JJack

JJack

Works as a Software engineer, freelance photographer
Joined on Mar 11, 2013

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article How I built a large-format (8x10) video camera (225 comments in total)

Cool!
Love the idea of DIY with (relatively) cheap components.
Amazed to see it's portable and not confined to a heavy tripod as I would expect.
Thumbs up!

As somebody already suggested, I'd also try some sort of mirrored surface for the screen, to avoid losing that much light (6 stops is quite a lot).

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 08:58 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: Is there one where they make it look like actual food.

Right you are Fox

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 08:43 UTC
In reply to:

mick232: I think the chicken is quite difficult to discern. I wouldn't have seen if the article didn't mention it, and even then I had to look twice.

Indeed.
Same here.

(But I admit I'm no lover of deep fried chicken - and I especially dislike KFC, so I'm not that familiar with the sight of their "products".)

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 08:39 UTC

I'm not into large size format bellows cams myself, but I love your presentation video Steve!

It oozes the "I'm down-to-the-ground honest engineering old-school type of guy whom learned the trade the hard way - by doing stuff" vibe. It convinced me straight away - unlike the modern ads with all those oh-so-happy young people of all shapes and colours, with fake smiles plastered all over, showing how the new iThing is the awesomest coolest stuff since the invention of the zipper. Those ads make me puke.

So, I definitely wish you best of luck with your campaign.

IMHO purple probably isn't the colour to go with though - as many comments below clearly show. I'd stick with black - but that's me.

Still, if you plan to go with different colours, a poll about which colours the potential buyers would prefer *before* you go into production might not be a bad idea...

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 18:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply

"Until, that is, someone comes up with something like 'Low Earth Orbit.'"

Really?
You find a circling drone video speeded-up a couple of times (NOT timelapse at all by my definition) original and worth promoting?

Stunning? Extremely nauseating you mean. (Unless you mean, getting stunned by hitting your head while falling down because of vertigo.) Usually I'm not prone to get dizzy due to fast-moving video at all (hell, I used to play first-person shooters for hours at time when I was younger), but this made me sick.

And they show the same stuff on the same island over and over again (very literally "ad-nauseam" that is)...

Tons of better timelapses on the Net. More original too.

Judging by comments below, I'm far from being the only one that actually got sick by this.

Bah! Thumbs down for this dpreview!

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 10:50 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Photoreader: Great work and congratulations to Brett for idea and execution. Though I'd prefer the film running a tad slower, maybe even 1/2 speed for some takes. It would match my feelings I have about wood better. But I think like that about most modern films and movies. Just too much hecticness.

My thoughts exactly - though I'd say even slower than 1/2

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 10:57 UTC
On article Looking back: Canon's eye-controlled focus (232 comments in total)

I had a VHS-C video camera sporting eye-AF and it worked well - even though I wear glasses.

However, it didn't make so much sense for a video camera than for photo camera, because when I shot video, I had to look around the frame for other stuff that moved into it and that kept changing focus. I just couldn't make myself to keep the eye glued to the main subject and note everything else with peripheral vision, so I eventually switched it off.

I would love this feature on a photo camera though. Way more practical than touch-screens, let alone joysticks or plain buttons. Actually, I dislike the latter two so much (never used a touch-screen cam, so I'm not sure about that), that I shoot practically exclusively with focus-and-recompose.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2017 at 18:00 UTC as 44th comment | 1 reply

Cool design, but way too expensive.
I bet Chinese knock-offs will be priced under $20.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 18:14 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Gollan: I feel bad for Sony owners who got burned by the firmware update. A simple "we will fix it" from Sony would go a long way here, but perhaps astrophotographers are not an important target market for Sony.

Having said the above, we consumers should really demand that *every* software upgrade could be easily returned to previous version, should the user want to. Yes, I'm looking at you too Google and Microsoft - and foremost Apple.

Actually that's the prime reason I never buy anything from Apple or Sony any more - I've been burned way to many times by their gung-ho attitude. (If possible, I'd never get anything from Microsoft either - alas I have no choice in that matter.) And I carefully study each new Google product, before using it.

It's Caveat emptor world all the way, so don't fix (upgrade) if it ain't broke. And even if it was broken, make sure first that the "fix" isn't broken even worse.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 09:16 UTC
In reply to:

Gollan: I feel bad for Sony owners who got burned by the firmware update. A simple "we will fix it" from Sony would go a long way here, but perhaps astrophotographers are not an important target market for Sony.

Well, I'm not Sony's proponent, but I still think that when upgrading firmware created new problems, it's mostly user's fault for doing it in the first place. It's not like with IOS or Windows that new upgrades are shoved down your throat, whether you want them or not (I blocked that behaviour in Windows). I'd never upgrade my camera's firmware, until it was tested - well and long. Not tested by the developer (their commercial departments always rush things too much - no matter what their own engineers say), but by independent pro reviewers and by careless people that always have to have the latest version for some reason and then rant about it.

If you belong among these, you were asking for trouble, so don't be surprised if you got it. For everybody else, it's prudent to wait for a few months and hear what people say to know what you're getting into with the upgrade instead of plunging head-on.

(contnd. in next reply)

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 09:16 UTC
In reply to:

ezradja: What powered the led? Camera body or another battery? Rechargeable? Would it drain the camera battery?

I wonder about that too. I haven't found it specified anywhere.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 11:15 UTC

It tags quite OK, but rates are completely random.

Gives some crappy snapshots over 80% and some lovely landscapes, portraits etc. exactly (or close to) 0.0%?!? But not always.

Actually, rather worse than a random generator...

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 14:29 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Class A: Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Fully agree with you Class A.

Furthermore, I don't see the point of why this cam would even allow you to set ISO over 1600. It doesn't produce JPEG, so you have to do RAW conversion in any case and adjusting exposure is an (almost) necessary step in that workflow already.

So if ISO over 1600 is actually reflected in the recorded RAW file, the camera efectively (or, as bclaff said: "nicely") cuts the dynamic range off - doesn't matter if it did that by pushing the sensor or by postproc pushing the RAW.

OTOH, if ISO over 1600 is NOT reflected in the RAW, then such setting actually does nothing at all. Unless I'm missing something crucial here.

(Is the RAW file's bit-depth perhaps much larger than the bit-depth of sensor reading values? Then RAW files indeed wouldn't lose the DR info, but would ALWAYS be way larger than necessary - which would contribute nothing to the image quality - just alleviate a single click-and-slide at postproc workflow. Much larger files for THAT? Silly.)

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 10:53 UTC
In reply to:

JJack: $499/€599/£518 ?

Why, US dollar must've suddenly gained lots of weight while I wasn't looking...

While the common pricing practice of $ equaling € or really unfair already - to say the least, this is simply ridiculous. No wonder people tend to buy almost everything from China these days. Chinese don't care what currency you pay with originally, it gets converted to yuan anyway. And they ship free around the world. OK, so many of their products are crappy, but they're improving awfully fast. Adapting to world markets even faster than the Japanese did some 60 years ago.

US companies could really learn a lot from Chinese, before they get left behind in the dust...

(Please don't get me wrong, I'm really appalled by the way and rate Chinese are taking over the world. Generally I'm a proponent to produce/consume locally and save the environment. But it's exactly *such* price mismatch practices that make me to buy Chinese too.)

Seriously? €599 is $643 by today's exchange rate. That is 29 percent more than $499!
So you say, you'd be cool with paying nearly 30% sales tax/VAT?

I wonder what US consumers would say if Drumpf proposed such a thing in order to, I don't know ... finance one of his bold plans for the future?

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2017 at 10:34 UTC

$499/€599/£518 ?

Why, US dollar must've suddenly gained lots of weight while I wasn't looking...

While the common pricing practice of $ equaling € or really unfair already - to say the least, this is simply ridiculous. No wonder people tend to buy almost everything from China these days. Chinese don't care what currency you pay with originally, it gets converted to yuan anyway. And they ship free around the world. OK, so many of their products are crappy, but they're improving awfully fast. Adapting to world markets even faster than the Japanese did some 60 years ago.

US companies could really learn a lot from Chinese, before they get left behind in the dust...

(Please don't get me wrong, I'm really appalled by the way and rate Chinese are taking over the world. Generally I'm a proponent to produce/consume locally and save the environment. But it's exactly *such* price mismatch practices that make me to buy Chinese too.)

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 09:58 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
On article Going wide: Irix 15mm F2.4 sample gallery (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: The flare on #39 I like a lot. On #38 not so much. :/

Same here.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 10:43 UTC
On article Going wide: Irix 15mm F2.4 sample gallery (111 comments in total)

Thrilled to see someone is including Pentax K-mount in their lenses again. And I like its perspective.

Much less the heavy vignetting and flares however. Stating that such flaring is to be expected is pure hogwash. My Sigma 8-16mm (that would be 12-24 in full-frame format) causes just one or two flare artifacts when sun is close to the frame or directly in it - and that is usually easy (or at least possible) to remove in postproc.

This one shows a string of over 20 artifacts (photo #43) - plus the huge circle around the frame - well, that circle I actually quite like, it's the smaller artifacts that are the problem. But the worst are smudge-like flares among the sunrays on #6 - it looks like the glass was scratched. Or was that indeed dirt?

Is there a price range known for this thing yet?

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 10:36 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Stereodesign: No.4 definitely looks wrong, like overexposed flash; a Google for C.E.N.S.U.R.A. Julián Barón takes you to the website with the explanation:
"In that big circus that politics is, photography and censorship are allied to each other in order to manipulate people through the false use of image as a document, using large mass media to subtly but constantly mask those aspects that do not respond to the claims of the parties, blurring and distorting reality.

However, by focusing on a different way on politics and its leaders, trying to use the camera in decomposition, it is also possible to make photography censor censorship and then, negative against negative, offer something positive, some new perspectives on politicians and their superficial status, revealing how the state they defend so hardly vanishes by their actions, their images and all the paraphernalia that surrounds the ivory tower in which they believe they live in."

So now we know.

0MitchAG: Even if that (evicted from the room) would be the case, one does not try to take a covert shot using flash at all - let alone at full power! Or if one does, s/he deserves to be evicted and the shot deleted - not that useles image awarded as one of the best in the world.
But no, if you check out the series, you can see that he's indeed using the same gig all over again (all the shots are crappy IMO though). There are far better ways to make points about censorship than overexposing all your photos.
IMHO is just as Peter said above: use a politically/emotionally/whatever-loaded title like CENSURA and cover up your shooting incompetence by inventing some hogwash explanation for it.
But to each his own I guess - if that's tyour "style", so be it.
Still the judges should know better than to fall for such cheap trick.
Shows again that at most competitions winners are chosen for background stories (even if made-up), rather than image quality as such.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 11:08 UTC

Apple keeps filing pattents they never intend to implement. I wonder why?
Just because if someone gets a similar idea in the future, they can sue?
(BTW it used to be impossible to pattent an IDEA in Europe - maybe it still is. But in US everything goes, it seems...)

Anyway, one more reason never to buy Apple products. Or to simply stick to cameras for shoothing and to phones for calling, as I always have. (Though I admit I shot a concert with my phone ONCE, as I didn't have my camera. From couple of hundred shots, some five or six were actully usable. Not a result one would rely on...)

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 16:54 UTC as 60th comment
On article Student takes 2016 Zeiss Photography Award top prize (212 comments in total)
In reply to:

illogical: Any art I know has two ingredients - Aesthetics and Story. I found that most of such competitions give story much more attention than to aesthetics. It is same as liking lyrics in a song much more than its tune but, can a song exist without tune? No, but a song can exist without lyrics. Just a thought if it interests you.

What Ocolon said.
Besides, poetry can exist without music, but not without lyrics...

What I'm saying is: sometimes a story *is* more important for the photo than the pure aesthetics. Not always, but sometimes. Like music/poetry, photography isn't just about pretty and visual.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2016 at 11:04 UTC
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »