Mike Davis

Lives in United States Dallas, TX, United States
Has a website at http://www.accessz.com
Joined on Jun 12, 2002

Comments

Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With this device I can turn my Sony a6000 into an iPhone camera with a good sensor and interchangeable lenses, but... There goes the challenge AND fun of making creative and technical decisions myself. In other words, I will no longer be a photographer.

You're right - a chimpanzee can't be a neurosurgeon, but he can certainly take pictures with an Arsenal-equipped DSLR.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 11:32 UTC
On article Google will no longer develop Nik Collection (389 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: Google has no interest in the Desktop. That's why they killed PIcasa, too. And why they made a whole operating system for cloud only. They want all your data on their servers where it can be mined and used for either advertising or to develop additional technologies.

So astute!

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 09:20 UTC
On article Google will no longer develop Nik Collection (389 comments in total)
In reply to:

Miike Dougherty: Does anyone know of a substitute plugin for Vivesa 2?

Unfortunately, no. I LOVE Viveza.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 09:17 UTC
On article The DJI Spark is a $500 HD mini drone (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: Interesting specs:

"Despite its small footprint, Spark can fly up to 50 kph, offers a 100 m range (when controlled by a smart device) and has a 16 min flight time."

At 50 kph, it would fly beyond its 100 m WiFi range in 7.2 seconds, but will likely consume a good portion of its maximum range, just accelerating to its maximum speed from a hover.

Update: If you started from a hover at the edge of its 100 m range, you could fly it across your position to a point on the opposite side of a 200 m circle. Now I'm thinking it might actually be capable of 50 kph, in that scenario.

Thanks for the info, guys.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 09:15 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With this device I can turn my Sony a6000 into an iPhone camera with a good sensor and interchangeable lenses, but... There goes the challenge AND fun of making creative and technical decisions myself. In other words, I will no longer be a photographer.

Given the comments found on the "Most popular (15)" tab, your use of the phrase "you all" is appropriate.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
On article The DJI Spark is a $500 HD mini drone (96 comments in total)

Interesting specs:

"Despite its small footprint, Spark can fly up to 50 kph, offers a 100 m range (when controlled by a smart device) and has a 16 min flight time."

At 50 kph, it would fly beyond its 100 m WiFi range in 7.2 seconds, but will likely consume a good portion of its maximum range, just accelerating to its maximum speed from a hover.

Update: If you started from a hover at the edge of its 100 m range, you could fly it across your position to a point on the opposite side of a 200 m circle. Now I'm thinking it might actually be capable of 50 kph, in that scenario.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 13:58 UTC as 2nd comment | 4 replies

With this device I can turn my Sony a6000 into an iPhone camera with a good sensor and interchangeable lenses, but... There goes the challenge AND fun of making creative and technical decisions myself. In other words, I will no longer be a photographer.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 13:35 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Peter von Reichenberg: GFX 50 + Zeiss Otus trio? Killing set.

And besides, a passerby who sees you shooting with an MF body will be much more impressed than with a FF DSLR. Who cares what lens is mounted as long as it's big? Swag wins the day.
/sarc/

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
On article A Taste of New York is a stunning Big Apple time-lapse (89 comments in total)

This is immensely entertaining. The sound effects are superb! Anyone who has only heard it with their craptop speakers should have another go with at least a cheap pair of headphones.

Link | Posted on May 21, 2017 at 10:11 UTC as 11th comment
On photo August Bronze in the Tilt Shift challenge (1 comment in total)

Hi PanoMax,

There's no accounting for my poor taste (relative to the rest of the world), but I find your "traditional" use of Tilt/Shift to be wonderfully refreshing among the 19 out of 20 submissions for this challenge that pursued the trendy but oh so gimmicky "miniature effect."

Considering that 14 submissions bested your image in garnering votes, I am no doubt aligned with a minority in considering your image to be the very best of this competition.

Thanks for reminding everyone that movements are good for more than the tiresome "miniature effect" - and doing it with an 8x10 view camera, no less.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 01:43 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: I'm terrified to think about how much the lenses will cost that can sharply resolve 150MP across their full aperture range. Pretty awesome nonetheless, though.

@mosc Excellent - your hunch matches my math, exactly.

100 MP (11545x8659 pixels) from a 44x33mm sensor gives us a pixel density of 262.4 pixels/mm, which translates to a maximum f-Number of f/8.0 to prevent diffraction from inhibiting a desired print resolution of 5 lp/mm at the enlargement factor had when resizing the image to 360 ppi without cropping or resampling. (Reduce your desired print resolution by a factor of two, to 2.5 lp/mm. and you can shoot at f/16.)

150 MP (14140x10605 pixels) from a 55x41mm sensor gives us a pixel density of 257.7 pixels/mm, which translates to a maximum f-Number of f/8.1 to prevent diffraction from inhibiting a desired print resolution of 5 lp/mm at the enlargement factor had when resizing the image to 360 ppi without cropping or resampling. (Reduce your desired print resolution by a factor of two, to 2.5 lp/mm. and you can shoot at f/16.2.)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With equivalent Pixel Count, Print Size, and Viewing Distance...

... and looking only at the impact on DoF and Diffraction...

Small Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as larger sensors, but with the faster shutter speeds had with smaller f-Numbers.

Large Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as smaller sensors, but with the slower shutter speeds had with larger f-Numbers.

It's the higher enlargement factor required by a small sensor which has the same pixel count as a larger sensor, that forces use of smaller f-Numbers to secure smaller Airy disks at the sensor before magnification, to produce like-sized prints with like-sized Airy disks and like-sized CoCs after enlargement.

Thus, small sensors don't have a DoF advantage or a diffraction disadvantage - they only have a shutterspeed advantage.

www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/exposure-times-for-4x5.137760/#post-1901328

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With equivalent Pixel Count, Print Size, and Viewing Distance...

... and looking only at the impact on DoF and Diffraction...

Small Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as larger sensors, but with the faster shutter speeds had with smaller f-Numbers.

Large Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as smaller sensors, but with the slower shutter speeds had with larger f-Numbers.

It's the higher enlargement factor required by a small sensor which has the same pixel count as a larger sensor, that forces use of smaller f-Numbers to secure smaller Airy disks at the sensor before magnification, to produce like-sized prints with like-sized Airy disks and like-sized CoCs after enlargement.

Thus, small sensors don't have a DoF advantage or a diffraction disadvantage - they only have a shutterspeed advantage.

No thanks. I've tangled with you plenty of times in the past. Anybody with any measure of experience knows that large format cameras suffer longer exposures to achieve equivalent DoF in like-sized prints. Small formats have a speed advantage. Get over it.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With equivalent Pixel Count, Print Size, and Viewing Distance...

... and looking only at the impact on DoF and Diffraction...

Small Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as larger sensors, but with the faster shutter speeds had with smaller f-Numbers.

Large Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as smaller sensors, but with the slower shutter speeds had with larger f-Numbers.

It's the higher enlargement factor required by a small sensor which has the same pixel count as a larger sensor, that forces use of smaller f-Numbers to secure smaller Airy disks at the sensor before magnification, to produce like-sized prints with like-sized Airy disks and like-sized CoCs after enlargement.

Thus, small sensors don't have a DoF advantage or a diffraction disadvantage - they only have a shutterspeed advantage.

Wrong.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 00:59 UTC

With equivalent Pixel Count, Print Size, and Viewing Distance...

... and looking only at the impact on DoF and Diffraction...

Small Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as larger sensors, but with the faster shutter speeds had with smaller f-Numbers.

Large Sensors can give us the same DoF and diffraction as smaller sensors, but with the slower shutter speeds had with larger f-Numbers.

It's the higher enlargement factor required by a small sensor which has the same pixel count as a larger sensor, that forces use of smaller f-Numbers to secure smaller Airy disks at the sensor before magnification, to produce like-sized prints with like-sized Airy disks and like-sized CoCs after enlargement.

Thus, small sensors don't have a DoF advantage or a diffraction disadvantage - they only have a shutterspeed advantage.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 22:53 UTC as 276th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With the older Sky HDR, 2 exposures are made, roughly 3 seconds apart and thus, any subject motion that occurs within the user-specified overlap zone can make the final blend useless. Both the camera and everything in the scene must remain motionless for both exposures - at least within the overlapped portions of the frame. Adding a third exposure with this new app increases the risk of motion-related failure.

Another issue with Sky HDR that would only be made worse with this new app, is the time required, looking through the viewfinder.

In bright sunlight, the LCD display is inadequate for such editing and even a WiFi-associated iPad would be cumbersome and compromised in bright sunlight, so you're pretty much confined to looking through the EVF while adjusting the settings. THAT gets old, very quickly, if the camera isn't conveniently positioned at eye level and aimed more or less level with the horizon or downward.

In other words, Sky HDR and this newer 3-exposure version, would be much easier to use if Sony or some other manufacturer offered a variable-angle viewing attachment for the a6000. (Perhaps something is already available for the other Sony cameras supported by these apps.) Seriously, just try using Sky HDR in bright sunlight, with the camera shooting from an up-angled position any lower than chest height. You'll have to contort yourself into positions you didn't think possible, for several minutes at a time.

All that said, the results can be amazing - especially if you make the poorly labeled "defocus range" really thick, so that the transition between the two exposures is all the more undetectable - which, however, only increases vulnerability to subject motion between the two exposures.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:18 UTC

With the older Sky HDR, 2 exposures are made, roughly 3 seconds apart and thus, any subject motion that occurs within the user-specified overlap zone can make the final blend useless. Both the camera and everything in the scene must remain motionless for both exposures - at least within the overlapped portions of the frame. Adding a third exposure with this new app increases the risk of motion-related failure.

Another issue with Sky HDR that would only be made worse with this new app, is the time required, looking through the viewfinder.

In bright sunlight, the LCD display is inadequate for such editing and even a WiFi-associated iPad would be cumbersome and compromised in bright sunlight, so you're pretty much confined to looking through the EVF while adjusting the settings. THAT gets old, very quickly, if the camera isn't conveniently positioned at eye level and aimed more or less level with the horizon or downward.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:18 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I'll believe this when Google provides a web page where I can upload an arbitrary 8*8 pixel photo reduction, and get something back that vaguely resembles my original photo. Until then, it's unproven snake oil.

Brian

@Biowizard Yes, and can they do it without reliance on higher resolution versions of the images already known to Google - the first step of their two-step approach?

Send them a photo of a coin held between someone's thumb and forefinger, rendered at a resolution similar to the samples shown above, then see if Google can recover the coin's year of issue.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 18:08 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With 8256x6192 pixels on a 43.8x32.9mm sensor, I've calculated a pixel density of 188.4 pixels/mm, which falls below my long-held opinion that, ideally, sensors should never exceed a maximum of 200 pixels/mm, lest the cameras suffer an inadequate range of f-Numbers at which diffraction will support true subject detail resolution of 5 lp/mm (in a non-resampled, uncropped, 360 dpi final print from a CMOS sensor, where the RGBG Bayer algorithm and AA filter will reduce a pixel count-implied resolution by 30%), to support a viewing distance as close as 25cm (9.84 inches).

Thanks for stating that, explicitly. It makes misinterpretation less likely.

And thus, you're saying the same thing I said with this equation:

f -Number = 1 / desired print resolution in lp/mm / anticipated enlargement factor / 0.00135383

Rearranged:

Print resolution in lp/mm = 738.645 / (f-Number * anticipated enlargement factor)

Note the absence of any variable for pixel count or pixel density.

We really are in agreement. It only looks as if we aren't when qualifications are omitted or ignored as we try to use the English language to convey scenarios.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 07:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: With 8256x6192 pixels on a 43.8x32.9mm sensor, I've calculated a pixel density of 188.4 pixels/mm, which falls below my long-held opinion that, ideally, sensors should never exceed a maximum of 200 pixels/mm, lest the cameras suffer an inadequate range of f-Numbers at which diffraction will support true subject detail resolution of 5 lp/mm (in a non-resampled, uncropped, 360 dpi final print from a CMOS sensor, where the RGBG Bayer algorithm and AA filter will reduce a pixel count-implied resolution by 30%), to support a viewing distance as close as 25cm (9.84 inches).

But what display size and what viewing distance?

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 03:08 UTC
Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »