GrtFS

GrtFS

Joined on Sep 27, 2017

Comments

Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ken60: From past experience, if you think the logo on a beer glass is something you can just add because you think it might look better ...... prepare to be shot ! Something like branding is decided way further up the tree, and would involve a multidisciplinary team and many, many meetings All that head and no bubbles ? Even the top of the beer is down to the location and target. Chez audiences demand a bigger head both in and out the glass, do that in the UK and though it preserves the freshness of the beer by limiting the air contact, you would be accused of delivering a shot measure ! Looks easy but it is a mine field.

The 'commercial' shot is a (crap) comp.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2021 at 20:38 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new 100MP Fujifilm GFX 100S (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrtFS: Question for the Carey Rose, or other reviewer:

Does multishot mode work with flash?

There are advantages to flash in certain circumstances, e.g. when working in daylight. You can 'drown out' the daylight. This camera only has a sync speed of 125th, but it's workable for some shoots. Flash can also provide a much higher intensity of light for when that's useful. Also... LED's are good and I use them, but there are issues with the cheaper ones and the spectrum they provide.

(I'd still like to know about multi-shot and flash if any reviewers are listening)

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2021 at 12:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new 100MP Fujifilm GFX 100S (197 comments in total)

Question for the Carey Rose, or other reviewer:

Does multishot mode work with flash?

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2021 at 15:23 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

GrtFS: One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the article, was why Jenoptik developed this in the first place.

16-shot files have no moiré. This was true even in the days of a much larger pixel pitch, when they first introduced multi-shot for a 35mm size ccd (1999) housed in an MF back for attachment to a small number of cameras. I have one of the first delivered in EU (sitting in a cupboard). In terms of colour, single shot still hasn't caught up and I doubt it will, which is why I'm always keeping an eye on Sigma to see what they come up with.

That's true. I never actually saw a Betterlight myself, but I knew a couple of people that had one.

Earlier still, was the Leaf 4mpx back, with its spinning RGB wheel. I saw that at a demo in London in '93. Files were nice, but not rivalling 5x4, which was my starting point, as I was shooting 5x4 and 10x8 for a living.

The Eyelike Precision did rival 5x4 though, despite only 6mpx... because crucially it had a 24mpx pure-colour 16-shot file. Maybe not quite a high-res drum scan ... but close enough. The 22mpx/88mpx that replaced it was a big jump though. I still use it for some stuff. Files are fab. I've always worked, in the dark, with open-flash, so multi-shot restrictions made no difference to me. Ironically, it actually liberated me from working in the dark, because multi-shot requires a digital shutter, which was a choice of 2 and I chose the Rollei, which syncs to 1/500, so I could work anywhere pretty much from that point on.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2020 at 23:57 UTC

One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the article, was why Jenoptik developed this in the first place.

16-shot files have no moiré. This was true even in the days of a much larger pixel pitch, when they first introduced multi-shot for a 35mm size ccd (1999) housed in an MF back for attachment to a small number of cameras. I have one of the first delivered in EU (sitting in a cupboard). In terms of colour, single shot still hasn't caught up and I doubt it will, which is why I'm always keeping an eye on Sigma to see what they come up with.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2020 at 15:22 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Sarge_: So... basically... Sony's 'pixel shift' applied to a phone sensor?

Not that it's unimpressive, but that's what we're on about?

Michael Long - Averaging is obviously difficult because there will have been at least some movement in almost all images made with a phone. However, in terms of quality, the crux about multi-shot (pixel-shift) is that the resultant images do not use colour interpolation. So the colours are accurate. The averaging aspect is a bonus, but was not the reason for initial development. 4-shot also reduced moiré which was another goal, as it was a major problem early on. 16-shot removed moiré completely.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2019 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

Sarge_: So... basically... Sony's 'pixel shift' applied to a phone sensor?

Not that it's unimpressive, but that's what we're on about?

"So... basically... Sony's 'pixel shift' applied to a phone sensor?

Not that it's unimpressive, but that's what we're on about?"

Actually ... it's Jenoptik's pixel-shift, or multi-shot as they called it back in the 90s, but I doubt very much that's what this is. This is averaging. Noise is never the same in 2 images, so you can remove it if you have enough info from several images.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2019 at 14:56 UTC
In reply to:

PNH: Apple has stated that Mojave will be the last 32 bit system-further systems will be 64 bit based, and many other applications besides Aperture will likely fall by the wayside. Also, for those who may not realize it, there are many applications that can expand Photo's limitations and yet keep the same 'flavor' by inserting them as extensions within Photo-Photoscape X Pro (free), and Raw Power ($30-one time) are two examples that I use.

Aperture is 64bit

Link | Posted on May 3, 2019 at 06:05 UTC
In reply to:

nguyenhm16: Aperture will stop working because the next macOS will drop support for 32-bit applications entirely, along with a whole bunch of other legacy stuff.

I think Apple discontinued Aperture because the market was crowded, and it was about the same time that the huge iPhone volumes seemed to have caused Apple to take its eyes off the ball on more niche products (even “bigger”products like the Mac Pro, Mac mini, MacBook Air anyone?).

It’s water under the bridge though at this point, Aperture has been discontinued for years. My Aperture library is basically archival at that point, and at some point I’ll move it all over to Capture One.

nguyenhm16:
"Aperture will stop working because the next macOS will drop support for 32-bit applications"

Aperture is a 64bit app.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2019 at 05:58 UTC

Anyone know if the pixel-shift will work with flash?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2019 at 23:12 UTC as 76th comment
In reply to:

gravis92: Didnt pentax do the sensor shift motion blur correction thing with weather sealing already? Oh right, we don't care, because its bad at video and its pentax lol.

Lets forget the fact that this panasonic is probably not meaningfully different than that k1 in terms of size, and the AF will probably be about the same for the purposes of 90% of people who use cameras. The original k1 will have more MP than the base Panasonic version, be cheaper probably and can even be had used, same weather sealing and better lens selection and has astrotracking. But we need to vlog with it and take 4k videos of our pets. #photography

I hope sigma's new full frame mirrorless is the most hated camera of all time because it slow, looks weird, functions like a film camera, had real dials, no screen, and does not do video, as this will mean its the perfect camera for hobby photographers who just like to go for walks and take pictures of interesting things sometimes. Pros can use a sony.

Well Androole, you'll probably be surprised to learn ... but I own a FF digital back, that I bought in 1999, that does 16 multi-shot 'exposures'. So Panasonic are only 20 years late to the party. Mine has a 6mp chip and the 16-shot produces a beautiful 24mp file. I also have another (MF) that I bought in 2007, which produces an 88mp file.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2019 at 23:09 UTC

I was hoping that Sony would provide Motion Correction, similar to Pentax K1, for the pixel shift mode. Is there any sign of this?

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2018 at 16:30 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

GrtFS: I studied photography many years ago in Edinburgh, Scotland. They had an unusual camera, that they had acquired from Edinburgh University (one of the oldest in the world). It was a wooden, 11x14 macro camera, which was mounted on twin brass geared rails. What made it unusual, was that the camera *included* a ‘tabletop’ for placing the subject matter. I can’t remember how the camera was mounted to the floor, but it wasn’t moveable. The purpose of the ‘tabletop’, was to reduce problems from vibrations. The camera/film moved *with* the subject, so movement errors were considerably reduced.

The entire camera and rail system was, from memory, about 6 feet long, which permitted quite high magnification. We used it with a 5x4 reducing back and shot to BW neg. Some students shot to 10x8. 11x14 was very hard to come by in those days and as memory serves, we only had one 10x8 enlarger. We did have a rather clever 10x8 contact printer though, with ‘light drawers’ for dodging.

I have no idea if the camera is still there, but if ever you are in Edinburgh, say for the Edinburgh Festival, you should drop in to the Napier University photography school in Marchmont. (a small, old, wonderful place) and ask to see it. It probably is still there. Why would they move it? I’m sure they’d be delighted to show you.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 18:35 UTC

I studied photography many years ago in Edinburgh, Scotland. They had an unusual camera, that they had acquired from Edinburgh University (one of the oldest in the world). It was a wooden, 11x14 macro camera, which was mounted on twin brass geared rails. What made it unusual, was that the camera *included* a ‘tabletop’ for placing the subject matter. I can’t remember how the camera was mounted to the floor, but it wasn’t moveable. The purpose of the ‘tabletop’, was to reduce problems from vibrations. The camera/film moved *with* the subject, so movement errors were considerably reduced.

The entire camera and rail system was, from memory, about 6 feet long, which permitted quite high magnification. We used it with a 5x4 reducing back and shot to BW neg. Some students shot to 10x8. 11x14 was very hard to come by in those days and as memory serves, we only had one 10x8 enlarger. We did have a rather clever 10x8 contact printer though, with ‘light drawers’ for dodging.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 12:54 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

GrtFS: Will it handle Motion Correction?

Leaves moves very fast in the wind. So, they’re not a great subject for multi-shot. However, there are many subjects which the Pentax software does a good job on. For example, I shoot food, often in natural light. Changing light intensity produces artefacts (especially on shiny surfaces, like plates) and Silkypix can handle that. It can also handle things like a moving herb leaf, or a sauce.

But I can assure you, that it’s quite hard not to miss artefacting when fixing it manually. I’ve done it thousands of times, so I have quite a lot of experience with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2018 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

GrtFS: Will it handle Motion Correction?

