Bill T.

Lives in United States NM, United States
Works as a Visual effects geek.
Has a website at http://www.unit16.net
Joined on Apr 23, 2004

Comments

Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Price released for Brikk's 24k gold Nikon Df (370 comments in total)

If Brikk were to make gold plated outhouses, then what would you call those?

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2014 at 15:58 UTC as 85th comment
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta) (261 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: Looking at these admittedly beta jpegs, I see the wisdom of Nikon not allowing pre-release images to be published. My cell phone is not far behind in quality.

Those hobbiest lenses are the emperor's new clothes of otherwise good camera bodies. An old 7D with a decent lens would beat what we see in these kit lens examples.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 03:34 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta) (261 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: Looking at these admittedly beta jpegs, I see the wisdom of Nikon not allowing pre-release images to be published. My cell phone is not far behind in quality.

The problem with the images is mainly the lenses used, which undermine the virtues of the sensor and its electronics. I am pretty sure the 7D2 can do a lot better than we see here.

I think most people looking at the 7D2 are much more interested in the body than in the usual, low-end bundled lenses. To be informative about camera bodies in that quality range, testing should be done on a tripod with primes, and with very careful focusing. Let's see what the body offers in itself, unmasked by the well known deficiencies of kit and zoom lenses. Even two or three such images would be more useful than a gaggle of handheld images shot with mediocre optics.

Yes 7D2 raw files are not yet decipherable, but when possible raw files for all sample images should be available, even when raw conversion is not yet possible because eventually it will be.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2014 at 00:00 UTC
On article Canon EOS 7D Mark II: Real-world samples (beta) (261 comments in total)

Looking at these admittedly beta jpegs, I see the wisdom of Nikon not allowing pre-release images to be published. My cell phone is not far behind in quality.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 22:02 UTC as 78th comment | 6 replies
On article SanDisk unveils 512GB Extreme Pro card (162 comments in total)

This card is worth at least 10 times it's weight in gold, probably more. And Alaska is so big you could stuff 75 New Jerseys into it.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2014 at 22:31 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply

Stretching the darks more or less linearly down to a density of 2.8 will also take less dark areas down by a few notches as well. The "my prints are too dark" syndrome will haunt newby users of this system. Also, it looks like the 2.8 density is based on the use of PGPP paper, which will not make fine art print makers especially happy.

I'll start cheering when Epson introduces a clog-free printer that can easily reach a density of even 2.3 on Baryta and fine art papers.

And 25.9 ml cartridges are not "generous!" Gimme a break!

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2014 at 05:45 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply

Nine months to build? Makin' up is harder than breakin' up.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2014 at 16:24 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

wherearemyshorts: Did wikipedia get the rights from the monkey?

Does the monkey have an agent or a lawyer yet?

What's a shot like that worth in bananas?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 06:00 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@ Wye Photography, Scientific and Technical awards for motion control related technologies. Almost as obsolete as film, so now I spend my days shooting panos.

http://www.unit16.net/mocomovies.htm

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@Wye: Three Academy Awards, member of the Academy.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Film has one special quality. It looks like film, sorta. Some people are used it. But thanks to the use of digital technologies everywhere else in the production process, the thumb-sucking, ***-backwards film look is made less cloying in the final product. The so-called modern film look is largely a result of digital post processing. What a difference being able to correct contrast and processing-induced color errors has made! And you can also fix gross exposure and lighting errors made on set that nobody noticed. Even running scratches and wobbly images from a dying film gate. Film is risky! Without its digital helpers propping it up, film would be long gone.

But forget spending millions on film. Instead, spend it on a program to teach teenage projectionists/popcorn-sellers at the 48-plex how to focus the projector lens. And how to change projection bulbs before they are 1000 hours past acceptable color and illumination specs. That would be money well spent.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:50 UTC
On photo DSC_8405-ACR in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: The most lovable aspect of the D800 series is the incredibly wide dynamic range that lets you pull up shadows and tease detail out of bright highlights, like no other camera I have ever used. Harsh, glaring lighting can be made beautiful with ease. In Lightroom and ACR. This is a very, very modest example of those abilities.

What's registered on one's retina, and what the brain makes of it all, are two entirely different things.

I'm looking across my dark room towards a daytime window. The dynamic range is huge. Yet my hard working brain delivers the perception that I can simultaneously see every detail in the room and every detail outside. To represent what I perceive in a photograph, both ends of the dynamic range would have to be visible. An interpretation with detail only in an isolated window in a black room, or with a detailed room but a glaring window, would both be untrue to my perception.

IMHO the unprocessed original version of the above image file is aesthetically ugly and fails to convey the beauty and comfort of the site. OTOH the above processed image is true to the mental visual impressions of the site, and also invokes the pleasant non-visual experiences of being there.

Yes I could tweak that scene to look like a video game. But gentler interpretations are also possible.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:17 UTC
On a photo in the Nikon D810 Real-world Samples sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: The most lovable aspect of the D800 series is the incredibly wide dynamic range that lets you pull up shadows and tease detail out of bright highlights, like no other camera I have ever used. Harsh, glaring lighting can be made beautiful with ease. In Lightroom and ACR. This is a very, very modest example of those abilities.

What's registered on one's retina, and what the brain makes of it all, are two entirely different things.

I'm looking across my dark room towards a daytime window. The dynamic range is huge. Yet my hard working brain delivers the perception that I can simultaneously see every detail in the room and every detail outside. To represent what I perceive in a photograph, both ends of the dynamic range would have to be visible. An interpretation with detail only in an isolated window in a black room, or with a detailed room but a glaring window, would both be untrue to my perception.

IMHO the unprocessed original version of the above image file is aesthetically ugly and fails to convey the beauty and comfort of the site. OTOH the above processed image is true to the mental visual impressions of the site, and also invokes the pleasant non-visual experiences of being there.

Yes I could tweak that scene to look like a video game. But tamerl interpretations are also possible.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Sigh,

its a shame that nobody saved Kodak, both digital and film division. Most will never know how much we lost.

It's a shame Kodak didn't save Kodak.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 02:16 UTC
In reply to:

jkokich: I love film. I love Kodak. Anyone who says film can be the same cost as digital is simply wrong. You have to buy film, which cannot be reused. You have to process film. You cannot watch film that you have just shot; it has to be processed. Sure, you can watch a video backup, but then why use film in the first place?

The record for film elements surviving in good condition is not impressive. The same level of archival care that has allowed certain iconic films to survive in acceptable condition would also have favored the survival of current digital media storage hardware. And since the physical size of the digital media is comparatively smaller, it would be more affordable to convserve and therefore more likely to be conserved. As digital hardware storage technology evolves I am pretty confident that we will soon see devices that can retain date more or less indefinitely without the expensive conservation vaults that discourage film conservation.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 02:09 UTC
On photo DSC_8405-ACR in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: The most lovable aspect of the D800 series is the incredibly wide dynamic range that lets you pull up shadows and tease detail out of bright highlights, like no other camera I have ever used. Harsh, glaring lighting can be made beautiful with ease. In Lightroom and ACR. This is a very, very modest example of those abilities.

Yes, dynamic range decreases at higher ISOs. Photographers for whom dynamic range is important are usually interested in image quality, and will prefer lower ISOs for image quality benefits in addition to dynamic range.

I disagree that "darker shadows" are somehow better. Rich detail in shadow areas creates a sense of luminosity in the scene that simply puts images with blank, harsh shadows to shame. And open shadows better model how the human visual system perceives a scene. Many people have come to accept harsh tonality as an a previously unavoidable consequence of digital photography, but far more attractive images are available by exploiting a wide dynamic range in cameras that offer it.

I can't tell you exactly how many other cameras produce files that can be similarly tweaked. But don't count my old 5D2 or my associate's 5D3 in that group, or any other digital camera I have ever owned or used.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 07:17 UTC
On a photo in the Nikon D810 Real-world Samples sample gallery (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bill T.: The most lovable aspect of the D800 series is the incredibly wide dynamic range that lets you pull up shadows and tease detail out of bright highlights, like no other camera I have ever used. Harsh, glaring lighting can be made beautiful with ease. In Lightroom and ACR. This is a very, very modest example of those abilities.

Yes, dynamic range decreases at higher ISOs. Photographers for whom dynamic range is important are usually interested in image quality, and will prefer lower ISOs for image quality benefits in addition to dynamic range.

I disagree that "darker shadows" are somehow better. Rich detail in shadow areas creates a sense of luminosity in the scene that simply puts images with blank, harsh shadows to shame. And open shadows better model how the human visual system perceives a scene. Many people have come to accept harsh tonality as an a previously unavoidable consequence of digital photography, but far more attractive images are available by exploiting a wide dynamic range in cameras that offer it.

I can't tell you exactly how many other cameras produce files that can be similarly tweaked. But don't count my old 5D2 or my associate's 5D3 in that group, or any other digital camera I have ever owned or used.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: This move should be heartily applauded.

Recently Hasselblad has done nothing but bad marketing, so a cutting-edge digital back for a legacy system that will last for another few decades is a genuinely useful and interesting product.

At the very least, it isn’t a cynical rebranding exercise. The V System is the Hasselblad that photographers still care about, as seen by stubbornly high prices on eBay despite the great surplus of ex-studio equipment floating around. There’s no reason this back won’t sell modestly but successfully at eleven grand. I’d be seriously tempted by it if I had a V System, a couple of choice Zeiss lenses, and about eleven grand.

Soon enough all commercial imagery will be computer generated. We're almost there. In case nobody has noticed, that tends to diminish the value of commercial photography, and makes photography an increasingly poor profession. Bad enough when laundry detergent manufacturers do it, but you gotta wonder when dear old Hassy does it! Oh well, there will always be weddings and pet portraits...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 03:41 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: This move should be heartily applauded.

Recently Hasselblad has done nothing but bad marketing, so a cutting-edge digital back for a legacy system that will last for another few decades is a genuinely useful and interesting product.

At the very least, it isn’t a cynical rebranding exercise. The V System is the Hasselblad that photographers still care about, as seen by stubbornly high prices on eBay despite the great surplus of ex-studio equipment floating around. There’s no reason this back won’t sell modestly but successfully at eleven grand. I’d be seriously tempted by it if I had a V System, a couple of choice Zeiss lenses, and about eleven grand.

Has anybody else noticed the irony here?

Old fashioned photography is so passe! Why bother with setting up lights, platforms, cycs, reflectors and who know what, when you can so easily create your image in Maya, directly from engineering drawings. Gotta admit, some pretty nice highlight stars there.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2014 at 21:08 UTC
On photo DSC_8405-ACR in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)

The most lovable aspect of the D800 series is the incredibly wide dynamic range that lets you pull up shadows and tease detail out of bright highlights, like no other camera I have ever used. Harsh, glaring lighting can be made beautiful with ease. In Lightroom and ACR. This is a very, very modest example of those abilities.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 23:37 UTC as 2nd comment | 5 replies
Total: 63, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »