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: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

panther fan: Please before somebody comments that 13.000$ is expensive:
Mobo with 10Gbit - 600$
Intel Xeon W -2600$
128GB ECC 2666-1500$
WX9100 Vega 64 16GB -1500$
4TB Pcie SSD -2500$
5K Display 10Bit -1500$
So we are already at 10300$ and some parts are still missing. Yes the computer is not cheap. But the markup is not insane

You're missing a case and power supply (keeping in mind these are a power hungry CPU and GPU)

Bobthearch it has thunderbolt 3. You can add whatever you want, blu-ray, multicard, graphics cards, HDMI monitors, or whatever via that. Of course that said. the kind of person who would actually get this computer and use it to it's fullest is not going to be needing blu-ray or multi-card readers, because this isn't for photographers. It's for 3D model builders, AR/VR development, AI development, etc. For Lightroom/Photoshop/Capture One Pro, and even 4k video editing, the basic iMac is going to be faster.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 01:11 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: My new 27" iMac was $2000 edits photos incredibly fast and 4 k video in real time. They know you aren't going to fully upgrade it so that price you have is not really credible.

People will, like those of us that are working on photogrammetry. That stuff eats RAM and processor cycles. A colleague is running a server with 1TB of RAM and god knows how many cores.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 01:01 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.

You're a moron if you think this machine is for photo editing (that's what the regular 27" iMac is for) this is for 3D Photogrammetry, AR/VR development, neural net development, and compiling. And 128GB is barely enough for high res photogrammetry I know some people running 1TB of RAM for it.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:59 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Davis: iMacs are great for people who live in tiny houses or in boats or RVs, where there's no space on top of a desk or on the floor to sit a big tower chassis that has lots of expansion bays and slots for countless hardware features, with numerous power supply, motherboard, CPU, GPU, storage, WiFi, memory and cooling options and the ability to upgrade those hardware components almost indefinitely or...

... to upgrade your monitor without having to toss the whole machine.

They're also very good for people whose desks are in public because they are stylish.

You can actually upgrade the GPU with this iMac using an eGPU and Thunderbolt 3, same with storage.

It does upset me that you cannot upgrade the RAM on this iMac (you can on the regular 27" ones) because I could see wanting 128GB for 3D modeling in the future but I also expect prices for memory to drop substantially.

As far as the monitor... I would agree except you'd be hard pressed to find a better monitor out there.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:56 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

desertsp: I wonder if Lightroom Classic Cc would run much faster on this than on my 5 year old laptop.

This is the wrong machine for Lightroom Classic CC. the normal 27" iMac would actually be better. This is for 3D modeling, AR/VR, and artificial intelligence.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:52 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

NemanRa: what is the destiny of the macpros? will apple discontinue them?
regards

They had a meeting with a few journalists last spring where they admitted they screwed up with the Mac Pro and the design they made would not work going forward and they had to go back to the drawing board and redesign it entirely (they had hoped to just to a generation or two of spec bumps). They said they are making a new Mac Pro but it would not be out in 2017. Which most people are interpreting to be something in 2018, but because they were so vague it might be 2019.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:51 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

Focus Shift Shooting: I remember some nonsense about Mac being better than PC for post-processing. Absolutely hilarious ignorance!

No doubt that the new iMac Pros are strong computers. But unless you have money to burn, and even if you do, you should remember that this is the computer industry. Those specs will be standard fare in no time. All you're doing is paying for the privilege to be first. That's it. Oh, that, and lining the pockets of Apple execs.

These machines aren't for post processing (unless you're post processing 8k video maybe, or AR/VR applications). They're made more for compute heavy multi-threaded applications like compiling complex programs or developing neural nets.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:47 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

so-what-17: can i run linux on this cause i hate mac/windows

MacOS is FreeBSD, but you can use bootcamp to load your preferred flavor of Linux.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:46 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?

Editing 8k video maybe. But more for 3D rendering, Augmented Reality development, virtual reality applications, building AI neural networks, and compiling complex programs. One area that is imaging related that I'm curious about this machine for is for photogrammetry where you build 3D models from large numbers of still photos. To get the highest quality from hundreds of high resolution images requires tons of processing power, GPU, and an insane amount of RAM.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: While the specs are great, probably 80% of people would never realize that power difference, or the 3TB of RAM. 48TB of storage might be a photographer's dream (for about 10-15 years maybe at least). But nobody (probably not even most CAD designers) would notice the difference between maybe 500GB and 3TB of RAM. I don't think there are any consumer-level programs that can utilize any more than perhaps 256GB of RAM at the moment that I can think of, except maybe if you're doing some REALLY SERIOUS video editing, like editing a full length 2 or 4 hour 4k video at the highest quality levels.

Agisoft Photoscan eats RAM on larger projects.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: the software is not available to that can take advantage of these powerful
desktops but it would be nice to have one or two?

Tom G Scotland

Agisoft Photoscan would benefit from these specs.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: The press release and some comments sound like this is the first workstation that can handle a lot of RAM. Now Z820 (2 generations older than this one) can take up to 512GB. Z840 up to 1TB. I think that's plenty already. Especially given that these 3TB are just theoretical at the moment as there are no RAM modules big enough on the market to make it happen.
Have used the Z420/Z440 at work and it was great. For photographers its probably the best one (single processor). The bigger ones main selling point is the increased number of PCI slots IMO - allows you to connect more monitors.
For using this as a virtualization server however - 2 processors are always a nice thing to have. To max out the specs you need probably way over 50k though.

If your realm of photography takes you into Photogrammetry, this machine has a lot of promise. As we get higher resolution cameras and try to build higher resolution models with hundreds and sometimes thousands of images, I can see potential cases were 1+ TB of RAM would be useful.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 03:23 UTC

Is the GN 33 meters or 33 feet?

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 18:00 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

Pick your argument and stick with it. "It should work perfectly decently on a cheap a6000 body" vs "an apsc Fuji is totally missing the point once again." An a6000 has an APS-C sensor. So wouldn't using that lens on an A6000 by your rule be "missing the point"?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

You realize IQ is the sum of the entire system. And a lens with poor IQ on a great sensor will not give you great quality. The lens is soft. The lens has heavy vignetting. At f/8 you're forcing the sensor to loose over 16 times the amount of light an f/1.8 lens on point and shoot has, requiring longer shutter speeds or 4 stops higher ISO.

Considering this is a $500 lens to be paired with a full frame camera that will likely cost thousands, you're approaching the cost of an RX-1which will be smaller, or for a much more reasonable cost you can get something like a Fuji X-100.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

I'm not hating it, I always point out that there are a huge range of lenses because different people have different needs.

That said there are a number of reasons why I don't see it being as useful for me.

First is any many lenses can be set to f/8 and taped to a hyper focal distance including a kit zoom or pretty much any 35mm prime lens. So that makes the biggest advantage the size.

If size is important a point-and-shoot or maybe even a camera phone is going to have some advantages in terms of size and weight. Now yes the smaller sensor in these cameras won't have as large photosites and will not be as great in low light as a full frame camera. But you're also going from an f/2.0 or wider lens on these smaller format sensors to f/8 on this lens, cutting the amount of light by 1/16th.

Fixed focus lens is not a new concept, it was very popular in the film days. But the cameras that used them tended to be point and shoots or disposable cameras.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 04:26 UTC
In reply to:

digitalzohar: Would it be better to use a laser (laser pointer) instead of LED? How does the mm of the telephoto relate to size of room?

No the laser is collimated, meaning it doesn't spread to cover the entire mirror. It would light one point in the mirror, which will not back-light the subject as desired. A point light source (which is what Schilren needs) will start from a single point but spread outward to cover the entire mirror and give a complete backlight.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

hammarbytp: All you need is a Telephoto, LED, a razer blade and ... a optical grade concave mirror.

Yep, who hasn't got a optical grade concave mirror lying around somewhere...LOL

Is the mirror truly spherical and do you know the radius of the curve? The issue is it's not the quality of the glass but rather the shape/curve that is important.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

ovatab: circular polarisers are too cheap to consider as alternative solution

You are assuming they are not already, and assuming you know more than teams of engineers and imaging specialists. Polarizers only block polarized light. If the reflection is from they sky at 90 degrees from the sun, it will be strongly polarized and you can use a polarizer to cut that reflection. But if it's diffused (say by a cloud) or if it's not at 90 degrees to the sun, there will not be as much polarized light for a cpl to cut out.

Also, if you insist on using a polarizer assuming the cameras don't have a phase detect af system, you would need to use CPL, a standard linear polarizer would have the same effect, just cost less because it doesn't need the quarter wave plate.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 22:17 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Jessop: I get alarmed by reports of bugs in Lightroom. I'm running v5.7 which is super stable, but am now considering Capture One when I upgrade to a newer camera body.

@Samuel Jessop It's decently fast most of the time... work on a few machines. Mac Pro's (trash cans), maxed out 27" iMacs, occasionally MacBook Pros. A lot of Phase One IQ180's but the occasional D800 shot.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 21:28 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »