dprived prev

dprived prev

Joined on Jul 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 456, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ChickenBalls: wow 10fps... but how many photos can you take with a roll of film?
can you squeeze in 1000 photos in a roll of film?

Since there are apparently people who still prefer film over digital in 2018 how about telephones or computers?
Are there still people who would rather use a 1980s IBM desktop running DOS or Windows 3.1? or 1G wireless telephones instead of 4G smartphones?

in a sense you're right of course ... but remember: IMAX motion picture cameras still use film! not even digital 8K resolution and DR can beat that, yet! (maybe someday though ...) ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2018 at 23:08 UTC
In reply to:

ChickenBalls: wow 10fps... but how many photos can you take with a roll of film?
can you squeeze in 1000 photos in a roll of film?

Since there are apparently people who still prefer film over digital in 2018 how about telephones or computers?
Are there still people who would rather use a 1980s IBM desktop running DOS or Windows 3.1? or 1G wireless telephones instead of 4G smartphones?

there were 250 frames and 750 frames film magazines that you could attach to the back of 'high-speed' film cameras of this kind equipped with super-fast motor drives ... probably there are such toys available for this particular model as well, is there?

surely digital cameras can do that much easier and more economically but well, there are still people and organizations that prefer film to digital for all kinds of reasons ...

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 02:49 UTC
In reply to:

dprived prev: am i being negative or what?

a 4K resolution on a small 15" or 17" monitor?

really?

this is barely good for gaming even, much less for serious professional image (or even video) editing that requires at least a 27" --extremely high quality-- monitor!

i know a laptop is more portable than a desktop etc ... and some come with 17" monitors that is the minimum acceptable size for good quality work after all ...

but unlike you, i NEVER do SERIOUS still image or video editing on a smaller than 17" screen, laptop or desktop, EVEN IF it's got the required high number of more than 2K pixels for such jobs!

occasionally however, if i have only a laptop, i do edit some unimportant things on it even if its resolution is below 1080 ...

well, that's me: PICKY but not FUSSY! ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Scrollop: Please forgive me for being naive, but he mentions that he didn't want to compromise on image quality so he used (an older) Sony F35 to give the video a cinematic quality.
Could someone please explain why that camera (I'm assuming super35) would produce a more cinematic image than an a7sII, for example?

I agree it looks very cinematic, though could you produce that image with a FF "consumer" camera with good lenses?

Thanks

@ The Dopaminer: here's a definition of 'nosy'
https://www.google.com/search?q=nosy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 01:23 UTC

the main point made in this great little video regarding 'compressed' vs 'distorted' is very interesting and quite valid ...

yes, it's actually "exaggerated distortion" in a wide angle lens vs "less distortion" in a telephoto one ...

however, since a telephoto's job is to 'enlarge' the scene so only a portion of it is recorded on a smaller-than-scene frame of film or digital sensor or a piece of paper in a camera obscure etc, the distance between objects in that 'enlarged portion' is already 'compressed' in comparison to a 'normal' or wide-angle lens giving a regular or distorted image of the same scene and the objects in it ...

thus, the telephoto lens only records the 'compressed proportions' of objects (usually in a far distance) but it doesn't compress them further by itself!

hope this added clarification is also welcome by others here, especially by the gentleman who made this video ... :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 01:17 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

dprived prev: good points clarifying common mistakes in use of technical terms here ...

by the same token, many people so wrongly believe "using slower (longer) shutter speeds (say below 1/30th") with a wide angle lens on a hand-held camera captures the shot sharp and non-blurry, while doing the same with a telephoto lens can results in blurry images due to hand shake ..."

that is also another myth because in both cases the shots ARE blurred but the one taken with a wide angle lens only shows it less, NOT removes the blur totally!

why: both shots are taken with the same shaky hands, thus resulting in blurred images!

wish someday people will also realize common mistakes in using technical terms doesn't mean film photography can be called "analog" in comparison to digital!

(the last statment here will most probably stir some arguments on this thread ... just wait and see!) ;-)

@ Tommi K1: glad someone used 'logic' here, which is the first and foremost requirement in 'good' science!

not all telephoto lenses are that heavy so all handheld shots taken using such a lens @ lower shutter speeds will be blurry after all ... just as you may still take extremely blurry images with ANY wide-angle lens as well if you're not careful enough! (or if you do it intentionally ...)

blurry IS blurry no matter if it's only one or half a pixel blurred, or 10 or more! test shots comparing such images vs one taken on a tripod and without any shakes can prove that!

my point still stays valid because i just said it already: "... the one taken with a wide angle lens only shows it less, [it = the blur that's already there no matter how small] NOT removes the blur totally!"

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 01:09 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoholiko: Why on earth would anyone want to buy a Super 8 at any cost and get mediocre results from a five minute roll with no sound and waiting a week for the high cost of developing. I still have Super 8 rolls of my kids and I certainly wish I had Digital back then.

search for lomography online and you'll find out ...

apparently some 'retro style lowfi quality loving' photographers spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on plastic toy cameras (Diana, Holga, etc) as well as outdated film stock still sold at ridiculously inflated prices! :D

https://www.lomography.com/

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 00:57 UTC
On article PNY launches 512GB microSD card (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

Karroly: Among the various SD card brands that I use (Samsung, SanDisk, Lexar, Fuji, Sony, PNY, etc...) PNY is the only with which I had problems. Erratic transfert speed, bad blocks...

never used PNY so far ... been ok with Sandisk but expected better ...

Samsung has some great flash drives, especially its 32GB mSD-size one that i use as Ready Boost drives on a couple of computers to help boost up performance speed ...

also have a 32GB Centon brand class 10 SD card that works great with my Pentax K-5 ... it's especially very good when you press the record button a second time to stop recording video on that camera as it does its job of finishing and completing the recording in less than a few seconds, relieving the camera's storage buffer letting it be ready to shoot the next video even if you have been recording for the entire 5'23" video length allowable with that camera ...

this particular card has been working for me since the year 2010 or `11 btw ... haven't been able to find it again online yet ... not available in stores either!

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2018 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

Scrollop: Please forgive me for being naive, but he mentions that he didn't want to compromise on image quality so he used (an older) Sony F35 to give the video a cinematic quality.
Could someone please explain why that camera (I'm assuming super35) would produce a more cinematic image than an a7sII, for example?

I agree it looks very cinematic, though could you produce that image with a FF "consumer" camera with good lenses?

Thanks

@ Scrollop: glad you revealed your true worth of little experience in the business even more! (and did so via lying and exaggerating more than anything else! you have used video cameras worth "£50 000" and still believe a $3K camera is a better option?)

yes, if the latter is all you can afford, that's certainly THE BEST camera for your budget and you BETTER use it as best as your EXPERTISE and enthusiasm would allow you to do!

that becomes particularly important when we consider using a highly costly camera also requires even costlier equipment plus a super professional crew and BIG production and all that just as well ...

speaking of using iPhones in professional productions, yes, someone even made a full feature movie using a NOKIA phone once (before iPhone was even known!) and he won prizes too! but the lens, accessories and the cameraman 'behind' that cellphone were all Hollywood professional items!

read @ Brocksman's comment too btw ... sheds more light on the topic ...

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:54 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: Canon and Nikon need to bring outstanding innovation and performance, so good that people will be ok with dealing with adapters. This will do themselves 2 favours:
1) fresh new market to a stagnant camera business
2) Business to a new dedicated lens system that will over time replace the old one.
Basically what Sony has done so far but better, because they are starting late and they need to satisfy pros demand.

i'm not saying these three brands are BAD ... they're all good, very good indeed, but OVERRATED too!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:41 UTC
In reply to:

armandino: Canon and Nikon need to bring outstanding innovation and performance, so good that people will be ok with dealing with adapters. This will do themselves 2 favours:
1) fresh new market to a stagnant camera business
2) Business to a new dedicated lens system that will over time replace the old one.
Basically what Sony has done so far but better, because they are starting late and they need to satisfy pros demand.

"however in a fast moving society" both restaurants are apt to going bankrupt for very clear and common reasons no matter what recipe they do serve! (unless the restaurant business is but a cover up for some other shady business they're conducting in the basement?) ;-)

in a TRUE PRO world, it's not just "survival of the fittest" that matters ... and if we're talking photography here, just check out the brands that have survived against all odds while others perished ...

but the fact of the matter is, not all those that died truly deserved such an unbecoming death really! some of them (take Contax for example!) were GREAT brands not only in their own rights, but also in comparison to all others, even the big names in the industry ...

come to think of it, at least the two big names (Canon & Nikon) are rather overrated than being 'top of the class' really! but they DO sell highly just as iPhone sells for similar reasons: NAME & LOOKS!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:40 UTC
In reply to:

dprived prev: be ware those willing to give this great opportunity a try: you'll need a 'lame' Pentax camera to try your new apps on so that if the camera 'dies' due to bad code you won't be left without your good camera! (maybe that's why digital camera manufacturers don't let users do this?)

hey "Them-antique", been a Pentax user since mid-1970s (probably before poops like you were born!) and i simply LOVE it!

have used MANY other camera brands as well, some you most probably don't even know about their names or history!
_ _ _

btw, you're the one trolling me here REACTING to my posts in such a childish manner little boy, not the other way around! BE WARE as you already know what i'm talking about!

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:30 UTC
In reply to:

dprived prev: who are those people in front rows waving flags: true Google fans or paid clowns? :D

why do you ask? (`cause you care?) :D

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:25 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shelly Glaser: I have used an 8 mm camera for many years and remember well enough the frustration of high film and development costs, together with not too exciting image quality. It's beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to shell out more than $2,000 for a camera that gives far lower quality movies than the smartphone camera he already has. Seems like the Kodak name was purchased by a bunch of morons. Instead they should bring Kodachrome 25 film back.

all points stated very well as i have had a similar experience with this format in the past myself too ... however, the image quality of this 'new' film material is going to be far better than the old version because now people would shoot in film but edit in digital, which means the original 'file' on film won't be touched much and will stay spotless and without many scratches ... (there's already a Super-8 film digitizer device out there at a reasonable price people may be willing to buy and use at home ... and surely the lab processing the S-8 film would be giving its digitized file as well, just as photography film labs do ...)

and couldn't agree more with the return of the Kodachrome film material, preferably @ both ISO-25 as well as in higher ratings AND in larger formats too! :-)

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:22 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shutterlouse: When a friend of mine got married a few years ago, I shot the formals on MF and a trendy hip filmmaker friend shot super 8 and edited it into a short for her. Way better than video and was really fun. So I think theres a niche market for this. The camera seems terribly overpriced even so.

just like all similar toys that debut at a huge price first, the price will drop soon though, especially if it picks up and sells well ...

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:16 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoholiko: Why on earth would anyone want to buy a Super 8 at any cost and get mediocre results from a five minute roll with no sound and waiting a week for the high cost of developing. I still have Super 8 rolls of my kids and I certainly wish I had Digital back then.

ever heard of the Lomography clan?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:14 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

ToasterFlyer: Way too much $$.

yes, too much but it'll drop for either of the two reasons below:

1. the 'new' format becomes so popular competition produces much cheaper (and possibly better!) models

2. no one will take it seriously and Kodak goes bankrupt (again!) in that department and has to liquidate all units made

was going to say in case of a bankruptcy, Kodak might be able to dump this product in some poor 3rd world country ...

but considering how EVERYBODY around the world owns some kind of a smartphone equipped with an ultra-super high-res 6000 billion pixels camera and some editing programs to go with them FREE to make their selfies eternal, i don't think that would be such a good idea after all ... ;-)

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 02:13 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Dang, I was all gong-ho willing and ready to buy an 8K video resolution camera. And now with this new fanatastic sounding Super 8 option from Kodak, I just dunno. After all, Super 8 sounds a tad higher echelon than regular 8K, no?

u kiddin`, right? :D

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 01:58 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (214 comments in total)

with such a hefty price tag on the camera itself (that will surely drop down if S-8 film making picks up again and competition kicks in with cheaper models) i'm guessing the price of S-8 film will be AT LEAST $100 per cartridge ...

used to do S-8 shooting on an almost regular basis from the mid-1970s into late 1980s, when home video was surely getting more popular already while S-8 fun had not died totally yet ... and it cost less than doing VHS or Betamax for say, weddings ...

before going extinct and replaced by video, had quite a number of still unexplored areas with this medium but the cost of film material, processing and the price of camera, projector and other related stuff (splicer, editing device etc) weren't quite affordable although much less costly than this latest offering by Kodak!

i WOULD be using this again if i could afford it though ... and if the new film cartridge fits old cameras, then i know of great S-8 cameras and equipment that are still usable now ...

Link | Posted on May 26, 2018 at 01:52 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies

be ware those willing to give this great opportunity a try: you'll need a 'lame' Pentax camera to try your new apps on so that if the camera 'dies' due to bad code you won't be left without your good camera! (maybe that's why digital camera manufacturers don't let users do this?)

Link | Posted on May 25, 2018 at 09:50 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 456, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »