Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 838, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Video: a quick introduction to panning photography (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I got sick of watching him because he looks like he's had a gallon of coffee, but did he really not make any mention of ND filter use in this type of photography?

It's common for me to choose a shutter speed which requires more than f/22 at ISO 100 (and so did the guy in the video - 1/10th at ISO 100 requires f/45 in bright sunlight). It's also common for me to want both shallow DOF and panning blur at the same time. As such, it's common for me to use a 3 or 4 stop ND filter for this type of shooting.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 01:26 UTC
On article Video: a quick introduction to panning photography (17 comments in total)

I got sick of watching him because he looks like he's had a gallon of coffee, but did he really not make any mention of ND filter use in this type of photography?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 13:31 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: "on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images"
'Distortion' surely refers to scale and perspective, as well as lines. Ultra-wide and fisheyes will always result in distorted images, distortion which we might or might not like; but it is unavoidably there.

virtualreality - the world is spherical from the point of view of the camera aperture. This is utterly obvious. The camera aperture is a small point and the world is all around it.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 16:16 UTC
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: "on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images"
'Distortion' surely refers to scale and perspective, as well as lines. Ultra-wide and fisheyes will always result in distorted images, distortion which we might or might not like; but it is unavoidably there.

And you're wrong, since rectilinear lenses have exactly the same problem (mapping a spherical world onto a flat plane). And as I already said, at least for me, most of the time rectilinear distortion is *worse* on ultrawides. To put it another way, when I got my fisheye, I nearly stopped using my rectilinear ultrawide.

Toselli above said it right - those 180 degree IMAX domes use a fisheye lens with the image projected onto the inside of a half-sphere. That's really the only way to do imagery without distortion.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: "on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images"
'Distortion' surely refers to scale and perspective, as well as lines. Ultra-wide and fisheyes will always result in distorted images, distortion which we might or might not like; but it is unavoidably there.

From the point of view of the lens aperture, which is small relative to the world, the world is spherical. The aperture is a point looking around from the center of the sphere (let's ignore macro and telecentricity for this discussion). The mapping of that spherical world onto the flat plane of the sensor or film (called "projection") is the same problem as trying to map the spherical globe onto a flat map - something has to give.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

GlobalGuyUSA: What focal length is a 15mm fisheye, if de-fished? 16mm? 17mm? 18mm?

More like 6mm equivalent.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 13:23 UTC
On article First pictures from the new Nikon 8-15mm fisheye (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: "on the (mistaken) assumption that they will always create unnaturally distorted images"
'Distortion' surely refers to scale and perspective, as well as lines. Ultra-wide and fisheyes will always result in distorted images, distortion which we might or might not like; but it is unavoidably there.

All lenses cause distortion. This is because they are smashing a spherical world onto a flat surface. Since long lenses are smashing only a tiny portion of that sphere, the distortion isn't very noticeable. Ultrawides always create noticeable distortion because they are capturing so much of the sphere.

This issue is, what type of distortion is preferable for a given shot?

Rectilinear ultrawides keep straight lines straight but turn circles into ovals and stretch the heck out of anything near the corners.

Fisheye ultrawides keep circles circular and don't stretch the corners but they turn curved lines that don't point at the center of the image frame into curves.

Personally, I find fisheye distortion preferable to rectilinear distortion on about 98% of my ultrawide shots, and I absolutely love my Canon 8-15 on my crop camera where it's wider than the 11-24 on full-frame and can be fisheye or defished, in part or in full, to rectilinear.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 13:21 UTC

What would I use it for? I'm a fisheye-guy who has shot over 40,000 shots with a fisheye cameras precisely because such images make me feel more like I was there than any other. However, I also shoot at 200-1000mm very often.

In round numbers, you eyes can resolve like a 35mm lens on a 12MP full-frame camera, and they have digital zoom (you can see 180 degrees around you or focus on a small, fixed point and see details there). These VR gadgets don't come anywhere close to that, but that's what it would take to really make it feel real. And that's gigapixel level video if you do it 360x180.

Now where's my petabyte microSD card?

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 20:16 UTC as 41st comment
In reply to:

DesmondD: It will be interesting to see what the results look like on dx.

I use my Canon 8-15L exclusively on crop. It's an incredibly flexible combination.

Think of the 8mm end as a single-shot 180 degree panorama.

Then, 9 to about 11mm is like a full-frame fisheye with variable focal length.

Then 11 to 15mm is something like a 14-22mm equivalent rectilinear zoom after defishing.

One of my favorite lenses and I use it all the time.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

AstroStan: As regards Bayer and astro-imaging (the following is of little or no interest to general photographers):

For serious astro-imagers there are additional problems and failures of Bayer not mentioned in the article. For example, non-terrestrial colors of astro-objects are poorly rendered by the Bayer filters. Green is arguably the least interesting astro color (esp for pretty pics) but green is over-represented by Bayer to the detriment of red (very significant Hydrogen-Alpha nebula emission). The Bayer filters themselves are absorption dyes with poor transmission and non-optimal passbands compared to optimised interference or dichroic astro-filters. The permanent Bayer filters virtually preclude science grade narrow band filters. There are other important issues but not enough space here to go into further detail.

Bayer is OK for casual nightscape/starscape using camera lenses or small fast scope but Bayer is poisonous for deep space imaging via real scopes.

Bayer doesn't do too bad for planetary imaging also.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 16:21 UTC

This is a really good article, but I would have liked to see a discussion about both types of dichroic filter approaches to solving this problem (multiple sensors, and filters at the pixel level) to make it more complete.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Simple - if I could only have one focal length for the rest of my life, I'd give up photography as a hobby.

Been married for a long time. An individual isn't one-dimensional the way a single prime lens is.

I have nothing against primes, as long as you have many of them. I used to have many, but zooms and sensors have improved to the point where I sold all but one of my primes (and then bought a different one so I have two now).

Focal length range is a HUGE deal to me. My basic carry-everywhere kit includes 180° horizontal fisheye through 640mm equivalent with no gaps. My total range goes much longer than that, out to something like 9,000mm equivalent before cropping in post.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 18:16 UTC

Simple - if I could only have one focal length for the rest of my life, I'd give up photography as a hobby.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 161st comment | 3 replies

Good article, and I pretty much agree with everything except the part about dynamic range.

I much, much more often struggle with dynamic range in low light than in bright light. This is for two reasons:

- Low-light tends to be high-contrast light (dark, unlit areas contrasting with areas lit by spot lights or the lights themselves are in the scene).
- Cameras have much reduced DR at high ISO than at low ISO.

In other words, fitting a high-contrast scene into the 7 stops of DR I might have at ISO 6400 is way harder than fitting a modestly-high-contrast scene into the 12+ stops of DR I might have at ISO 100.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:08 UTC as 334th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 comments in total)

My first camera was a Canon AE-1 kit with 50/1.8. Having one focal length drove me crazy so I quickly bought a 28/2.8 and a 70-210.

My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-120. I used a friend's DC-50 before that.

My first "real" digital camera was the Nikon Coolpix 950 with both afocal adapters (wide and tele) giving me a range of something like 24-210.

My first digital SLR was the Canon 10D.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 13:15 UTC as 247th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (892 comments in total)

The lag and visual artifacts of an EVF makes one just about unusable to me for almost everything I do. Plus, I can't see a reason NOT to have an SLR which is the only way to have both a true TTL-OVF and an EVF of either type (LCD or eye-level) in the same camera. I have that now and use a Hoodman to turn my 7D Mark II into an eye-level EVF camera for shooting video. But the second I switch away from video, I remove the Hoodman and revert to shooting through the OVF because it's so vastly superior to any EVF I've ever tried. I do use the LCD to compose in certain, edge-cases like when the camera is mounted to my telescope and the viewfinder is inaccessible.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 20:59 UTC as 238th comment
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very cool, but there's a little piece of this that's really unfortunate. But 99% of people (at least) would never notice.

Because of the frame-rate he used, the aliasing caused every one of the wind turbines to be rotating backwards.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)

Very cool, but there's a little piece of this that's really unfortunate. But 99% of people (at least) would never notice.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:36 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies

I don't get it. They formed a big grid and a little smiley face, and basically did nothing.

The Intel ones at the Superbowl and Disney were orders of magnitude better.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 16:27 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (450 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: No more mirror cameras , there is no reason whatsoever to use mirror with digital , it makes cameras giant and obsolete .... and more expensive.

Until EVFs stop sucking, I'll be buying cameras with OVFs.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
Total: 838, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »