matthiasbasler

matthiasbasler

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a GIS developer, hobby photographer
Has a website at baslerphotos.de
Joined on Nov 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)

Sure, it's only my personal taste, but I find the grey body looks like cheap plastic.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 16:46 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (682 comments in total)

@dpreview. Please correct the specs: Display is listed as "Tilting ", when actually it is "Fully articulated". (This is irritating when comparing cameras in side-by-side view.)

Oh, and also note that Panasonic obviously decided this camera needs a third name, as it is sold as G81 (not G80) in Germany and other EU countries.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 14:59 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies

Yet another candidate for the top ten most superfluous photo products 2016.

(It seems you can put a gold coating around almost everything today, thus creating a expensive product some selected people would want to own. Doesn't need to make sense. It could be a Hamburger ... as long as it's real gold or platinum around it.)

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2016 at 21:56 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (682 comments in total)

Impressive to see that the G85/G80 equals the image quality of the slightly older APSC camera Canon EOS 700D over all ISO settings, even with its smaller sensor. (The small differences are mostly a question of taste imho.)
For me as someone who likes to travel light in terms of camera and lenses the choice is clear.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2016 at 21:39 UTC as 91st comment | 4 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (682 comments in total)

Did I read over it it or did the dpreview team not even note that the camera has an interval timer and stop motion mode? Thy didn't even list it in the camera specs. Being a fan of time-lapse movies this is a non-negligible feature for me.
I downloaded the manual and confirmed it is there, unfortunately not with the non-plus-ultra "exposure compensation" option to smooth out any flickering.

Anyone knows what the limits are (number of pictures and miminum interval in seconds)?
And how many timed shots do you get with one full battery? (Usually depends on temperature and interval.)

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2016 at 21:28 UTC as 92nd comment | 1 reply
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80 Review (682 comments in total)

@dpreview
In the specification, shouldn't it say "Fully articulated" (instead of "tilting") for the screen, according to page one of the review?

Also, there's nothing specified concerning standalone timelapse / interval timer function. I should expect the camera has an interval timer since the DMC-GX85 has one according to its spec.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 16:28 UTC as 151st comment
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: This is a really cool idea. Google has always up to experiences of this sort, just see their Google Street View (better to be called "Google Park View") which lets you explorer scenic spots of many national parks world wide, albeit with mixed panorama quality. (But hey, its for free!)

Unfortunately the 360° videos, which are the core of this web experience, do not shwp up for me (using latest Firefox), although this browser is among the supported ones. I cannot find any help page on this website, so I guess I'll need to install Chrome to make it work.

I installed Chome portable, and with this most 360° videos work, albeit a few only in 1080p, which is too slow for my connection (or my notebook).

It's a pity the whole experience (all 5 parks) takes 30 minutes to explorer at most, but it shows the potential of this technology. I can imagine to see longer and higher-resolution videos of this sort in the future, maybe as an alternative to "classic" documentaries.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 09:22 UTC

Who needs this new compression algorithm for photos?
JPG isn't perfect, indeed, but there already exist better file formats who even offer optional lossless compression, such as the planned successor JPG2000. But have you seen any JPG2000 image out in the wild? I have encountered them only in digital libraries, used for archiving high-resolution images. So for me it seems obvious that there is no pressing need, otherwise cameras would already offer JPG2000 or similar better compression methods.

JPG has such an overwhelming dominance for end users (beside RAW images) I cannot imagine it being replaced by a new compression algorithm in the near and mid future, especially if it requires additional processing power, which is a limiting factor in cameras.

Maybe this has an application for remote sensing etc. where they have to cope with huge amounts of image data?

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 09:17 UTC as 2nd comment

This is a really cool idea. Google has always up to experiences of this sort, just see their Google Street View (better to be called "Google Park View") which lets you explorer scenic spots of many national parks world wide, albeit with mixed panorama quality. (But hey, its for free!)

Unfortunately the 360° videos, which are the core of this web experience, do not shwp up for me (using latest Firefox), although this browser is among the supported ones. I cannot find any help page on this website, so I guess I'll need to install Chrome to make it work.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 17:25 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies

So we have a graphics on top of this artice but I cannot make any sense out of it in the context of this article, and unfortunately it is not referenced or explained in the DPReview article either. What's "bpp", for example?

From what I see in this comparison I'd conclude "JPEG420 is the best compression method", but that's not what the article is talking abount. Is it just an "Oh we need some image about compression" placeholder?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 16:50 UTC as 3rd comment
On article This vibrant hyper-lapse shows off New York in 8K (69 comments in total)

4K is not enough, huh? But besides the fact that vimeo only plays it at 4K I wonder how many of you are actually able to appreciate it at this resolution...
I for one only have a WUXGA (1920x1200) monitor and I'm happy with it.

The video itself is a bit too "flashy" for my liking, but contains several very nice shots and ideas. I wonder what techniques were used to move the camera steadily around the monuments. A camera on rails I'd guess.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 16:29 UTC as 25th comment
On article SpaceVR wants you to see the earth from space, in VR (13 comments in total)

Another strange product idea which does'nt really make sense to me.

Space images are cool, definitely. But most of the really cool ones (imho) highlight certain structures or processes (like algea bloom) in a certain area, or they are giant mosaics. Now, here we have a 4K camera for 180°. Depending on the satellite's orbit height this means only 4K are covered with the earth surface - or less. Don't think this is detailed enough to convince. Plus the image would probably look rather dull (due to atmosphere) just like the one shown above, unless digitally enhanced.

I wonder what the advantage of this is over Google Earth ... where I can view any part of the world whenever I want, and at any zoom level.

And last but not least, isn't Oculus Rift & Co. all about a 3D experience? You cannot deliver this with a conventional panorama camera, nor does it make sense without any foreground objects. So VR glasses seem overkill to me for this.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2016 at 17:30 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Highlight reel: top video trends from NAB 2016 (38 comments in total)

8K is ~34MP, correct? Which means that none of my current cameras, including the 24MP D750 comes anywhere close to create even stills in this resolution. Not that I would need to ...

And besides, with 6500€ and upwards 4K beamers are still so expensive that I doubt I as a hobby photographer will be able to project any 8K(!) content - even just pictures - to a larger audience within the next 5 years without going bancrupt.

Sounds like a future that might or might not affect me in 10 years ... that is, if my eyes are still good enough by then ...

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2016 at 16:38 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: "The multiple perspectives captured mean you can generate 3D images or video from every shot at any desired parallax disparity"

Except that single point cameras are essentially useless for 3D video, because the occlusion is only correct from the single viewpoint. Moving the viewpoint means that you now need background that was blocked from the single viewpoint.

The end result is that the images look like bad automatic 3D conversions, until a skilled artist retouches all occluded areas.

Exactly. The light field cameras should not be seen as "single point cameras", they can be best compared to an array of cameras mounted next to above above each other, and in post you can choose the perspective of the one you like most or choose two of them for a 3D effect.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 21:41 UTC

To the calculations and assumptions done by dpreview. I agree that this video beast likely has (an needs to have) an excess of resolution in order to give the editor a real choice for focus.

WIth the Lytro Illum you could refocus your image to any point, but there was only a limited range in which the image was anything like sharp. (It had two maxima at depth -4 and +4 with a local minimum at ±0 where the image was just acceptable, but not really good. This left me with no real choice where to put my subjects if I wanted them to be sharp (~-6 to -2 and/or 2 to +6, roughly).
Excess resolution would give me the freedom to re-focus on anything from, lets say, -10 to +10 and still have an acceptable sharpness.

P.S. They Lytro Illum did not have a spatial resolution of 5MP! The spatial resolution is nowhere officially stated (afaik) and the camera can only export rather soft 4MP JPG files, the effective resolution is ~2MP in ideal conditions.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 21:37 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

vscd: Big words agains. We already heard them on still photography.

> common sense says that this monster will one day fit in the palm of your hand.

Not as long as physical laws are valid.

Getting an idea of the 3D scene and therefore the mentioned perspective shift, all this only works if the camera is able to look at the object from sufficiently different angles.
You wouldn't get any serious parallax from a camera with a 1cm front lens. The parallax of the Lytro Illum (~4 cm maybe) is already rather limited compared to the human eye.
And although there will surely be further advances in miniaturizing servers and storage I doubt you will get a camera with these specs town to the size of a common DSLR. Maybe down to the size of a "normal" studio movie camera, which would be sufficient.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2016 at 21:22 UTC

> a 755 MP sensor capable of capturing images at 300 fps

Given that my 3 year old notebook requires 2 minutes to compute one 40 megaray image of the Lytro Illum (each 65 MB large) then either

a) Lytro has done some magic to significantly cut down the computation time and has finally come up with a suitable compression algorithm or
b) the movie cutters will need their own supercomputers or a whole data processing center (or cloud computing) in order to initially process their movie takes in anything less then days

In case of (a) I wish Lytro would utilize this magic for their Illum users as well. (Of course I know they won't... )

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2016 at 16:23 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: A year ago I still hoped Lytro would be the start of a new era of cameras. I was seldom so wrong.

What's worse is that it seems only a matter of time now that Lytro will shut down its image server, which is basically the only possibility to share the "living pictures". (Unless you are willing to share 60MB image files plus the application via email or the like)

So I now have a camera which I paid 1200€ for (!!!) a year ago, whose resulting images take up ~100GB(!) and will be more or less useless in a foreseeable future.

You may understand I am angry ...

@electrophoto
>You new about the dependency on lytro web-services, about the file size, about the inability to easily share & distribute the results, before you made the purchase.

I didn't. I read some other people's reviews and watched a some of their support videos, but several things, like the huge files or the way Lytro desktop manages images, or the fact that sharing to 500px actually means hosting the image at Lytro ... those things came as a surprise. They weren't mentioned anywhere. I didn't expect these, otherwise I would have done more throughout investigation first.

And a "fixed lens" imho is not an indicator that a camera is unsuitable for professionals. And even less since 1" compact cameras with a fast lens and an equally versatile zoom range as Lytro exist which have an image quality and functionality more than good enough for almost any use case except special things like using tilt&shift lenses or sports photography.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:22 UTC
In reply to:

Yake: This was so predictable, even on the day the Lytro camera was announced. Lytro was a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

Most (nearly all) consumers don't want to adjust focus on their photos post-exposure. They don't want to adjust focus on their photos ever. Instead, they want their photos to simply BE in focus. They don't want to have to think about focus at all. Consumers want pictures, just pictures, not work. And Lytro always sounded like needless work.

The only people who like to work on pictures are some (not all) professionals and a small percentage of photography hobbyists. And those are exactly the people who tend to get focus right, thus not needing a post-exposure focus solution.

That said, the same technology may have other applications, just not in consumer cams.

For me the initial selling point indeed was "post focus" ... until I realized that focusing with the Lytro was actually *harder* than with a normal camera.

But now, a year after, I like three features, in this order:
- the 3D effect for close subjecs (aka perspective shift)
- Focus shift, the animation of the focus moving seamlessly from background to a foreground object or vice versa
- Being able to get anything from F1 to F16 from *one* shot.
Note that "correcting focus in post" is not on the list, neither is focus plane tilting, which I hardly ever use. (I am perhaps not creative enough...)

Rishi, you mentioned "Image stabilization after-the-fact". I never heard of this one before and I doubt the Lytro had this. Actually it is is a camera you should always put on a tripod and use with low ISO in low light in order to retain as much of the low resolution as possible. Almost all of my handheld low-light shots ended up being discarded for being blurred.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 19:28 UTC
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: A year ago I still hoped Lytro would be the start of a new era of cameras. I was seldom so wrong.

What's worse is that it seems only a matter of time now that Lytro will shut down its image server, which is basically the only possibility to share the "living pictures". (Unless you are willing to share 60MB image files plus the application via email or the like)

So I now have a camera which I paid 1200€ for (!!!) a year ago, whose resulting images take up ~100GB(!) and will be more or less useless in a foreseeable future.

You may understand I am angry ...

@Everlast66
> products like the Illum are exactly the type of items that become collectable

[Laughing] Now that the Windows API has become somewhat stable I have no doubt I can still use Lytro Desktop 5 in 2025. Better still, five years in the future the Lytro Desktop software will run with an acceptable speed on my future notebook, and with 8GB SSDs by then people will find the 60MB-90MB image files quite acceptable. (Maybe not the quality, though.)
Hey, this camera will become more usable and thus more valuable each year! ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 19:01 UTC
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »