Joined on Jul 18, 2013


Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Nikon ES-2 film adapter sample gallery (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

Androole: Seems like a fine and dandy tool for quick digitizing. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it obviously doesn't have any digital ICE capability to remove dust and hair, as dedicated film scanners do.

These images would also probably look a lot better downsampled to 1/2 their present dimensions. 35mm film definitely doesn't have anywhere near 24MP of resolution (certainly not anything that is ISO 400). 6MP pictures, by contrast, would look nice and decently crispy, and the images wouldn't be pretending to be more than they are.

Poor quality film coupled with mediocre lenses and scanned via camera doesn't have 12mp of resolution. But high end camera gear and lenses and good quality 35mm film has much more than 12mp or 24mp. It competes with the best mid-range consumer digital can offer due to that it has no color interpolation and no digital artifacts.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2020 at 02:54 UTC
In reply to:

Laqup: One really has to wonder what device you people review those images on to get to such positive conclusions.

To my eyes the pictures actually look like complete garbage when viewed on a larger screen with a proper resolution. Especially the portraits and night shots (tripod use!). Missing fine detail and "oil painting look" is very apparent (characteristic for smartphones).
In most portraits the fake bokeh errors are so obvious that it nearly physically hurts. Some examples:
Picture 4: Left side of her head / space in between the persons The "bokeh rollof" in general is super bad.
Picture 6: The hand on the right side / the thrown leaves on the left / The leaves in the tree, etc..
Picture 9: The light trails look like text marker / all structures = oil paintings, proper color / luminance transition is missing
Picture 14: The glass of water / transition from forehead to upper head, ...

I like some of the nature and city shots though. Good job! (Pixel 3a owner here btw, not a hater)

Meh. People who use this are doing so in place of point-and-shoot cameras they would have used in 2005. You want to see some real garbage shots, check those out. Terrible white balance, grainy, noisy mess. Of course, a person with a DSLR will wipe the floor with these google phones, but you're missing the point. None of these images will be or are meant to be printed. They will be viewed on a phone a few times in Instagram and then sit on a memory card somewhere for the rest of their lives. These camera phones are replacing those old cheap throwaway film cameras non-enthusiast people used to use. That's how I see this market.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Muddy details, washed out colors, noise, highlight posterization. These barely look better than photos from my Canon SD4000 IS / IXUS 300 HS which is almost 10 years old camera. I admit that it is a bit unfair because I use CHDK firmware to get RAW photos and process them myself. Also it is not fast enough for RAW image stacking when there is motion. Can do only about one RAW photo per second. It can do HDR, "night sight" whatever, if low motion with CHDK.

Think about the level of quality they're getting out of a tiny sensor and lens though? You're comparing a six-cylinder engine to a two-cylinder engine. It's impressive what computational processes can do. I think in 5 years time, the photos will be better than most inexpensive hobbyist 35mm film cameras with cheap off brand drugstore film and processing were back in the day, about 20-25 megapixels of true 16-bit color and no blown highlights or ugly digital noise. I agree the images aren't top notch and they have a ways to go, but it's impressive to see the gains.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2019 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

FHDev: No digital ICE? No thank you.


Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2019 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

arjunmehta: Hey, if Nikon can charge $140 for their ES-2 "digitizing adapter", which is mass produced and made of plastic, this is actually not a terrible deal. Low batch fabrication is costly, and so I understand the asking price. Seems like they care about not scratching the emulsion, which is really easy to do with similar options out there.

Scanning film is really difficult and time consuming, and the fact that this saves (potentially a lot of) time makes it valuable to some people who shoot a lot of film. The fact that it can take an uncut roll instead of cut film, means that you save on the cost/time of cutting film, and loading those cuts to scan.

This, combined with Negative Lab Pro, a good macro lens and your digital camera would make a really great combo, albeit $600+ all in.

People don't realize how time consuming DIY high quality film scanning can be, and right now using your hi-res digital camera is one of the fastest ways and it yields really good results.

It's not the easy. A film scanner with silverfast particularly, does a lot of work to fix the image. With these devices, you have to do everything. Color profile? No. Faded color restore? No. Sharpening? No. Dust and scratches? No. Kodachrome IT8 target? No. IR channel? No. Grain reduction? No. Once you factor in all the extra steps hours and hours of monkeying around with each image in some editor, the time factor is thrown the other direction to the slide film scanners.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2019 at 21:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm Japan to increase color film prices by 30% (175 comments in total)
In reply to:

LostArk: Good, as long as the headline isn't "Fujifilm Japan to discontinue" I'm fine with it.

I'd say in the next 2 to 3 years, Fuji will halt film sales. I don't see film surviving another decade or heavy DSLRs for that matter. That's not what I want happen, but it's economic reality. If products don't do good sales, make much profit, you cease production. Fuji is not a charity. Camera phones are already good enough for 99% of people, even used for wedding photos. DSLRs, with their heavy lenses and manual controls will become extinct one day. They will become the typewriters & 80s carry around boomboxes of the camera world. Most photos are now viewed on social media and for that DSLRs are a complete total waste. Fewer and Fewer photographers are printing anything, and 99.999% photos won't be viewed on anything larger than a 6" LCD screen.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2019 at 18:49 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50R Review (1742 comments in total)

On a crappy run of the mill monitor I see no difference. Nothing. On a good 4k monitor, I see a difference. The Fuji is sharper, not a huge amount, but it's there. Also less ugly noise. Overall, I'd say the Nikon is giving you 87% for sure, 90% possibly of the performance at a lower cost. What we see here is the law of diminishing returns kicking in.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2019 at 19:56 UTC as 239th comment
In reply to:

marc petzold: "Look mum, i've got a 32 MP <insert your cr@ppy sensor size here> sensor for selfies!"

Joke aside - who in hell is falling for that kind of stuff? Only teens, kiddies and people without hardware knowledge, letting themselves being fooled, blinded by that marketing speech from ZTE. Seriously, even if they'd have 50 MP, at these ridiculous, tiny sensor sizes - it's more than a joke, for real. The Pixel pitch is that laughable, for real.

I'd choose a 6 MP APS-C Sensor anytime over a 32 MP 1/2.4" or whatever little size that little die is. ;-) Get serious, ZTE! Nowadays, even Groundschool Kids knew, that this is pretty much useless, and only some sort of cold air, means a nonsense ad campaign.

Smartphone firms - which brand would do a 24-70 optical zoom without quality loss onto at least a 1/1.7" sensor, and 10-12 MP? That would being use-able. At least, something like the EX1 into a Smartphone.

Stop adding always more MP onto these cr@ppy, awful small sensors! No one needs that..

They're improving from a few years ago. The image quality is getting better, and with computational image processing, it may be able to squeeze more quality from those 32 megapixels. I think the high res would mainly be useful for avoiding aliasing, not producing a lot more detail. Manufacturing better glass lenses will help more with quality than a higher mp sensor, but both are useful. I think in 5 years time, the quality of camera phone images will have improved significantly from today based mostly on 1) better lenses 2) computational processing, which is still in its infant phase.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2019 at 21:07 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: If anyone can show/prove the percentage of people shooting digital vs film today, I think that would answer the question why they will be going out of buisness. How much would it cost to process 100 8"x10 pictures in film vs digital pictures? Also, how much time and effort would it take to get those pictures?
Shooting film is almost like shooting DSLR's vs MICL cameras, DSLR's are a thing of the past. Get with the times or live in the past, your call.

How are you scanning the slides? If they are kodachromes, there's a lot more quality in them that a home scanner would lead you to believe.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2019 at 07:25 UTC
In reply to:

sunilkumar: I like digital and shoot extensively digital, one thing i like to click on film is my family pictures.
The archival quality of film is unmatched, i have all pics of my parents got married,my childhood, school etc. it is not easy to keep digital images for that long and if i go with percentage wise i dont even have 5% of digital images(of occasions).

All hard disks will fail. Optical media will suffer from bit rot. It already is, after having been burned and sitting on a shelf. There are few options that can match the durability of film. The way I see it, with digital copy, you lose everything when you lose it. It is binary. With film, it slowly fades away due to the aging process. Still if I had important photos, I would want them on film. Digital is great iff you have someone to maintain that archive, to transfer that archive to the latest format, and to continue copying from one hard drive or media to newer. Film can be left on a dusty shelf for 50 years with no attention. That is untrue with any digital today. The archival optical disk might qualify iff you can find drives to read the disks in 50 years, which I doubt. A 50 year old file format will not be able to be read, like reading punchcards today. But most people's work isn't important. Family photos, after the person dies, cease to have meaning to anyone but the deceased.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2019 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): $5 for a frame of 35mm. Maybe I should go into the business of scanning film. That's just crazy.

It depends on the scanner used. If it's a professional film scanner, then $5 is high. If it's a drum scan, then $5 is too low.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 03:02 UTC
In reply to:

kobakokh: with this specs price will be under 1000 USD, maybe... Because of Nikon D610 is way way way better camera and cost 1000... Here is just sensor and lens, nothing others...

I'm guessing 10k probably a lot more.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2018 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: How much will this be?

Guesses anyone?

About as much as a loaded Hasselblad or Phase1 camera I'm guessing. It has its own in house sensor, which has got to be hideously expensive.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2018 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

OrgilFoto: Yep need to remind the others, this technology we should have it. Of course I'm not gonna buy this camera it will cost what? Maybe 5000$ Hopefully others listen and make feature like this in their camera

5k? hehe. That would be on the extreme low end. I say $8000-$12000 min. More likely $20k or more like phase1 or Hasselblad territory. They created a sensor in house from scratch. That HAS to be expensive.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2018 at 00:10 UTC
On article Sigma to take Foveon full frame and adopt L mount (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lotari: If you take the pixel size of the 25MP APS-H SDQ H and apply that to full frame dimensions, that'd make for a 46.7mp sensor.
46.7 megapixels of Foveon goodness.

The pixels will be bigger with less noise. You don't need such a high pixel density.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2018 at 03:17 UTC
On article Sigma to take Foveon full frame and adopt L mount (428 comments in total)
In reply to:

JPHY: Fantastic !! I already use a Merrill DP2. Only with a tripod and only at 100 iso. I don't mind speed. I don mind battery life (I have 4 of them) EVEN IF IT IS A NICHE CAMERA, I WILL BUY IT. FOVEON will alway be better than Bayer. Hope it will be a 50 Mp for EACH layer (Not quatro). And, I will continue to use a tripod and 100 iso sensibility (Even 64 or 35 iso if any) ... I don't mind High isos. I never use them (Long exposition with a tripod). I EVEN HOPE that sigma will do it WITHOUT an EVF model (For cheaper price) and just an fixed good screen (NOT touch) model ... Dramatic news !!!

It will not be a 1:1:1. CEO already covered why. The 1:1:1 design has too many wires in the layers which adds problems. The 4:1:1 alleviates this problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2018 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

franzfifty: ...and then Google comes along, makes a Pixel, adds this new sensor and the entire world is blown away. Of course now everyone thinks it's stupid. But everyone is not Google....

Google iq is housed in the intelligent software of its systems.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2018 at 20:58 UTC
In reply to:

cjgent: Sony needs to work with Foveon to help them make a 20MP (which would come out to 60MP equaivilant) full frame sensor and forget about bayer designs.

Not. gunna. happen. Foveon sensors are very data processor intensive and battery hungry. Whereas a bayer sensor interpolates (makes up) a large portion of data from neighbor pixels, the stacked sensor does not. Each pixel has three (3) levels with each level capturing a varying portion of red/green/blue. It then consolidates this overlapping data from the three layers and saves it for processing at a later time/date on a home personal computer (more powerful the better). The stacked design also makes for a noisy sensor that performs poorly in low light thus smaller pixels on the smartphone are ill advised. Foveon and small pixels are a no-no. :( This is a sensor that ideally needs a large external battery pack of some sort or another, and also an attached laptop for processing said images. Reminds of the days of yore with vhs "luggable" camera systems.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2018 at 20:56 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jesse_Just_Him: I hope there are engineers who works on mobile sensors, optics, packaging would make a 3D mock up of an 1 inch mobile phone sensor module (with optics) and we will see whether future mobile phone can accommodate the 1 inch sensor while maintaining slim profile unlike the CM-1

Btw, my gf's RX100 beats the crap out of my S8+ in terms of resolution, DR, ISO, etc any day~~~ so i think the bigger, the better

It might not beat the google pixel or next version google pixel phone. I can see smart AI phone lenses and software producing better photos than a wedding photographer with dslrs in the not too far off future (next 10 years). It will have all the intelligence built in of what makes excellent photos. Smart AI will replace photographers entirely one day. It sounds strange but I think it will. What we are using now are merely toys.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2018 at 03:16 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sigma SD1 (239 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: Foveon sure sounded good - never went anywhere, and - really - who needs it?

Wrong. I've used both. I've never got a Bayer sensor to reproduce what the Quattro's do. Yeah, maybe it looks the same on a crappy $300 monitor with your failing eyesight, but not on a high end monitor, and not in print. If you don't know what you're talking about--just repeating worn talking points--best keep your opinions to yourself. Thx.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 15:49 UTC
Total: 24, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »