cannot show that, Prince should go free.

He reproduces images (unmodifed, as the judge notes) and adds some text and such below and around them. This seems little different from reproducing the original images in a book and adding text nearby—and that usage requires permission of the photographer (or other rights-holder.)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

vegasdood: I posted this in a local bicycle forum as well....bikes now run in the same prices as expensive cameras and are also targets for this type of fraud.

The Venmo-enabled scammers picked up the cameras in person in at least some cases.
Venmo is at least liable as an enabler: if using it for sales is not allowed, why does it let they buyer/payer who violated this rule get the money back as well as the product? So the scammers said to Venmo "I made payments that are against the rules, so give my money back and stiff the person who received payments"?? More strange given that the payer acted in a highly suspicious way, making multiple small payments.

Anyway, the moral is: do not accept an online payment through a medium you do not know!
Or at least hold the goods "till the check clears"—money transferred to your bank account.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 20:49 UTC

The sensor is 32x24mm, so why not call it that instead of the inaccurate "Full Frame" which means 36x24mm — except when it means 54x42mm for medium format fans!

By the way, 32x24mm has the advantage that it can be made without on-chip stitching, with the needed fab equipment having a maximum field size of 33x26mm. And the squarer 4:3 makes more sense for astronomy.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 19:43 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: Considering RED makes professional products that aren't really intended for mass market, I'm going to assume this product isn't targeted at most of us.

That said, I can't really imagine a director or cinematographer wanting a film rig that required snapping a phone into it in order to use it.

Steve jobs had a good description of a smart-phone back at the iPhone launch event. He teased that he was about to announce three products:
- The first one: is a widescreen iPod with touch controls.
- The second: is a revolutionary mobile phone.
- And the third is a breakthrough Internet communications device.
If there had been third party iPhone apps from the beginning, he could have added:
- And one more thing: a computer that fits in your pocket.

If Red phone models stick with the same form factor and USB-Cinterface, it might make sense to use them as the touchscreen I/O, CPU, WiFi and uplink module of a high-end modular camera system.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Great 4k video!

Microphone port No
Headphone port No
EVF optional (for how much?)

@dante; you are not educating me: I am well aware of Leica's efforts with SLRs, both film and digital. My statement was simply that Leica has a very long and respected history with mirrorless cameras, not that they have only ever made that sort of camera.

P. S. I do not know of any video cameras that lack an eye-level EVF, so even if you are not interested in video (nor am I), it seems hard to deny that for the now wide-spread use of "stills-first" camera for video benefits from having the option of an eye-level VF—and for video that must be EVF, not OVF. In fact, Leica even makes an accessory EVF for its recent CMOS-sensor M cameras!

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Dante Birchen: Great 4k video!

Microphone port No
Headphone port No
EVF optional (for how much?)

An add-on EVF for a DSLR could be useful for things like video, but would not solve the bulk and lens-design restrictions that make some people prefer mirrorless.

P. S. Leicas have been mirrorless from the beginning!

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

Photo_AK: Consumers shouldn't care about this, it really doesn't matter - we'll just buy other memory cards, big deal ... But this is bad news for Nikon and their decision to go with XQD instead of CFast. Having only one manufacturer supporting XQD is really not good, not to mention it's one of their biggest threats and competitor on the camera market that didn't go with XQD even in their own cameras ... Not good.

Sony use XQD cards is some of its video cameras (XQD and CFast seem more oriented to the high bandwidth needs of video) so the format seems safe for now.

XQD does have the advantage of using the faster and more widely supported PCIe whereas CFast uses SATA, and is now slower than the fastest SD card standard, 6.0.

Maybe that is why the CompactFlash Association seems intent on replacing both XQD and CFast by CFExpress, which uses PCIe, but with up to 8 lanes and in the form factor of XQD rather than than of CFast. (So maybe it should be called XQDExpress?!)

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Reactive: I think it's great that Fuji are doing well, but I'm sure a couple of things might help them sell even more.
a) Replace the Fujifilm name. It's from yesteryear and looks silly and old-fashioned on a modern camera.
b) Try to modernize the designs. However technically competent they are, and however good the handling, making cameras that look like antique Zenits from the 1970s can do nothing but help many potential buyers overlook Fuji and go straight to modern looking Canons and Nikons.

@drblack: "alpha" was the branding that Minolta used in Japan. Sony decided to eliminate the regional differences in brand name ans use "alpha" everywhere.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Yassine Eraman: Please what's the size of RED 8K sensor ?? Is it FF or MF or APS-C ??

According to Read's website at http://www.red.com/products/weapon-8k#tech-specs the sensor is 29.90 x 15.77 mm (Diagonal: 33.80 mm), and an "ANA" version at 33.60 mm x 21.60 mm (Diagonal: 39.94 mm).
So bigger than the classic 35mm movie formats like Super 35 and a bit bigger than so-called APS-C sensors, but a bit smaller than 35mm still format of 36x24mm (41.5mm diagonal), so that lenses for that format can be used.

However, multiple articles about the original announcement give the sensor size as 40.96mm x 21.6mm:
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/04/red-8k-full-frame-vista-vision-weapon-dragon-6k-price-cost-availability-nab-2015
https://www.engadget.com/2015/04/13/red-8k-weapon-camera/

Maybe Red announced one thing and then exercised its standard disclaimer "Tech specs reflect both current and projected information. Everything is subject to change." to make the sensor usable with a lot more lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
On article iOS 11 will cut photo, video size in half (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

Linerider: So this only works with the latest Apple device.
What's the point?

@WesPerry Yes there has been some H.265 support and usage since the iPhone 6, released in late 2014. See this news story
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/12/apples-iphone-6-iphone-6-plus-use-h265-codec-for-facetime-over-cellular

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article iOS 11 will cut photo, video size in half (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

bartjeej: Would HEIF also allow even lower compression (or atleast, less lossy compression) than current low-compressed jpegs, or more than 8 bits, at sensible file sizes?

Yes to both: HEVC and HEIF (H.265) have options for lossless compression and various bit depths up to 16. IIRC, iOS 11 will only use 8 and 10 bit depth. Lots of details at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Using the 85mm lens on medium format doesn't convince me. The lens was designed for 35mm sensors so heavy vignetting and soft corners seem to be pretty likely on a bigger sensor

Typically, lenses longer than "normal" produce a bigger than needed image circle, as a side effect of their design, with image circle diameter not much less than their focal length. So _any_ 85mm lens design has a good chance of comfortably covering the mere 55mm image circle of the GFX, and probably even any 65mm design.

What I do not expect from these "discount" third party lens makers is wide-angle or normal lenses for larger than 36x24mm formats – those definitely need new optical designs.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
On article Sony a9 first look videos (301 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike921: Specs look good, sure do. When/if the lens situation firms up they could be serious competition to Canon/Nikon. However, Cameras are such a small part of Sony corp. revenue, the product line can be eliminated in very short order should the balance sheet dictate (a la Samsung). Canon and Nikon have a lot more skin in the game.

@rubberdials The EF-M mount diameter is 47mm, so wider than Sony E mount (46.1mm) while both are 18mm from the sensor, so that sounds wide enough for 36x24mm format. (Nikon F mount is only 44mm wide!) But maybe you know more details.

Anyway, in the worst case, Canon could introduce a 35mm format mirrorless mount that _is_ big enough, and accommodate EF lenses via an adaptor. Likewise for Nikon.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 02:39 UTC
Total: 346, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »