BorisK1

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

Comments

Total: 376, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article MIT proposes new approach to HDR with 'Modulo' camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: Regarding counting resets, this is not the first time this has been proposed, there are at least two forum members here that have been working on similar approach for years. It's not easy as you somehow have to fit a complete counter behind every "pixel" and that is not trivial (also some way to drain very fast individual pixels, also not trivial).
Second approach discards the counting of resets and uses software algorithm to reconstruct the original image from essentially having just 8 least significant bits for every pixel (can try this yourself by zeroing first 6 bits of 14 bit raw file).

Now hush, because if Sony hears about this way to compress raws...

A counter is easy. It's a digital circuit, and can be made tiny. Computer CPUs are full of the things.

The problem is the circuit that *decides* that the pixel is full and it's time to reset. That circuit is analog, and it's much harder to make small.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 17:59 UTC
On article MIT proposes new approach to HDR with 'Modulo' camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

ThePhilips: The "modulo" idea is so obvious, that I think that most makers have already thought about it but put it in the back due to some technical complication.

Otherwise, I prefer the other idea, where pixel's charge data are being read continuously. IOW, sensor sends the data continuously, and the "shutter speed" is just how long the firmware keeps accumulating the data before saying "enough". That removes the overflow completely. And also allows to selectively read more/less from shadows/highlights.

" put it in the back due to some technical complication"
From what I've been told, it's very difficult to miniaturize a circuit that would determine whether the pixel reached a predetermined voltage. In essence, it's a full-blown analog-to-digital converter, albeit with 1-bit output.
The real news is that MIT geniuses managed to build one into a pixel.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 16:33 UTC
On article MIT proposes new approach to HDR with 'Modulo' camera (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnsmith404: I guess at this point everyone and his dog has though about this...

In terms of results this isn't really different from a recent Olympus patent which is centered around the idea of outputting a normalized sum of several exposures.

This one would have the advantage that you could compress high intensity values into a simple number of resets + modulo but if you aren't memory limited it probably won't make any difference. Even if you took the less sophisticated approach of simply adding exposures, you only need to keep track of 2 full res images at most. Another advantage is that you could never blow out anything... but I guess that isn't really relevant when any approach gives you potentially unlimited DR.

I don't really care about the final implementation but I'm quite excited about the prospect of getting super low ISOs. No need to carry those 10 stop NDs anymore + much more DR.

"In terms of results this isn't really different from a recent Olympus patent which is centered around the idea of outputting a normalized sum of several exposures."
-- except with this approach, you don't get the merge artifacts. If something is moving, its dark and bright parts get the same amount of smearing.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 16:20 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

I don't think "5m" figure is accurate. It's an ultrawide angle lens. Anything beyond 2-3 feet should be in focus.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:37 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

Just looked in the TG-3 manual. The mode is called "Wide 2", with the icon showing two fishes and the digit "2".
It's in the English manual on page 22. The description says "Suitable for shooting underwater.
The focus distance is fixed to approximately 5 m."

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 18:12 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sanpete in Utah: Yet another DPR review that doesn't give the sensor size up front where it should be.

"I've found that imaging-resource.com is far more useful for specs because they include all the relevant numbers"
Have you tried clicking on the "specs" tab in the camera database? Here's a direct link for TG-4:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/compacts/oly_tg4/specifications

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 15:12 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

IchiroCameraGuy: I agree with the comments that the image quality is too poor, sad characteristic of waterproof compacts. You get same IQ of cheap big box store compacts from 5 years ago that were half the price :\ In my opinion the smart thing is get a discounted older waterproof/tough model for much cheaper since IQ is poor regardless.

"I've yet to hear any reason for destroying the IQ with pixel overkill and tiny pixels."

The "tiny pixels" are not destroying IQ. A 16MP shot downsized to 12MP in postprocessing will have more detail and less noise than a native 12MP shot from the same-sized sensor.

One thing that limits IQ in TG-4 is the fact that the lens has to stay inside the body. It's an ingenious design (it uses a prism to fold the light path, so that most of the lens sits in the body sideways), but it's not without drawbacks.

Another reason why the out-of-camera jpegs look like they do, is that they are optimized for full-size viewing. If you tune an image for full-size viewing, it's going to look overprocessed and ugly at 100%. If you tune it for 100% viewing, it's going to look soft and dull when viewed at full size.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 15:05 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapa: It still surprises me that any camera company is still using the 1/2.3" sensors in cameras, aren't they for cell phones? BTW, the RAW images look just a BAD as the JPEG's.

bloodycape: Fitting a 1" sensor with a zoom lens into a TG-4-sized body would take a pretty big step in lens design. The existing TG-4 is already a very tricky design (the lens includes a prism to fold the light path, so that much of the lens sits sideways inside the camera).

The modern ultra-compact zoom designs (like in Sony RX 100 series, or Panasonic LX100) are way too large to fit into a TG-4 sized body, and don't have room for a prism. If it's even possible, it would be a completely new (and ingenious) optical design.

One technology that shows great potential for miniaturization is the "flat lens", made out of something they call "metamaterials". However, it is years away from prime time.

Unfortunately, the current market situation means that nobody is investing money into the lens design for waterproof cameras. The optical design of the TG series, arguably the best of the bunch, haven't changed since the TG-1.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 14:44 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

Make sure it's the "snapshot 2" mode. The one that won't let you zoom. .That one definitely disables AF.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

Some people also described the sound as that of an 8-mm movie projector. Those people are old :)

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

"You're not aware of the sound while shooting"
Actually, you can hear it quite distinctly if you are indoors.

The workaround is to use the "UW snapshot 2" mode. It turns off the AF altogether. However, it also disables zoom and auto white balance (and sets WB to "Underwater). In TG-1, I programmed a custom mode just for video - "UW snapshot 2" with WB set to"sunny".

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:39 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

IchiroCameraGuy: I agree with the comments that the image quality is too poor, sad characteristic of waterproof compacts. You get same IQ of cheap big box store compacts from 5 years ago that were half the price :\ In my opinion the smart thing is get a discounted older waterproof/tough model for much cheaper since IQ is poor regardless.

"In my opinion the smart thing is get a discounted older waterproof/tough model for much cheaper since IQ is poor regardless."
If the camera spent three years in a warehouse somewhere, I'd be worried about the waterproof seals going bad.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:30 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

exm3racer: Got mine a few weeks ago and have taken it on a couple vacations. RAW was the major selling point for me as I only shoot Raw on my D600 and use LR/PS. Pretty happy overall, looking to see what comes next in this segment.

Biggest surprise for me was the macro mode, it takes killer close up photos. It's like I just got a macro lens. And it does wide angle macro, very cool! Image quality while using macro is much better than I expected... as long as you don't crop too much.

Good things:
(ran out of characters)

Improvements I'd like to see - realize these may add to a more costly product, but I'd be willing to pay for them:

rear screen needs to be anti scratch
Lens flare easily - better lens coating
Would like CPL
More aperture increments
Better ISO performance starting at 800
Don't know if it's possible but I'd love a viewfinder
Lens is OK sharp and sharpens nicely if you are shooting RAW, but could be better.
Burst shooting in RAW
something approaching RX100 in quality..

"THat said, I think one thing that can help with image quality, low light, etc is lowering the pixel count and increasing the size of the pixels."

Not really. If you take a 16MP file and reduce it to 12 MP using quality software on a computer, you'll actually get less noise and more detail than you would with a native 12MP sensor of the same size (and tech).

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Stewart: Something I didn't see mentioned is camera noise in the audio track of videos. My TG-3 is terrible for this, in and out of water. I'll guess that it's the auto-focus mechanism; whatever it is ruins the audio quality of the scene.

If this problem continues in the TG-4, don't even think of filming the Christmas concert with it.

There ar a lot of things I love about my TG-3 — but the video mode isn't one of them. Better than nothing… but limited.

My old TG-1 made a sound like a sewing machine during video. Very loud and distracting.
It doesn't happen (as much) with the TG-4, but you can still hear zoom and AF motors.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 18:14 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapa: It still surprises me that any camera company is still using the 1/2.3" sensors in cameras, aren't they for cell phones? BTW, the RAW images look just a BAD as the JPEG's.

"What is going to crush this camera?"
- Haven't you read the specs? It's crush-resistant up to 200 pounds :-D

In still seriousness though, sometimes you just can't worry about what's in your pocket.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 00:25 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

yzhenkai: Is this camera suitalbe for my two-year old son? He breaks everything.

"it survived with no damage" - I wasn't worried about the *camera*. It's the 2-year-old himself or the parents that can get whacked on the head. My son at about that age got me by a metal toy car about the same size and weight as a TG. It *hurt*. Good thing he missed the eye, too!

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

aliasfox: With a 1/1.7" sensor (and lens to match), it would pretty much kill what remains of the Powershot S line of cameras (S110, S120) - similar price, size, and specs, but you can truly throw it in a backpack and carry it around outdoors and not worry too much about how you treat it.

Someone mentioned that people looking in this category are cheap - definitely true. I'd rather damage a $300 device and shrug it off than damage a $1000 device and actually be sad. Besides, for people who really need a good active/underwater camera, there are underwater housings.

I view it like I view my watches - I have a cheap quartz watch and a nicer watch, both are water resistant to my needs, but I'd much rather bring the cheaper watch when I go in the water - just less to risk.

Yes, you can put a TG-4 on a stick, and use a cellphone to show what the camera sees (I tried using this setup for digiscoping, and it's workable). Though a 150-200g camera would be much more comfortable to hold that way.

Yes, there's probably a market for it. Question is, *how much* of a market. Considering the overall state of affairs with affordable digicams (which is, pretty much, down the tubes), probably not enough of a market for Olympus to make money.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 15:33 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

aliasfox: With a 1/1.7" sensor (and lens to match), it would pretty much kill what remains of the Powershot S line of cameras (S110, S120) - similar price, size, and specs, but you can truly throw it in a backpack and carry it around outdoors and not worry too much about how you treat it.

Someone mentioned that people looking in this category are cheap - definitely true. I'd rather damage a $300 device and shrug it off than damage a $1000 device and actually be sad. Besides, for people who really need a good active/underwater camera, there are underwater housings.

I view it like I view my watches - I have a cheap quartz watch and a nicer watch, both are water resistant to my needs, but I'd much rather bring the cheaper watch when I go in the water - just less to risk.

aliasfox: Yes, there is movement in the "action cams" and "drone cam" markets. But those have very different form factors from a "tough cam". Action cams are designed to be worn. They are, by their very nature, passive recorders - and their shape reflects it, with semi-permanent mounts and few manual controls.
Olympus could release an action cam, but it wouldn't be a better TG-4. It would be a better GoPro.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 15:20 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

CekariYH: Great supporting RAW for this kind of cameras.
I don't have an Olympus but that might change when I feel the need to ditch my other "pocket" camera.

thx1138: "By the standards I use"

Others use different standards.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 15:05 UTC
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan: Wow, you people are curmudgeonly bunch. I think the performance is pretty amazing for a rugged underwater compact camera, particularly by the time you add in things like the wireless flash control and RAW support. No, it doesn't give D810 image quality, but you can't expect it to - it costs a small fraction of that.

It's probably the best underwater compact yet. Give Olympus some credit.

@DPR: Were the underwater shots taken using the Underwater WB setting?

"So pocketable and crap or not pocketable and excellent - tough choice."
In many "tough" scenarios, it's "pocketable or nothing".

Though some people on these forums use a Sony RX100 in a Meikon housing.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 15:03 UTC
Total: 376, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »