BorisK1

Lives in United States MI, United States
Works as a Software engineer
Joined on May 7, 2004

Comments

Total: 472, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marty4650: I never could understand the "one device for everything" dream.

The big irony here is that the more phones become "cameralike" the less convenient they become. And the more cameras become "phonelike" the worse their ergonomics becomes.

So the real solution might be to just accept two devices. Each one specializing in something. Just like we accept cars and motorcycles, but don't attempt to design a four seat motorcycle or a two wheel car.

This could be a viable alternative to an optical zoom, especially if it could read just the center crop of the image in high-resolution mode when zoomed in, and switch to pixel-binning when zoomed out.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2020 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

Gruyo: I wonder what the readout speeds will be for those thingies. Signal to noise ratio will also be disastrous if you consider how much fewer photons each pixel will get in low light conditions. Size of the produced files will be too large at 600Mp anyway, so the camera will just consume loads of RAM and CPU to downsample it back to 12Mp.

Also, does this mean we will have terapixel resolution in a7R VII?

A reasonable design would use the high-resolution mode only when zoomed in (so just the center part of the sensor needs to be read), and enable pixel-binning at wider angles.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2020 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

io rep: why?

get a bigger sensor inside and even 16mp is fine.
what the hell happened. it went from 12 to 16 to 48 to 64 to 600.
next jump 15570mp but still shet with anything over 400 iso.

keep it simple stupid

This *is* a big sensor. The 1/0.57" size means 28mm diagonal - same as APS-C.
The high resolution is likely needed for digital zoom. If you start at 600MP, a 10x zoom (crop) still leaves you with a reasonable 6MP.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2020 at 18:24 UTC
On article Ricoh announces its new ultra-rugged WG-70 camera (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

robbo d: I have an earlier version and have been very happy with it.

I've taken decent underwater images on the Great Barrier reef, gone kayaking etc. Plenty good enough for A4 prints of memories.

The microscope function is awesome as are the front LEDs to go with it. That function alone would be cool for stamp and coin collectors, engineers in the field etc

Cheaper than top of the line smart phones, great for families, education, beach excursions, hobbyists, people who don't want or can't afford a DSLR and underwater case.

All the negative comments here are by people who think nothing exists past megapixels, big underwater rigs and the highest levels of tech. Definite market for them hence still for sale.

You can say this again!

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

BorisK1: It wouldn't hurt to mention in the write-up that these lenses *only* work in far infrared. They can't focus visible light.

Every few months, there's a new announcement of a breakthrough in the flat lens / metamaterials research. But the ultimate goal, a lens that can handle the entire visual spectrum, remains elusive.

Sorry if my logic is difficult to follow. Let me try and explain it one step at a time.

1. Chev says "They are arrayed fresnel structures". Article says they are MDLs (Multilevel Diffractive Lenses), which are a very different tech. Conclusion: Chev didn't read the paper.

2. Chev proceeds to snub the team, their University, and the state of Utah. Without reading the paper. Conclusion: Chev is full of it.

Does that make the logic clearer?

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2019 at 01:58 UTC
In reply to:

BorisK1: It wouldn't hurt to mention in the write-up that these lenses *only* work in far infrared. They can't focus visible light.

Every few months, there's a new announcement of a breakthrough in the flat lens / metamaterials research. But the ultimate goal, a lens that can handle the entire visual spectrum, remains elusive.

@chev: At least read the paper before snubbing.
It's not a fresnel lens:

"It is important to distinguish our work from previous reports that utilize Fresnel lenses in the LWIR. An 80-μm-thick polymer Fresnel lens combined with a 755-μm-thick refractive silicon lens was used to report the thinnest LWIR lens (total device thickness ∼0.8 mm) capable of imaging (20). A high-order Silicon Fresnel lens made out of silicon was used in combination with an aperture for wide-angle imaging in the LWIR band as well (21), which had a total device thickness of 1 mm. In comparison, the device thickness of our single MDL is only 10 μm (a reduction of 100×) and it comprises a patterned polymer. Most importantly, MDLs are corrected for the entire operating bandwidth, while Fresnel lenses are not."

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 23:43 UTC
In reply to:

tsk1979: Yup, future phones will take IR imagery and not visible light. I welcome the green photographs. Is this to go green?

Or is it that you have decided that instead of being a gadget/camera related tech site you want to join your sister tabloid publications to peddle tabloid journalism?

Read the actual paper for once before such shoddy reporting. did not expect this from dpreview

The article says it will be great to have thinner lenses, and we can achieve this for infraded which helps in military and agricultural applications...

"Here, we demonstrate that this can be achieved in the LWIR band using MDLs. We note that our MDLs are quite distinct from conventional diffractive lenses because of their achromaticity. Nevertheless, conventional diffractive lenses are designed for a specific wavelength, and their focusing performance drastically drops at wavelengths away from the design value."

Reminds me of the public reaction years ago when people found out that camcorders with IR "night vision mode" could see through clothes.

Because we clearly don't have enough scandals on the news.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

Tom_A: If this could work for bigger lenses too, at FF camera quality, then you can imagine standard zoom lenses in pancake size, or fast portrait lenses that are still very light.

These are far-infrared optics, not visible light. A bit of a specialty item, you might say.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 17:04 UTC

It wouldn't hurt to mention in the write-up that these lenses *only* work in far infrared. They can't focus visible light.

Every few months, there's a new announcement of a breakthrough in the flat lens / metamaterials research. But the ultimate goal, a lens that can handle the entire visual spectrum, remains elusive.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 17:00 UTC as 10th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Superka: Is it possible to create sensor with logarythmic response , not linear?

Google brings this up:
http://www.centeye.com/technology/47-2/

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

Petka: A sensor which can not clip would certainly be wellcome, but actually there is not much use for bigger dynamic range sensors that what we already have, about 15 stops at best. That is because no lens can pass even that amount of dynamic range due to internal reflections. Cleanest and clearest lenses with best anti reflection coatings are able to make images with about 12-13 stops of dynamic range at best. Newest expensive high speed glass is not making things better, because the number of lenses, thus lens surfaces, is getting higher not less, which is counterproductive what comes to DR.

"The beauty is that you don't have worry about ever over exposing."
It's not just the sensor that limits DR.

Running into the DR limit of the lens means things like haloes, flair, fog, loss of contrast, color casts, etc, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2019 at 16:19 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: A law to fix another law.

@santamonica: If you want to use software analogies, there's a big difference between reworking the code to simplify it and fix bugs, versus just piling on new code on top of existing code.
*fixing broken laws* - repeal and replace - can be a good thing, if done properly.
On the other hand, adding more laws on top of the existing ones is *never* a good thing. All it does is page the road for abuse, loopholes, selective enforcement, and ever-growing legal costs.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2019 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: For those of us who used to shoot with a variety of Camedia and SP series of bridge model cameras in the past, it is highly disappointing that Olympus had left the enthusiast scene a long time ago.

Sure, we get these periodic "tough" releases, but they haven't changed much. The camera bodies (subjective) look a bit Japanesque - that is, resembling something out of older Japanese cartoons (ray guns, etc). But the same same thing can be said for both Fuji and Pentax (they also left the enthusiast scene years ago).

Why can't they (Olympus or whoever) release a good 1" sensored tough series model - I'd be willing to bet it would be met with open arms. We know that can be done because there is another brand (can't think of the name at the moment) that has produced a 1" tough equivalent model. About the only positive thing here (IMO, of course) is that among the current crop of these tiny pin-head sensor tough series of cameras, the Olympus model is the better.

A 1" sensor waterproof model won't have a zoom lens, or won't be compact.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2019 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Barmaglot_07: Without a shutter to enable strobe sync, this is mostly useless. You can't bring back the red colors that aren't there in the first place.

Between one camera that's rated to 150 feet but doesn't shoot raw, and another that has raw but is rated IP67 (3 feet for 30 minutes), which one will take better shots of a dive?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2019 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

Barmaglot_07: Without a shutter to enable strobe sync, this is mostly useless. You can't bring back the red colors that aren't there in the first place.

This is for swimming/snorkeling, not diving. I don't think phones are rated for more than six feet or so.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2019 at 17:00 UTC

Is "media consumption device" like a book, except with a monthly subscription plan?

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2019 at 19:31 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: This looks like a pretty nice specialty lens, and some people will want one and be happy to have it. But it isn't a lens that everyone will want, so some folks will find lots of things wrong with it. Because it isn't for them.

For better quality, you can always get two better zoom lenses or a bunch of fast primes instead. For less size and weight for hiking, you can buy a Panasonic ZS200 instead. For best quality at 400mm.... then the Panasonic 200mm f/2.8 lens is just a few clicks (and $3,000) away.

But it also demonstrates what happens after you create 100 different AF lenses for any system. You run out of widely used types and have nowhere else to go except specialty lenses.

So kudos to Olympus for deepening and broadening an already wonderful system. And Panasonic hasn't thrown in the towel either. They have an incredible 10-25mm f/1.7 lens coming soon.

Mount this on a PEN, and you have a reasonably priced low-light camcorder. That can also take decent stills.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 17:11 UTC
On article OPPO to announce 10x lossless smartphone zoom camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

BorisK1: The zoom looks similar to the folded light path optics used in "tough" compacts - which aren't exactly known for their stellar IQ. A dedicated WA lens is a nice touch though.

Not stellar compared to other small-sensor compacts. Not talking DSLRs here.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2019 at 00:54 UTC
On article OPPO to announce 10x lossless smartphone zoom camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: From the illustration, it looks like the lens will be slow, like most internal zooming tough cameras.

@ Revenant:
Thanks, that makes sense! In that case, it could be a very nice combination of a fast wide-angle fixed-FL lens, and a slow zoom.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2019 at 21:57 UTC
On article OPPO to announce 10x lossless smartphone zoom camera (169 comments in total)
In reply to:

David610: Lossless smartphone ... I'll be able to sell it in three years time for what I paid for it? Deal!

Maybe it's "lossless" in the sense that you can't lose it. Even if you try. Even if you lock it up. It slithers through shadows, following you around on thin spidery legs, snapping and growling at any other phones you try to touch.

Lasssst phone you'll ever own.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2019 at 15:11 UTC
Total: 472, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »