dprived prev

dprived prev

Joined on Jul 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 456, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

@ Ebrahim Saadawi: you're not outright wrong but you're not quite right either my friend ...

yes, they're used more to film but it doesn't mean they don't understand digital, or don't use it at all ... the same "old" directors would do their commercial jobs on digital for example, faster and cheaper ... but they'd edit their movies shot on film material using digital technology ... (have commented more than enough on that topic here already ... you can read them if still interested ...)

and yes, Dester Wallaboo, digital DR is getting wider and better but DR is not the whole point really ... digital artifacts such as moire and noise are still a huge problem ... (film fog (noise) or grain (pixel size) are also bad but film doesn't suffer from moire at least!)

digital is certainly the way, especially for commercial jobs and i have always defended / promoted it as fact, and film is surely doomed, but not any time soon yet ...

`nough said ... thanks for your responses everyone! :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 06:12 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

continued from above:

shoot with film material, then ages later, re-scan the same negative (if well kept that is) using higher resolution digital technology, and you'd get even better results ... there are many Hollywood examples of that already ...

can't do the same with digital, can you?

upscale even 1080p to 4K or higher, and the results will be beyond terrible! (even downscaling doesn't quite work right in digital ...)

that is why even tv series such as the Star Trek Voyager for example, where shot on 35mm film material ... no wonder then, newly generated digital scans of old photos and movies or tv series (even those shot on 16mm material, such as the concert footage i just posted above) do always look better than their previous scans ...

a good practical example in digital would be when you have a CD quality (360p) copy of a 1080p video, vs the same video on DVD and Bluray ... the difference is evident in digital too ...

all that said however, yes, it's

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 06:03 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

@ Dester Wallaboo: yes, i can: most high quality cine negative material did yield up to 10 stops DR (Exposure Latitude) decades ago ...

and that was achievable with lousy commercial processing ... give it better chemical treatments and you'll get even better results! (have worked with such material and processes directly myself ... know what i'm talking about ... been into digital imagery since the mid 1980s btw ...)

however, DR is not the whole thing in this business really ... it's also resolution, which currently is stuck @ 4K, or 8K at its best ... use 120 (70mm) good quality film material and process it with the correct chemicals handled by the right experienced hands in dedicated labs, and the quality you get, when scanned and printed properly (via special *Transputer* systems) then the result is double the 4K, AT LEAST, and WITHOUT some nasty artifacts typical of digital sensors, such as moire, which film material NEVER suffers from! :-)

continued below ...

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

LightCatcherLT: what amazes me is that everyone thinks it's Panasonic innovation, while it was Olympus that introduced this feature almost 3 years ago in Olympus E-M5 mk2.

* best results for this kind of trick back in the day, as early as 1960s and 1970s, and possibly well into the 1980s and later just as well, was via scanning a finely exposed and processed transparency, such as Kodachrome, which was available in 135 format only at the time ...

so, still digital tricks were at work then too: scanners! scanners that were not only hefty in size, they were also very expensive and required just as costly hefty and expensive computers to work with too ... tens of thousands of dollars, if not more! only large business and news and publication corporations afforded to pay for the toys that big ...

even today, the same trick can be done nicely and much more cheaply and some firms still do it btw ...

...

my last comment about this btw, thanks for following up and good luck! :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 05:33 UTC
In reply to:

LightCatcherLT: what amazes me is that everyone thinks it's Panasonic innovation, while it was Olympus that introduced this feature almost 3 years ago in Olympus E-M5 mk2.

No @Roland Karlsson - this IS the hardware version of the same old software trick. agreed though, it's needed, but not 100% really! :-)
_ _ _

theoretically, AND practically, something similar is possible with film / print material as well, done many times in the past on a regular basis: a photo shot on 135 format film (or even smaller) can be printed at its optimum best-results size (say 8"x10" or a little bit bigger or smaller) and then re-copied using a large format film (using special copy film materials, filters, and processes) and then enlarged billboard size with amazingly high quality! (more on this on the comment below under star *)

still however, even with film, this trick had to be done mostly / only when there was no large size film material shot of the subject available ... (as in sports photography for example, where 135 format was / is mostly used instead of 4x5" and larger, or even the smaller / lighter medium format camera such as 120 and so on ...)

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 05:30 UTC

"... was told not to stand in front of Homme during a show back in 2014 because, and here she quotes directly, "[you] will get a boot in the face.""

really? and everyone knows about this? then why do the people who set up the stage think of a solution for that and still let photographers get so close to the beast?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 05:11 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

User0127324968: If you want a weather sealed camera, go for PENTAX ( with all cons, which is few) and don't look anywhere else.

yeah! weather-sealed Pentax rider here too ...
but still ... ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 08:24 UTC

surely weather-sealed or whatever the term used by any camera manufacturer DOES NOT mean it's totally dust / water proof ...

it just helps protect the gear against a sudden wind hurling debris around or a brief shower of rain / snow etc but it's not supposed to be fool proof as in an adventurous photographer putting a WS lens or camera's resiliency to harsh tests just for the sake of proving something ... not on a daily basis anyway!

check out the little video below though, it's fun but surely NOT recommended! (i have the same gear ... have used in at the beach and under the rain quite a number of times and it has been exposed to salt water occasionally too and still works fine ... but i do also carry a little towel in my camera bag all the time ... you know, just in case! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo61t5fH6Qw

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 08:21 UTC as 7th comment

if this works as promised, i'd have at least 2 of it in my backpack as i always carry at least two DSLRs ... what about heavy lenses though? not even all sturdy tripods are a good fit for those lenses!

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 08:10 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

@ Dester Wallaboo: your comment shows perfectly well you don't know what "film" is then!

chances of more 'dead' emulsions and large format film sheets returning are much higher now than digital getting any better than what it is already!

why?

because at least under the current state of digital imaging technology, sensor size matters a lot, pretty much film size matters too ...

commercial and industrial as well as scientific demand however, calls for smaller cameras, which under no circumstances can be the case with digital photography IF sensor size is to grow larger in order to yield better quality ... while certain emulsions in the 135 format film can yield resolutions and clarity much better than even the MF sensors of today, let alone FF or APS-C ... (and if you're going to defend smaller sensors such as those used in smartphones, yes, they're great but not GREAT ...)

the main reason digital has taken over is it's cheaper and easier to work with but not better necessarily!

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 07:55 UTC
In reply to:

LightCatcherLT: what amazes me is that everyone thinks it's Panasonic innovation, while it was Olympus that introduced this feature almost 3 years ago in Olympus E-M5 mk2.

yes, it's new but i still stand corrected: this is the hardware version of the same old software trick ... probably works slightly better in results too, as can be seen via practical tests in both fields ... (i have tried it in software myself occasionally but not much of a fan really ... don't quite like the hardware version's results either ...)

eventually though, a true 80MP sensor with the right number of pixels (as well as the correct pitch etc) is surely better than emulating the same number of pixels via software or hardware tricks such as this ... nothing wrong with having the option on these cameras though ... yes, why not ... may surely comes in handy for certain types of jobs and experiments ... :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2017 at 07:43 UTC
In reply to:

wed7: Well the Pentax KS-1 was the camera from the future. It came from the wrong place at the wrong time. :)

and one of the worst gimmicks Pentax has made ever!

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 05:27 UTC
In reply to:

kadardr: I would rather get Adobe to totally rethink and rebuild their software from scratch. No new keyboard, but a totally new interface would be necessary. Shortcuts? That is so nineties.

very well put! Adobe could also work more on more advance, WAY more advanced scripting techniques to let PS users for example, have much better control over the automation of certain daily routine processing tasks ...

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 05:21 UTC

been there done that, although not at such a high level ...
no matter how mature they may look on the surface, some employers / managers / supervisors have a mentality of a 5 year old little child ...

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 05:13 UTC as 5th comment
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: 8K video is nice in theory, but I don’t see any added benefit to it for the consumer market. I’ll admit 4K looks a lot better on a big screen home TV than FullHD, but with 8K I don’t believe the eye will resolve anymore detail in a typical home viewing environment. Unless future screens literally cover an entire wall. And constantly moving ones head around to watch a movie on a screen that big won’t be very comfortable I’d imagine.

8K and above has more applications than just larger home tv screens ... think of much larger huge theater screens for example ... or scanning etc ... there is no end to this really!

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 04:38 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 04:36 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

sorry, wrong link!

here's the correct one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Pop

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 04:29 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thorfinn: As HiRES at the olympics 2020 are announced, I will invest in cooling & refridgerating suppliers - These monstrous amount of data has to be computed somewhere.

I am so much not looking forward to count the blades of the green. Maybee some pixelpeekers will love it.
There is only SD footage of Mark Spitz, Jessie Owens run is only b/w. So what!

good points @ Barbu ...

but check out the remastered 16mm footage below, shot in 1967 originally, and you'll see how film survives MUCH better than video ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk60ObnbIOk

can we do the same with videos of the same era? NOPE!

more about how the remastering of this gem of a historical event was done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monterey_Pop_Festival

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 03:59 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: It's a good camera. All three of my copies are consistent. ;)

so are my 17 copies too! ;-)

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 03:52 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

JC Ramos Photography: I just started getting 4k stuff and there's 8k??!?!

and it's only the beginning! :D

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 03:46 UTC
Total: 456, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »