migus

Lives in Switzerland Zurich, Switzerland
Works as a research
Joined on Nov 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

migus: The black level should be the foundation of a solid future HDR, not tear-jerking levels of brightness (initially designed for 4" sunlit phone LCDs).

The HiFi audio builds on true silence, as a low noise floor practically matters more than ear-splitting loudness (who listens home to a 120dB IX-th finale...?).
Ditto HDR: Wide color and HDR contrast should build upon a true black floor, as achievable since 20+ yrs by OLED and partly by xVA panels.

By obsessing with nut (ahem, nit) brightness as our main/single control knob, the OLED and even the xVA are excluded - albeit both are vastly superior in what matters practically.

It's much easier/cheaper to pump the (Q)LED brightness to insane, read-on-the-beach nit levels.

Net: How practical and future-proof is an IPS/LCD-based DisplayHDR in AD2018?

Most pro LCD screens (10b, 100+ % AdobeRGB) remain low-contrast high-black-level IPS; they are calibrated around 100-150nits (or lower), out of a max of ca. 300nits. True black matters more

"Black levels matter only in a perfectly dark environment" : Music is listened to in malls, offices, living rooms and streets - not only in studios and recital halls. And very rarely near jet engines (requiring a 140dB dynamic range).

Black levels matters everywhere, particularly in average (ie., real life) scenarios. How many of us are doing their PPS or watch movies on the beach - how often (a mobile scenario) ?

In my lab the 100s of screens i see are used on average 10-14hrs/day at way under 100nit - except a few particularly bright desks or folks w/ vision issues. The vast majority of my time is in front of screens calibrated at 40-70nits... at 150 i barely can stand few 10s of minutes.

In the sun i use e-ink, instead of LCDs...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 13:05 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: Strikes me as strange that anyone would want a 32" monitor with only 2560 x 1440 resolution!

Wrong aspect ratio for an AdobeRGB screen, IMHO: Excepting the squarish MFT (4:3) and P&S, most APS and FF sensors are 3:2 native crops. High end tablets and laptop screens (eg, Surface) are also 3:2.

Video and HDTV are 16:9 as also 99% of the cheap LCDs screens... while most new movies are shot/rendered 21:9 or an even wider crop (IMHO an unfortunate trend).

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 04:10 UTC

The black level should be the foundation of a solid future HDR, not tear-jerking levels of brightness (initially designed for 4" sunlit phone LCDs).

The HiFi audio builds on true silence, as a low noise floor practically matters more than ear-splitting loudness (who listens home to a 120dB IX-th finale...?).
Ditto HDR: Wide color and HDR contrast should build upon a true black floor, as achievable since 20+ yrs by OLED and partly by xVA panels.

By obsessing with nut (ahem, nit) brightness as our main/single control knob, the OLED and even the xVA are excluded - albeit both are vastly superior in what matters practically.

It's much easier/cheaper to pump the (Q)LED brightness to insane, read-on-the-beach nit levels.

Net: How practical and future-proof is an IPS/LCD-based DisplayHDR in AD2018?

Most pro LCD screens (10b, 100+ % AdobeRGB) remain low-contrast high-black-level IPS; they are calibrated around 100-150nits (or lower), out of a max of ca. 300nits. True black matters more

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 03:49 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

caterpillar: Some are not going to get this lens. But there are many who would love to have a versatile all around with good IQ. This is what the Canon 18-135 stm was/is. Sure, it is not fast, but in many situations, it is good enough. The Canon 18-135 stm is very good IQ across the zoom range. If this lens is as good, then it should be a hit.

As an owner of the 18-135 STM, I get the value of this lens. But I already have the 18-105 f4 OSS, so I don't think I will buy this lens anymore.

The initial price is usually high. Give it a year and it should drop U$50-100 in price. It could also be bundled with future a5200 at half the cost. The 18-105 was around U$600 too at the start. It's now about U$450-500 now in our country and usually out-of-stock due to its popularity.

OTOH, Sony badly needs a 16-50 f1.8 OSS lens. I hope they give us that at the 2nd half of the year. It will be expensive for sure (likely U$1,200) but then again, the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS isn't cheap either.

"It could also be bundled with future a5200 at half the cost. "
This lens would be too massive and too pricey a kit for an a5x00 body.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 04:34 UTC
In reply to:

Jefftan: I see people complaining about slow lens

this is already 325 gram. Sony know APS-C market well, any heavier and it won't sell

325 gram is not lightweight (to me just tolerable) for mirrorless APS-C user

They are very sensitive to weight otherwise will move to full frame

Yes, i and many of my friends have decided for APS-C based on its size/IQ benefits. Else i'd simply move to FF - which i reject mainly for its bulkier lenser under 30mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

virtualreality: I notice the focus motor is the "linear motor" type. This is the same as for example the 85mm f/1.8 lens. Anyone knows how the 85mm performs on AF?

This probably is the case because the lens parts are lightweight. SSM is used in high-end ff lenses.

After years of not a single APS-C lens from Sony, I celebrate this as the harbinger of revival...!

Of all the issues one could find against Sony's APS lenses, AF performance is not a problem IMHO. Hence i agree "linear motors of the type Sony uses, aka voice coil actuators, are insanely fast AND allow for precise speed control"

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 14:53 UTC
In reply to:

stefpix: Making a version of the 18-105 lighter and smaller just without the power zoom and $100 cheaper would have been more enticing. Or a 16-85 f4, better and cheaper than the 16-70/ Or 17-60 f2.8. What they say about the weight of the lenses is contradicted by the popularity of Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Sigma 16mm 1.4

No PZ here - yey!
yes, it's large-ish, hopefully because of a superior IQ and less variable QC.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

AndrewNewYork: It better be sharper than the old 16-70 f4
Sony lenses I tried are soft in the corners.
Also, it would be nice to see photo of this lens with camera attached. to see the size.

Size is large-ish for the 5x00, OK for the 6x00; ca. 3x the size, mass and price of 16-50 kit . The IQ remains the make or break, since price and size are average.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 14:45 UTC
On article Sony announces lightweight FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS lens (297 comments in total)

Perhaps Sony will also release an equivalent APS-C lens, or just an improved (fixed QC dispersion) z16-70. Prices seem stable in the "premium" segment, ca 25% more than many would consider fair - yet this is a moot point by now.

Essential for the 'compact' class of glass: Is constant f/4 really superior in IQ to the smaller variable f/3.5-5.6 ?

What's the trade-off between grams and IQ in today's clean hi-ISO sensors, PDAF and stabilized everything, IBIS, OSS ... is a variable F/ really worse than a constant F/4?

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 12:21 UTC as 34th comment | 5 replies

"camera must also wait either 0.5, 1, or 2 seconds between shots for the sensor to settle, which is likely to exacerbate the problems of subject movement between the first and last shot"

=> The scene must remain STILL for 2s, hence no wind in the grass/leaves/water, no birds or other 'intruders' moving across. As for HDRs and panorama shots.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 11:55 UTC as 206th comment | 2 replies

hopefully their software is better than its name... :-)
(suggesting a gimmicky app for Macs, or a McD. cheap serving... no undue offense to the honest folks named so since generations - my apologies to them!)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 10:22 UTC as 10th comment
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

jimjulian: Everyone please make an informed, personal choice, but have the facts: You post-processing is completely INTACT, but you can't edit further. You catalog will be perpetually available. Your Raw files are yours, and they are married to an XMP sidecar files, which contains your edits.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html

"With Lightroom 5.5, at the end of a membership, the desktop application will continue to launch and provide access to the photographs managed within Lightroom as well as the Slideshow, Web, Book or Print creations that we know many photographers painstakingly create. The Develop and Map modules have been disabled in order to signal the end of the membership and the need to renew in order to receive Adobe’s continuous innovation in those areas. Access to Lightroom mobile workflows will also cease to function. We hope this meets the expectations of our customers and we look forward to an ongoing dialog."

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html

Continuing the untruth line, what prevents Adobe from AI-scanning all my local content, label and use it w/o my approval? It's nearly as easy on a PC today as in a cloud...

A simple deal w/ FB or Google (or Yandex in Russia) would allow LR to label nearly every person, pet, location, time, action etc. -full content recognition and classification. Certainly a LR/PS-capable PC has the GPU, CPU and memory to do fairly deep learning, even in stealth mode. And deeper than just basic face recognition... trivial today even on phones.

How do we know what AI is done on our images, and how is the resulting data used by such corporations (not only the "Frightening Five") ...?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:40 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (511 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wes: "The new reality of photography [is one] where users tend to take a lot of their photos on their phones - and take a lot more images in general. [Many of them want] a powerful tool that allows them to communicate but doesn’t require them to spend a lot of time to learn."

In other words.... "We've completely forgotten who uses our products, but there are a LOT of really dumb (and wealthy) Instagramers out there with willing subscription money, so we are catering to them instead of actual photographers who are tired of paying subscription fees."

The 'cloud' model forces the enthusiasts, private and small time LR users (95% of the Adobe market?) to subsidise the big multisite corporate users (whose s/w is deductible anyway), and particularly Adobe - whose profits increased since 'cloudly' (w/o corresponding speed and function increases in LR till now).

On the German Autobahn cars drive freely (well, the germans do pay their taxes; but tourists and those in transit don't pay). OTOH trucks over 7 tons pay a fee - since indeed they stress the infrastructure disproportionately more than a car. Probably a poor analogy, given the many other countries w/ other arguably opposing models...

yet Adobe's cloudly model seem particularly predatory for LR's market, more than for PS.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 04:09 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul JM: One of the most nicely written pieces on DPR ever, and I agree with every word. I have held off looking at Capture one and other alternatives, as i am now so heavily invested in LR, but I think now may be the time to jump. More than anything I am interested in the stability and longevity of my archive. I have more than 300,000 images stored in one major LR database, including scanned film files etc, all keyword coded and face recognition'd. The idea of no longer 'owning' the software the runs this database, and the 1000's of hours invested over many years in creating this archive is horrifying.

The LR $10/mo. deal is 1000-fold worse than eg., Netflix: Effectively, it's the ratio of GB/day of 'useful updates' received by a LR vs. Netflix user.

Netflix provides me w/ many 'updates' per day, ie., the all new series and movies that a user can watch => GB/day of useful 'updates' from Netflix.

Nothing comparable from LR for my camera and my images, even per year: the same $10/mo. LR 'deal' provides virtually 0 useful updates per mo., even per year (considering how slow LR 6 remains nearly a decade later!)... 100x - 1000x worse-off in GB/yr.

Granted, the Netflix user doesn't own either the 'seen' content (for offline re-runs)... However, those movies were not generated/edited and produced by the said user - as the case w/ our LR image database.

hence the analogy between video/music streaming services and LR CC ends before it starts...

However, the deal breaker is in loosing access to my image database (my property managed now by Adobe) whenever i terminate the subscription.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 02:19 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)
In reply to:

mckracken88: "most households readily spend $10 per month for online streaming services, and many times that for mobile phone and data services."

Not this household - ever. Greedy so and so's. The subscription is just a money grab, only pros would benefit from that, the average joe doesnt need dozens of insignifanct updates on a daily basis.

Shame.. lightroom was good.

"$10 a month for streaming service that is used on a daily basis is a good deal"

Indeed: that $10/mo. Netflix provides its users with many 'updates' per day, ie., the all new series and movies that a compulsive binge watcher can watch.

granted, the Netflix user doesn't own either the 'seen' content (for offline re-runs)... However, those movies were not generated/edited and produced by the said user - as the case w/ our LR image database.

hence the analogy between video/music streaming services and LR CC ends before it starts

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 01:58 UTC

I just calculated that one of my average shooting days would take ca. 3 weeks to upload into Adobe's "cloud"... And this using a relatively fast 10Mbps uplink, which often can be 5-10x slower in US... :-(

I'd need a year+ just to upload a 3-week vacation/session, using modern VDSL uplinks!

Great thinking, Adobe, in the age of 50Mpix cameras and 70MB RAW files...!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 14:43 UTC as 287th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Thomas Woob: Adobe is clearly out of their mind. They take vendor lock in to a whole new level. Bye bye Lightroom, finally enough motivation to switch away to something else that might even make better use of my hardware.

Upload my RAW's into Adobe's "cloud", wait and also pay for it...?
Hmm... lemme think: Together w/ my wife, also an enthusiast, we shoot up to 2-3K shots on a good day.
Current 40-50Mpix cameras have 14bit RAWs of ca. 70MB, up to 100MB (D850).
Hence a ca. 2-3TB of daily upload into Adobe's Cloud.
The typical upload speeds in US are a (very) few Mbps, sometimes/often under 1Mbps => let's take a lucky VDSL uplink of 10Mbps (5-7x faster than the average).

So... my min. 2TB of RAWs --ie., ca. 20Tb ~ 20,000,000 Mb-- must be uploaded first via a 10 Mbps "fast" link
=> Upload time: 2,000,000 seconds ~ 555 hrs. ~ 23 days upload for 1 day of shooting.

Could be 10x slower for many US uplinks, and future hires cameras may have 2-5x larger RAWs in a few years.

What's wrong with such business model...? :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 14:36 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: Many of you who dismiss this camera have not compared the size and weight specs. This APSC camera is just as tiny as the G5X with 1 inch sensor.
And it is 150 g lighter than its predecessor which had a smaller sensor and lacked a viewfinder

An old a5100 with 16-50kit is smaller and lighter, has a Sony sensor (compare to Canon!), PDAF, raw hi-bitstream 1920 video, touchscreen and can be hacked freely for unlimited video recording. All these since ca. 3 yrs, for 1/2 the price or less today.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: Looks like the best all-in-one if size and price are non-issues. Now that they have added PDAF you can actually use the zoom lens for sports and wildlife. A great option.

"if size and price are non-issues" : Well, both happen to be key issues for the vast majority.

I won't argue the 1.1Kg for such a zoom in relative terms (compared w/ an APS or even MFT equivalent), yet in absolute terms this ain't something to casually haul around for travel.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 18:27 UTC

Reluctantly Canon's MILC is slowly advancing: 300gr., 24Mp, DP-AF, a wider kit, likely settling at $449... One could critique a few obvious self-cripplings typical of Canon and entry-level positioning, and yet the bright message from Canon seems to be "We care about mirrorless!"

However, I don't see any compelling reason to switch from my 'ancient' Nex cameras that I bought during Obama's 1st term.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 04:37 UTC as 178th comment | 1 reply
Total: 271, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »