Joesiv

Lives in Canada Cloverdale, BC, Canada, Canada
Works as a Software Quality
Has a website at www.joesiv.com
Joined on Aug 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CreeDo: Just out of curiosity, is VR video usually done with such an insanely wide field of view? If the goal is to provide a reality simulation, wouldn't it make more sense to use something closer to a normal human field of view?

I donno guys, for VR, you need to have the cameras side by side, unless you are taking multiple frames for each perspective, with the orientation of the cameras moved, or are doing single perspective (no 3d) shooting.

If you don't move the cameras, but use the extra wide field of view, consider it's like you keeping your head still, but having your eyes move beyond 90 degrees to the left/right, if you could see through your head, the perspective isn't normal at all.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 16:14 UTC
In reply to:

CreeDo: Just out of curiosity, is VR video usually done with such an insanely wide field of view? If the goal is to provide a reality simulation, wouldn't it make more sense to use something closer to a normal human field of view?

I think that's a good question!

Becuase a fisheye takes a photo from a single point, so for making a spherical photo that you can look around in using a VR headset, sure this would be great. But since the photo is from one "eye", it would be 2D.

To make a 3D image, you need a photo from two points in space, which is why we have two eyes. 3D rigs usually have two cameras to do these stereoscopic photos.

But here is the key to the question, would having two camera with two of these lens', provide a reasonable 3d experience. And I would think that the answer is no, because in image review, as you stray from looking at the center of the image, the orientation of the spacing between the "eyes" change! So if you look 90 degrees left, there will be no standard left/right gap between the images, they would effectively be in front of another.

Strange..

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2016 at 17:09 UTC
In reply to:

CreeDo: Would it not make more sense to do all these modifications to a full frame camera?

I know that long exposure noise will happen with those too, but you're still starting out with much less noise, especially if you can access ISO 50. And most astophotography is done with wide angle lenses, which are significantly less wide on the crop body.

I wouldn't say "most" astrophotography is done with wide angle lens', it's just that to do anything exciting with astrophotography you either need a wide angle, OR a telescope with tracking, which most photographers don't have. However, the astrophotographers (not terrestrial photographers that you're likely thinking of) have those tracking mounts and telescopes that accept cameras, and for them, the greater the magnification (more pixels on their subject) the better.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2016 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

spidercrown: sensor's dynamic range may no longer matter in the near future.

That's his point, once you can do it "realtime", or at shot time with no motion artifacts, then the sensor it's self and it's dynamic range is no longer as important.

Doing it in post is much different, especially for moving subjects.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joesiv: I think it's a bit odd to not reference that pixel shift ISO's are actually 4x's less sensitive.

In the review, the "ISO100" pixel shift results are fantastic, but I didn't see it mentioned that it takes 4x's more exposure time to create them, meaning 2 stops less sensitive. Perhaps an addendum or note about that? Or perhaps make compensate in the widget with a footnote on pixel shift results.

Interestingly, if you take the 2 stop advantage away from the pixelshift results, all of a sudden comparing to it's competitors makes sense. Of course you still get the benefit of a sharper and more color purity, but the noise advantage is gone, which makes sense given the actual exposure time.

To me, it's just the exposure time, which indicates sensitivity, based on the same output brightness.

In this case, it takes 4x's the exposure time to make the final output, so the sensitivity it lower.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 17:59 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)

I think it's a bit odd to not reference that pixel shift ISO's are actually 4x's less sensitive.

In the review, the "ISO100" pixel shift results are fantastic, but I didn't see it mentioned that it takes 4x's more exposure time to create them, meaning 2 stops less sensitive. Perhaps an addendum or note about that? Or perhaps make compensate in the widget with a footnote on pixel shift results.

Interestingly, if you take the 2 stop advantage away from the pixelshift results, all of a sudden comparing to it's competitors makes sense. Of course you still get the benefit of a sharper and more color purity, but the noise advantage is gone, which makes sense given the actual exposure time.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:50 UTC as 290th comment | 4 replies
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: People still look at these results like young boys going 'wow! An F1 car reaches 340 km/h', as if everything came down to top speed (or high ISO for all that matters).
Besides, I see no reason to use 1/1000 at a concert. 1/125 would be enough to freeze any motion with the camera handheld, especially if the photographer insists in using a wide-angle lens (in which case he could even safely use 1/60). That would make the noise much less intrusive. As it is, this is a mere exercise in the camera's capabilities. Which is great, of course, but in the real world, with the camera in the hands of a professional, things would be quite different.
Feel free to be impressed with these high noise images anyway.

I agree with you, I wasn't specifically talking about base ISO, which indeed can have more DR on some sensors, almost like a trade off for less high ISO.

However, I'm talking more about above base ISO.

If nikon produces a camera that has horrid noise at it's top ISO of 3200, then produces a camera B that has the same horrid noise but at ISO 12,800, chances are, camera b is going to look a lot better at ISO 3200 compared to camera a.

So all this talk about the Nikon D5 having high iso capabilities, which are still noisy, but totally useless because noone needs those high ISO's anyways, is a bit nonesense. Because even if you don't need those extremely high ISO's, you can still reap some benefits.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 22:24 UTC
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: People still look at these results like young boys going 'wow! An F1 car reaches 340 km/h', as if everything came down to top speed (or high ISO for all that matters).
Besides, I see no reason to use 1/1000 at a concert. 1/125 would be enough to freeze any motion with the camera handheld, especially if the photographer insists in using a wide-angle lens (in which case he could even safely use 1/60). That would make the noise much less intrusive. As it is, this is a mere exercise in the camera's capabilities. Which is great, of course, but in the real world, with the camera in the hands of a professional, things would be quite different.
Feel free to be impressed with these high noise images anyway.

well the higher the ISO you can go and get respectible results, the better the lower ISO's will look.

So if you can get 1/1000th of a second @ISO 50,000

You can always go down to 1/250th @ ISO 12,800 which will be obviously cleaner.

It's better to do ISO 12,800 on a camera than can do ISO 50,000 reasonably well, than a camera that can't or barely do ISO 12,800 reasonably well.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 16:35 UTC
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: People still look at these results like young boys going 'wow! An F1 car reaches 340 km/h', as if everything came down to top speed (or high ISO for all that matters).
Besides, I see no reason to use 1/1000 at a concert. 1/125 would be enough to freeze any motion with the camera handheld, especially if the photographer insists in using a wide-angle lens (in which case he could even safely use 1/60). That would make the noise much less intrusive. As it is, this is a mere exercise in the camera's capabilities. Which is great, of course, but in the real world, with the camera in the hands of a professional, things would be quite different.
Feel free to be impressed with these high noise images anyway.

ManuelVilardeMacedo, freezing cars is one part of the picture, what does the road and non moving subject matter look like?

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: I don't think that any 16GB or 32GB card can really support 8K :). I mean, 30sec on 16GB, 60sec on 32GB ... ? Pointless.
Maybe they should start producing 2TB cards first and then worry about speed.

It's a future spec, are there any V90 cards out there now? Of course you can already buy 128GB and 256GB cards at slower ratings. As the future plays out, larger cards will come, which is why the "spec" for SDXC supports up to 2TB, but no cards are available. You can't release a card unless it's in the spec, so shoot for the moon with the specs, and maybe we'll get some manufacturer to make one.

Though 16GB and 32GB cards are perfect for other duties, such as photographers that don't shoot RAW.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

Lassoni: I love this preparation for 8k. It means they're taking things seriously over SD shop, not wanting to be overthrown by some other card format. Means we get to stay small with SD cards, and not need anything else. Very good news to consumers since many manufacturers produce SD.

Unfortunatly, even 90MB/s isn't a high data rate for 8K, perhaps for highly compressed 8K, but for the consumer space I guess that's just fine. SD cards don't seem to have a future in the professional market where they will want lossless (or near lossless) 10+ bits, or RAW capture.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Marek Rucinski: Apple figured out the solution to such "problems" long ago...

Yeah, why include an SD card slot on a tablet or phone! Just confusion anyways!

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

Joesiv: I just hope that this doesn't make sigma and tamron lazy, and not keep working on out of the box performance, and instead rely on this dock as a crutch. I don't want to have to micro adjust AF for multiple different distances and focal lengths just because I can. If the focus adjustment needs that much tweaking from factory, there is a problem.

While I love the ability to tweak... it's a bit scary.

Obviously they'll adjust it in factory. But given the customer can tweak to their hearts content, they could easily get lazy, and instead of going back to the design to reduce tolerances, just rely on the customer to buy an expensive dock, and spend hours tweaking a zoom with all the focusing permutations.

I wouldn't worry if third party lens' had a stellar reputation for AF performance compared to the first party ones.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

noflashplease: I thought that M43 lenses were supposed to be small and cheap? What's the problem here? Leica licensing fees? For less money, you can buy either a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm, both of would offer a longer equivalent field of view on APS-C bodies. For only about $100 more, you could have a Nikon 200-500mm AND a 1.4x teleconverter?

"small", "cheap", "good" pick 2

maybe that doesn't work lol..

But really, mFT isn't about all lens' being small, it's about the ability to have small lens', and on average they are. But if you want the capability, mFT is also about getting greater capability from larger lens' than with bigger formats. Well, really just focal length, 400mm physical has 800 reach, that kind of thing.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Wasn't a "VARIO"-Zoom a Zoom which changes the Focus while changing the focallenght?

That's funny, I thought it was vario because it had a non fixed maximum aperture. lol..

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:59 UTC

I just hope that this doesn't make sigma and tamron lazy, and not keep working on out of the box performance, and instead rely on this dock as a crutch. I don't want to have to micro adjust AF for multiple different distances and focal lengths just because I can. If the focus adjustment needs that much tweaking from factory, there is a problem.

While I love the ability to tweak... it's a bit scary.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2016 at 15:57 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)

Love the 3rd command dial idea, wish my Nikon's had that... I'd set it to ISO and be set!

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 22:41 UTC as 679th comment

The next step towards clocked vehicles! Cameras and displays on all surfaces!

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2016 at 18:26 UTC as 5th comment
On article Ultra-compact: Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II review (549 comments in total)

Too bad the lens can't seem to resolve the detail the sensor is capable of. Seems to be about 24MP of detail (comparing to 24MP cameras in RAW in the comparison tool).

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 16:03 UTC as 58th comment
In reply to:

AshMills: Id be interested in the effect of a speedbooster with this lens (on m43) - I believe f0.95 is close to them having no benefit in terms of aperture? In theory it would produce a 25mm f0.67 albeit quite a large combination..

These are already for mirrorless cameras, so there is no room for a speedbooster between the lens and mFT. Speedboosters only work for lens' designed for a DSLR flange back distance.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2016 at 15:56 UTC
Total: 171, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »