chaos215bar2

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Herp Photos: This wont stop people from just taking a macro shot of it from their camera or another phone.

Just take a picture where the pixels are large enough to resolve clearly (so you don't get moiré), blur, downsample, and do some level correction for good measure. No more screen door.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
On article 4 times when a Hail Mary might be the right move (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: I like most of them, some are great, but the shot in the restroom creeps me out a bit.

Is that even legal? I had always assumed not, and honestly, that's pretty much the one "public" place where I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 15:35 UTC

"Improves image quality when Long Exposure NR setting is OFF"

So, does this mean the camera is no longer applying a median filter even to RAW files? https://www.dpreview.com/news/6945628350/astrophotog-writes-open-letter-to-sony-over-star-eater-nr

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2017 at 19:34 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Oli4D: Lesson learned: Shockingly many people have no humour at all.
And even more scary: Many seem not to be able to "think around the corner", not able to question things and what might be behind it.

You can understand humor and "think around the corner" (whatever that means) all you want, but that doesn't make the law books the right place for a joke.

Humor and sarcasm are not not a universal concepts; they can and do vary dramatically from culture to culture. Writing laws that can only be interpreted correctly through the cultural lens of those who created them is a recipe for misunderstanding. Once one law is deliberately written as a PR stunt, to be ignored in practice, what happens when someone who simply doesn't understand the cultural basis for another entirely serious law decides to ignore that one as well, because from their perspective it too seems like a joke?

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

Rensol: Hi there.
Couple things to remember.
1. There is no use for filters/claims of Haze Reducing or UV protective filters!
Here is why. absolutely NO digital camera nor modern lens transmit UV light (in appreciateful quantities) to introduce haze to your photos. Use of such filters is as ridiculous as use of "Tungsten" color correcting filters of film era on digital cameras.

2. Any filter affect image quality in a way that it reduces light passing thru it. Unless it is something you need (say ND or PL, etc.. ) they will not make your photos better, clearer, brighter,

3. I do use MC AR coated filters on ALL my lenses. I hate dirty lenses! I would never put non coated or spin coated filter on the lens.
Benefits of protective filters are very simple. You save your front glass and keep resalle value of your lenses high.

4. Some filters have what is called dust/moisture repelling coating (oleo and hidrophobic) coating. While these are helpful to some degree some times they can turn filter cleaning into nightmare.
By the way anyone with MS in chemistry can deposit hidrophobic coating at home. It will cost you way more then to buy said filter but still... :)

5. Proper optically flat filter will NOT affect focusing system of any kind.

6. In some critical cases when you shoot against strong light sources it might be beneficial to shoot without even the best AR coated filter. Just take it off and put it back.

I'm curious how the dust/moisture repelling coatings make cleaning difficult. The price difference doesn't necessarily seem to be that much these days, and on the surface, these seem like a good idea. (I know my phone screen became way easier to keep clean once these coatings came into use there, for instance.)

The only thing that gives me pause is the 0.3% reduction in transmission in the test here, but if the coating is only on the outside of the filter and doesn't cause increased internal reflections, then 0.3% really doesn't matter in practice.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

Bill Ferris: Before spending a dime on a clear or UV filter - which does bubkas to improve image quality - for the purpose of "protecting" your lenses, watch Steve Perry's fun and illuminating investigation of the age-old question, do filters actually protect lenses?

https://youtu.be/P0CLPTd6Bds

For the naysayers, the most common ingredient in sand (beach or inland) is quartz silica. Unless your front element is made of sapphire glass, you can bet that can and will scratch it sooner or later if you use a lens in sandy and/or dusty environments, and when you throw salt spray into the mix, the mechanical action needed to actually clean the front of the lens makes scratches all that much more likely.

Essentially, *anything* that doesn't cause catastrophic damage to your filter will do the same to the lens its covering, since thickness or overall strength of the element is irrelevant. From personal experience, I've never dropped or otherwise smashed a filter, but there have absolutely been occasions where I was happy to have some minor damage occur to the filter rather than the lens. Having a filter means I don't have to worry so much about babying my lens's front element and can just worry about getting great pictures.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: HMMmmm.... so they've re-invented "iA Mode" for lots of extra money.

A reasonable response, but there's actually a whole lot more to this. (The headline and intro are not great at making this apparent.)

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 19:52 UTC

Huh, this actually looks pretty interesting.

When I read the headline the first time around, I simply wondered why I would need or want an "AI" assistant to choose camera settings for me, but reading again this is actually much more. The exposure bracketing, focus stacking, simulated long-exposure (via multiple exposures), and time-lapse options actually make this pretty compelling. And in the case of time-lapse especially, some auto-exposure smarts could actually be extremely useful.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 19:50 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

CanonKen: If this was anywhere else, I would have read it as a joke. However, I don't consider the Swiss to be renown for their humor and turning a blind eye to the 'regulations'.

No, sorry, anyone who is silly enough not to take local laws seriously simply doesn't have enough experience with local municipalities making and trying to seriously enforce ridiculous laws. Even with the silly justification, if this were a US town I'd give maybe a 50/50 chance that they were serious. That's enough to give me pause *even knowing* that in the US, a law like this would never hold up in court. In Switzerland I know I don't have enough context to make this kind of judgement, so I'm going to err on the side of avoiding the law (by not visiting the town) or assuming it will be enforced until I hear otherwise from someone of actual authority.

Making assumptions about laws in a country you're not familiar with is ridiculously stupid. Go ahead and try, but you're going to have a very bad day sooner or later when you discover you're in an area that has some fundamental cultural differences with what you're used to.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

CanonKen: If this was anywhere else, I would have read it as a joke. However, I don't consider the Swiss to be renown for their humor and turning a blind eye to the 'regulations'.

I can certainly think of one way to make the joke a little clearer: don't make it law!

If I don't live somewhere and am unfamiliar with the laws, customs, or sense of humor of the local population, how am I supposed to know which laws are meant as a joke and which ones are to be taken seriously? What if I see this law, learn its true intention, and then mistakenly think a different law that *I* find ridiculous (but the local populace does not) is also intended to be a joke?

As a visitor, I certainly don't want to assume I have the cultural awareness to tell the difference. Playing fast and loose with local laws seems like a terrible idea when traveling to a foreign country, and I'm certainly not going to enjoy a vacation to an area where I have to guess whether I'll be fined or not every time I take out my camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Pay $300 to let Larry Page watch you roam your apartment in your underwear? Truly, a sucker is born every minute. These devices should not send anything to the cloud. It is totally technically feasible to do what they do completely on premises.

Cloud backup should absolutely be an option in a camera like this, but it should be secondary to the camera's primary functionality, available only as an alternative to local storage, and definitely not priced starting at $100 *per year* (for 10 days of history with one camera, going up from there).

I would never buy a $300 camera that will cease to function the moment the manufacturer's servers go offline. I also have an extremely difficult time imagining any third party to which I would ever allow unrestricted access to a live video feed of my house. Both in one product? Nope, nope, nope!

Plus, as has been mentioned, cutting internet access (and probably power), both frequently easily accessible outside a house, are the first two things a competent thief will do to minimize the chance of a security system triggering and successfully phoning home. A really determined thief will not only do this but wait a few days (while you're away) for any backup batteries to die.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 02:21 UTC
In reply to:

chaos215bar2: "Unfortunately this means it's very unlikely that the backers of the original crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo will ever receive their camera." Well, this is Indiegogo we're talking about after all.

Seriously, though, I've had experience with one campaign on Indiegogo that ended badly, and you can expect precisely zero support or interest from Indiegogo if this happens (despite their TOS obligating campaign owners to either deliver or work with backers to reach a "satisfactory" resolution). Indiegogo quite literally did nothing when informed that the campaign owners were clearly in the process of cutting and running with whatever portion of the project funds may or may not have remained unused.

Seriously, unless the project is small enough that you don't mind making a donation (and Indiegogo taking their cut) or large enough to merit getting lawyers involved if something goes wrong, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo. Even then, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo.

The worst part is, unlike a real investment, the best you can hope to come out with in the end is the product you paid for at a slight discount. The backers take on all of the risk and stand to gain nothing if the project is ultimately wildly successful.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
In reply to:

chaos215bar2: "Unfortunately this means it's very unlikely that the backers of the original crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo will ever receive their camera." Well, this is Indiegogo we're talking about after all.

Seriously, though, I've had experience with one campaign on Indiegogo that ended badly, and you can expect precisely zero support or interest from Indiegogo if this happens (despite their TOS obligating campaign owners to either deliver or work with backers to reach a "satisfactory" resolution). Indiegogo quite literally did nothing when informed that the campaign owners were clearly in the process of cutting and running with whatever portion of the project funds may or may not have remained unused.

Seriously, unless the project is small enough that you don't mind making a donation (and Indiegogo taking their cut) or large enough to merit getting lawyers involved if something goes wrong, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo. Even then, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo.

Agreed. The fundamental problem is that you're basically pre-ordering with no real protection should the project fail to deliver.

Kickstarter and Indiegogo insulate themselves through their terms of service and because, realistically, there's only so much people are likely to go through to recover on the order of a few hundred dollars. The project owners themselves are insulated by Kickstarter and Indiegogo, who — at least in the latter case — have proven that they're all talk and no action when it comes to the guarantees their TOS make. Pursuing a chargeback is difficult, because you have to prove that Kickstarter or Indiegogo have been negligent in some way. (And at least in my case, this concept proved far, far to nuanced for the bureaucratic mess that is Citibank. They actually ended up so confused by the end that they put a derogatory mark on *my* credit, which required multiple sternly worded letters to the office of their president to fix. But that's another story.)

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 21:56 UTC

"Unfortunately this means it's very unlikely that the backers of the original crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo will ever receive their camera." Well, this is Indiegogo we're talking about after all.

Seriously, though, I've had experience with one campaign on Indiegogo that ended badly, and you can expect precisely zero support or interest from Indiegogo if this happens (despite their TOS obligating campaign owners to either deliver or work with backers to reach a "satisfactory" resolution). Indiegogo quite literally did nothing when informed that the campaign owners were clearly in the process of cutting and running with whatever portion of the project funds may or may not have remained unused.

Seriously, unless the project is small enough that you don't mind making a donation (and Indiegogo taking their cut) or large enough to merit getting lawyers involved if something goes wrong, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo. Even then, you want nothing to do with Indiegogo.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 20:05 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: It makes no sense for Nikon and Canon to develop a full range of lenses for mirrorless cameras.
Those high-end Nikon and Canon lenses are big in nature; mirrorless can do nothing to reduce their size significantly.
So, the mirrorless cameras are just for the small size lenses? From the business point of view, there are lots of risk for Nikon and Canon to invest heavily in the mirrorless camera market.
It Nikon and Canon feel the mirrorless camera market can bring super profit to them, it is better to buy up Olympus (or other brands) MFT camera division rather than building a new mirrorless camera division.

The vision would be a complete, unified mirrorless lineup. If done right, you're not going to save a whole lot on the higher end lenses and bodies, but you're also going to reduce the number of moving parts that might fail and — theoretically — not lose anything functionality-wise.

The obvious remaining hurdle is autofocus (with EVF quality likely coming right behind that, though obviously even an inferior EVF can do things an OVF could only dream of), but the gaps are closing pretty quickly. The question is, when these gaps finally close, will Canon (and hopefully Nikon) be able to fill out a lens and body lineup more quickly than Sony can address their software and service concerns?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: Besides a small increase in materials cost, there is no negative whatsoever to have a short-flange mount with an electronic pass-through adapter for legacy system lenses.

Accommodating the mirror box has always led to optical compromises. There is nothing that a long flange design can do that a short flange design cannot, but the inverse is demonstrably not true.

For instance, if you believe that because a long flange by nature forces telecentricity better and see that as an optical design asset, you can simply design a bigger, longer lens short-flange lens that is designed telecentrically.

The autofocus discussion is 100% removed from the flange distance of the system, which should be entirely be about optics and packaging. If you have a long-flange mount you still need very good OSPDAF on your sensor to accommodate your legacy DSLR lenses. If you have a short flange mount and an adapter (as 4/3 -> M4/3 and Sony A -> Sony E requires) the challenge and the solution is identical.

@entoman, if this is truly a problem, there's absolutely nothing preventing a lens designer from literally sticking a DSLR lens in a longer body and calling it mirrorless. The point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that the shorter flange distance opens up lens designs that are simply impossible without placing elements closer to the sensor than a mirror would allow. This tends to especially benefit wide angle designs, and becomes largely irrelevant for longer telephoto lenses (without resorting to optical trickery in the name of designing a smaller lens, anyway).

The great thing about mirrorless is that you have options. You can have your compact, cheaper lenses that may make some optical compromises and you can have your large aperture, high quality, no compromises lenses all on the same mount, with bodies to mix and match. Even if you aren't interested in getting into their ecosystem, Sony's lineup is a perfect example of what a mirrorless mount lets you do.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 17:23 UTC
In reply to:

dbateman: I actually see an advantage to using the existing canon/nikon mount. You can make lens designs that extend into the body. Thus the overall length is small. This will need new lenses, which is good for the companies, but also allow for use of old lenses as well.
However if the companies us this as a compromise body to step up to a Dslr, then they will be dead. The comparable advantage and options in m43rds will just kill off these big companies.
Canon and Nikon need to develop uncompromised sensors with phase detect (this is hard) and lenses that extend deep into the body for best image quality.

You want both the camera *and* the lens to be as large or larger than their SLR counterparts, because the lens potentially extends into the camera body?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (666 comments in total)
In reply to:

EskeRahn: On the note on displays.

Already with a years old inexpensive monitor (bdm4065), at reasonable working conditions I feel like I get a suntan and at the very least an eye-strain if I use it at full brightness.... Normally I use it at brightness-level 1 of 10...

The very high brightness displays is mostly something wanted for outdoor usage in direct sunlight. (relevant for most portable devices with displays).

What we really want to strive for is a zero-reflection display where the off/black parts is as looking into a deep black hole - even with the display in direct sunlight...

On current monitors, unless operated in complete darkness (or something close) we WILL get some reflections that could easily be more dominant than subtle differences of a darker area of an image.

If on a laptop, the bright parts of the display can lit your fingers enough so you can see their reflection in the dark parts. A display that can crank up the brightness will do absolutely no good here...

The point of an ultra-bright HDR display is not to blind you by displaying every single white background at 10,000 nits. The point is to have the brightness available for content where it makes sense. Thinking of HDR as simply taking your current display and increasing the brightness ten-fold misses the point.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 19:12 UTC
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (666 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEulerID: By "In a perfect world, Sony would have offered a 12-bit Raw mode with a lossless compression curve (without that second stage of localized compression that leads to edge artifacts) for smaller file sizes with minimal loss in quality."

Do you actually mean a gamma compression on a curve? If so, I'd agree but it has to be pointed out that gamma compression is not lossless in the sense that it's used in the compression of data files. Gamma compression makes used of the fact that the lower bits of the brighter areas of the image are just capturing shot noise and thus can be discarded. You only need the lower bits for the darker areas of an image where it has some relevance.

A properly defined gamma compression system would be perfect for RAW data and would not exhibit artefacts or lose any real data, but I fear the "lossless" fundamentalists will still have a fit about it, even if there is no loss in image quality.

Yes, the choice between RAW with lossy spacial compression that introduces edge artifacts and completely uncompressed RAW is silly in this age, but you don't even need to go to an "effectively lossless" (i.e. lossy) gamma compression scheme to reduce file sizes.

Images have plenty of spacial coherency that can be exploited to achieve *lossless* spacial compression. (Think what FLAC does for audio, just for images.) Whether you introduce gamma compression on top of that is another question (it should be easy enough to add a 12/14-bit RAW switch to the settings), but Sony needs to at least offer a true lossless compressed RAW mode to be competitive in this area.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
On article GoPro documents skier's fall into crevasse (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

tex: Darwin award runner up. Runner up because he lived. Hope he at least got billed for the rescue, seeing as how those guys had to risk their lives for his thrills.

Furthermore (character limit), being an instructor neither qualifies one for nor makes one responsible for rescue work. (That's ski patrol's job.) It absolutely doesn't make one responsible for high-risk backcountry rescue work of the type shown here. (That's well beyond the purview of even ski patrol.) If your sister has chosen to take on this kind of work and responsibility in addition to ski instructing, then more power to her, and — again — that's entirely her decision.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 21:59 UTC
Total: 119, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »