Pete Berry

Lives in United States Monterey, CA, United States
Works as a Retired MD
Joined on Jun 9, 2006

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1180 comments in total)
In reply to:

geogan: I'm sceptical about this full frame "non-cropped" 4K mode. Anyone that knows about scaling knows unless you scale from a whole multiple 0.5, 2x then scaling produces all sorts of artifacts and aliasing which usually makes any image less sharp and more blurry, so this thing of the camera using 5k across and scaling it down to 4k has me worried.

Even on the GH4 which had the two options of recording 4K (cropped or not cropped with scaling) I have seen examples where the cropped 1-to-1 pixel readout produced the best, sharpest frame with no aliasing visible compared to the full frame scaled version.

Is there a crop option in 4K on the GH5 anyway now at all?, because this is STILL needed for example for more reach using long lens,...

Well, the a6300 scaled 4K from a 24MP sensor and the NX1 from 28MP. Both with significantly sharper output than my GH4, and I don't think moire was enhanced. GH4's crop was a major PIA in all but long lens shooting when you needed all the reach you could get. BTW, the GH4 has NO full sensor scaling 4K option - where on earth did you get this idea?? It does scale FHD from full sensor, and does it much better than most

I'm definitely excited about all the GH5's capabilities, and it's 4K output I've seen to date is impressive. It will have an ETC mode with 1:1 4K sensor crop mode giving a 2.7X total crop factor. In 4K Photo at 4:3 the EFC factor is 3X, and in 3:2, 2.8X. Great for us nature shooters!

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
On article Variation Facts and Fallacies (230 comments in total)
In reply to:

MICHAEL_61: Very interesting. My conclusion: in order to buy a lens, get as many copies as you possibly can tested on your camera (preferably 10 at least) to choose the best one of them.

Well TomB and JonF, half of the four Canon "L" lenses I've owned in past years were clearly defective from the get-go (17-40 and 24-105), with a distinctly soft side seen (but only if you looked!) in prints larger than 8.5x11, and above 4x mag. on the LCD - pixel-peeping, if you wish. My Nikon F lenses of the 60's were much more uniform in their quality as seen in my 16x20 B&W's.

Not to care at all about taking the minimal time it takes to look for lens softness is kinda like the lazy woodcarver who never sharpens his tools, and tolerates the rough outcome as "the nature of the wood", or other such drivel.

Pro or not, you folks admittedly don't look very closely and must not print very large, deal with picky photo editors (that would be all of them), or have been jackpot lucky with all your lenses - a most unlikely situation...

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2011 at 20:47 UTC
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2