“No, in our experience motion correction is better handled from individual raw files, with manual intervention.”

Works pretty well with the Pentax K-1

Rawtherapee seem to doing good things with their open source for the A7r111 as well.

https://pixls.us/articles/rawtherapee-and-pentax-pixel-shift/

(BTW, I’ve been manually fixing motion artefacts in pixel-shift (multi-shot) for almost 18 years ... so I have an idea of what’s involved)

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2018 at 22:36 UTC

Will it handle Motion Correction?

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2018 at 17:17 UTC as 12th comment | 5 replies
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrtFS: "It's an idea that stretches back to 2007's Hasselblad H3DII 39MS."

Incorrect.

I realise this is hard to research and isn't of interest to most people here, but seeing as I own the original multi-shot back, I can tell you that it was made by Jenoptik and shipped in July 2000. It was called the Eyelike Precision M6. I took delivery of mine in October 2000. You've probably never heard of Jenoptik, but a little extrapolation will doubtless help ... Jena Optik ... Carl Zeiss - Jena. So it is the half of Carl Zeiss - Jena that was located in what became East Germany after WW11. As I understand it, the company was spit by the allies, after the war, because it had been so significant during the conflict where its lenses and cameras had been tremendously effective for aerial surveillance/reconnaissance and in aiding the German bombing campaign. I believe that Jenoptik are still making backs/cameras for others and are heavily involved in very high-end optical science.

Also ...

It is essential for Sony's multi-shot (pixel-shift) that they emulate Pentax by having the 1-shot and 4-shot merge seamlessly in the software, to produce an artefact free file.

As far as I can see, from Sony's new Remote application, tethered pixel-shift captures are already automatically merged, but they absolutely must add the automatic merging of 1-shot and 4-shot for automatic removal of multi-shot artefacts. They need to provide this for both for the Remote app and for the accompanying Edit app.

Pentax does this by using one of the 4-shot files 'independently', to merge with the already merged 4-shot. This is really the ideal way of doing this and it works extremely well, permitting multi-shot/pixel-shift capture in all sorts of situations and providing the 'best of both worlds' for the type of images that it can realistically be used for. In other words, nothing moving too fast, but ok for most landscapes where, for example, gently moving leaves aren't a problem.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1248 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrtFS: "It's an idea that stretches back to 2007's Hasselblad H3DII 39MS."

Incorrect.

I realise this is hard to research and isn't of interest to most people here, but seeing as I own the original multi-shot back, I can tell you that it was made by Jenoptik and shipped in July 2000. It was called the Eyelike Precision M6. I took delivery of mine in October 2000. You've probably never heard of Jenoptik, but a little extrapolation will doubtless help ... Jena Optik ... Carl Zeiss - Jena. So it is the half of Carl Zeiss - Jena that was located in what became East Germany after WW11. As I understand it, the company was spit by the allies, after the war, because it had been so significant during the conflict where its lenses and cameras had been tremendously effective for aerial surveillance/reconnaissance and in aiding the German bombing campaign. I believe that Jenoptik are still making backs/cameras for others and are heavily involved in very high-end optical science.

(Ran out of space ... )

The M6 itself does 1,4 and 16-shot. It has a 35mm sized, 6MP chip. 16-shot produces a 24MP file, which, at the time of its launch, was totally unequalled quality for a digital camera. The technique was copied by Imacon, who were sued by Jenoptik. Imacon were later acquired by Hasselblad.

It's also important to understand, that what multi-shot really provides, is 'pure-colour'. No colour interpolation means that you really get what is in front of you. This has always been most significant to me in greens, which as human beings, we are most sensitive to. I also have another of these Jenoptik backs, the M22. In 16-shot mode, it produces a file of 88MP, in pure colour and did so all the way back in 2003!!

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 11:35 UTC
On article Sony a7R Mark III review (1248 comments in total)

"It's an idea that stretches back to 2007's Hasselblad H3DII 39MS."

Incorrect.

I realise this is hard to research and isn't of interest to most people here, but seeing as I own the original multi-shot back, I can tell you that it was made by Jenoptik and shipped in July 2000. It was called the Eyelike Precision M6. I took delivery of mine in October 2000. You've probably never heard of Jenoptik, but a little extrapolation will doubtless help ... Jena Optik ... Carl Zeiss - Jena. So it is the half of Carl Zeiss - Jena that was located in what became East Germany after WW11. As I understand it, the company was spit by the allies, after the war, because it had been so significant during the conflict where its lenses and cameras had been tremendously effective for aerial surveillance/reconnaissance and in aiding the German bombing campaign. I believe that Jenoptik are still making backs/cameras for others and are heavily involved in very high-end optical science.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 11:26 UTC as 146th comment | 2 replies
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »