kb2zuz

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Digital Imaging Techician
Joined on Jun 6, 2006
About me:

Specializing in Fine Art reproduction, color management, retouching, printing, and
digital asset management.

Other jobs I've held in past lives, in no particular order:

Studio and Location Shoot Photo Assistant
Digital Tech
Equipment Rental
Photographer
Photo Lab Technician (Dip & Dunk Film processing)
Durst Lambda and wide format inkjet operator
Retoucher
Design/Layout
Educator
Inkjet Printing R&D

Comments

Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: I'm about to acquire a 4x5 set up. It's going to cost less than $1,000

Moving on.

hypnotictortoise, We're also not all amateurs who are only satisfied (or can survive) on only a few decent frames.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: .
■ if folks can embrace risking MB (motion blur) for:

MS (Multi-Shot) = multiple exposures to achieve:
3) better color fidelity via PS (Pixel-Shift) in good light
2) higher resolution via PS (Pixel-Shift) in good light

■ then folks can embrace the same risks of MB for:

1) better image quality via MS-NR (Multi-Shot Noise Reduction) in poor light ... which detractors insist is "useless"

meanwhile, staunch single-exposure-only shooters resort to "stacking" (low light scenarios), whilst still resorting to use of extra "dark frame exposures" anyways ... so much for single-exposure-only puritanism ...

and others ... blending multiple exposures in post (layers, selective erasure, dodge-n-burn, etc) ... for bright ultra-high contrast high dynamic range composites

...

With this camera if your subject moves you don't get motion blur... you get a very ugly checkerboard pixel pattern in the image. If shooting with this you really try not to "risk" motion blur and typically shoot in a controlled studio.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: .

all that effort to capture fine detail (including textures) and colors ...

but no means to take advantage of it
in making "high fidelity" (hardcopy) print reproductions ...

unless, you use a 3D ultra-fine high-rez printer

Canon has "fine detail color texture" printer tech (can reproduce textures, shiny, bumpy, fabrics, etc)
will anyone really want fine reproduction capability to that extent?

There are multiple ways to take advantage of it. In commercial photography a designer might take crops of details of a single image for an ad campaign.

People might want to be able to zoom in to inspect a painting.

Websites might allow the user to zoom in to extreme detail.

And you can print a 4' x 3' with the same crispness and detail as you might print a 17x22" print from your 18MP camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:32 UTC
In reply to:

Adrian_Hill: Probly still not as good as iPhone though.

Absolutely. In certain respects. Definately not as portable. Definately not as easy to sneak into small situations. Doesn't have build in 4G for instant upload to facebook. And it's auto exposure and white balance is probably worse.

There is no such thing as a "best" camera there are only tools that are better at specific tasks.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

kpaddler: The samples of three shots here is not quite clearing the purpose of this for me. Are we not adding more pixels to increase the print size? if so, why are they down sampling the results to the same size? I don't think more pixels are needed if you are keeping the print size.

Single shot mode is the camera acting like a normal 100MP camera the image is interpolated through the red-green-blue checkerboard bayerfilter that most cameras have. The 4-shot mode shifts the sensor so it gets red-green-blue at every pixel location, this eliminates moire and makes the image appear about twice as sharp as you have twice as much green resolution, but the file is still 100MP. 6-shot take addition shots with the sensor shifted half a pixel so you get an image that is roughly that of what a 400MP bayer filter camera would make if such a camera existed.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

Barty L: 2.4GB? We're gonna need a bigger card....

I know you're joking but this camera only operates in 400MP (6-shot) mode when tethered to a computer. When using a memory card you are only shooting in single-shot 100MP mode, which will be about a 570MB TIFF (though I'd expect the RAWs to be a little smaller with some lossless compression on them).

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: I'm about to acquire a 4x5 set up. It's going to cost less than $1,000

Moving on.

Teila Day, yes there is also the convinence factor and use cases. If you need to color manage and get accurate color reproduction, film is less than idea (which film you choose changes the color, slight variations in storage or processing can change color... none of those make it accurate.

Finally to everyone else mocking the price tag. Yes a handful who actually shoot enough to justify buying one (or 2 or 3 if a larger production studio with multiple photographers) but there will be many people who will use it and won't pay anything near $50,000, because like many pros they'll rent the tool they need for a specific job.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

hypnotictortoise: I'm about to acquire a 4x5 set up. It's going to cost less than $1,000

Moving on.

It depends on how you shoot... If you're only going to shoot 100 shots, the 4x5 makes sense economically. If you're going to shoot over 50,000 shots over the life of the camera, that's a huge savings in film and chemistry.

Also the I've shot 64 ASA color transparency film on the predecessor to this camera for an uninterpolated 50MP image... 4x5 I was recording the grain, 5x7 was matching the resolution of the 50MP. You'd need to step up to 8x10 to match the uninterpolated 100MP resolution of this camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 06:08 UTC
On article Why Capture One can't replace Adobe Lightroom (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: Capture One is meant for folks using desktop/workstation/laptop pc operating systems (work/studio/home)

not aimed at folks who may want to pp raw
on the go
or out in the field
or while lounging in a leisure scenario (hobbyist)

I know a ton of pros who use C1 on location, in the field, etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 19:34 UTC
On article Why Capture One can't replace Adobe Lightroom (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Arca45Swiss: You couldn't pay me to use LR and their forced cataloging system. I'd just use ACR if it came down to C1 not supporting the camera.

Well that's what Lightroom is there for... if you want an integrated DAM and RAW processor. If you just want processing Lightroom doesn't really provide any additional functionality of ACR. If you want a DAM get LR, if you don't, don't use it.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 19:27 UTC
In reply to:

absquatulate: Where are all the eco-warriors asking why you can't just take your battery out and replace it with a new one like you used to on some phones? How many phones end up in landfill because the battery just gives out? Where are all the environmentally friendly phone manufacturers?

Because you can still replace the battery in a an iPhone.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

mailman88: Discount price $79 dollars to $29 dollars sounds fair, but the big question is...Is that the problem?

Yes, because the person who detected the slow down noticed it by testing his battery life before and after having his battery replaced.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
In reply to:

absquatulate: Where are all the eco-warriors asking why you can't just take your battery out and replace it with a new one like you used to on some phones? How many phones end up in landfill because the battery just gives out? Where are all the environmentally friendly phone manufacturers?

Because a real eco-warrior would tell you that a user-replaceable battery also has to have a plastic case and connectors around it and possibly charging circuitry. The internal battery is just the battery and when you bring that in to be replaced, there is much less waste than a removable battery.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:53 UTC
In reply to:

MrScrooge: Aye but will replacing the battery trigger the OS to undo the performance restriction?
We've all known that iOS updates were slowing down old iPhones for years - Apple's planned obsolescence policy is no big secret (it's like they took inspiration from Windows ironically) but now they're trying to put a spin on this to sell battery stock!
Abominable.

Yes. The reason they were "caught" was because someone tested their phone before and after a battery replacement (after replacement the phone got a lot faster). The performance restriction is only applied to batteries that have aged to less than 80% capacity (this is so that the processor doesn't draw full power which the battery cannot provide and cause the phone to abruptly shut down).

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Richard MRH: They shouldn't have put these 'throttling' processes into operation in the first place to try to boost new product sales.

Just goes to show what a bunch of con artists apple are.

Wow have you actually read any articles on it? They are "throttling" phones who's batteries have aged to less than 80% capacity... that is because running the processors at full power would pull more power than a battery that aged that much could deliver. Without throttling the phone might abruptly shut off.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:29 UTC
In reply to:

SushiCub: $29 - they still make $, right? This price reduction still works as a good PR - more will replace the batteries, more $ to Apple. Not expecting them to do it free but It's kind of...

I don't think they're making money on a battery replacement for $29. I'd wager it's actually a loss between parts and labor costs. Then on top of if if they fix the battery and the phone speeds up they're not selling a $1000 phone.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel Clune: Imacs are over priced. There just using standard PC parts now. You pay through the nose for the OS. I build my own Pc's and can do that for 1/3 the price imac charges. If you really believe the Apple OS is worth that then have at it. Oh this super priced one is way over kill. Zeon processor are made for severs not for photo of video editing. You will never use that much ram either.

Underclocked to 11 teraflops. And for heavy use I'd expect it to be expanded via eGPU over thunderbolt 3.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lightgreen: 10-Core, Vega 64 Graphics, 64GB Memory, 1GB Storage - $7199

It's the (Apples) second recommendation, ships this year, has the fastest Turbo CPU which is the best option for most people over the 12 and 18 core configurations with slower turbos, with 64GB which is enough to future proof it for a while, and 1TB and you can always slap on external drives.

My recommendation too, if I were to spend that.

The 12 and 18 core configurations are overkill as is the 128GB memory or larger drive options, for most people. Not just overkill, If you don't use more then 32GB of memory, or, you're using something designed for that many cores like VR in FCP, it's literally unused cores and mem.

64GB is overkill for most people in this forum. Hell 32GB is probably overkill for most photographers. Lightroom and photoshop hardly ever press up against 24GB for most people. Now for Photogrammetry, 128GB might not be enough.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron801: I have a 7 or so year old iMac that I'm pretty sure is a bottom of the line model and I've still been able to do stuff like multi-layer After Effects work on it. Of course it wouldn't work for that if I was dealing with 4k video, but I'd think that the same level computer nowadays would be improved enough to deal with it. The whole thing with computers too is that improved tech generally doesn't cost any more than the older, obsolete tech.... so with that in mind it seems that a really powerful computer shouldn't cost much more than double what I paid for mine, which couldn't have been much more than $1000. What kind of processing then does one need a 13k computer for... 16k video files?

For now fine some rich guy who just bought a 27" iMac with an i7 processor and is selling it to replace it with a iMac Pro, because they think pro must be better.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 17:00 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

DualSystemGuy: $13,200, aimed at content creators, and you can't even calibrate the screen properly. For that price (or the entry level $5000) they should make the monitor hardware calibrate-able.

"The best computer is the one you have with you...." Wait am I doing that right?

Sleek looking machine for sure but grossly overpriced. A cool niche product I guess.

Why can't you calibrated the screen properly? I've had no issues calibrating the regular iMac screens with BasICColor and an i1 Pro. And in my measurments, those are calibrated pretty well to a decent standard out of the box.

That said, this isn't for photographers or videographers (that's what the normal 27" iMac is for) this is for 3D modeling, AI neural net development, etc.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 01:14 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »