Jylppy

Joined on Mar 1, 2012

Comments

Total: 278, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mister J: Just like being forced to wear glasses for 3D cinema, toting a clunky viewing system is where VR tech presently fails the mass market.

I try always to choose a 2D version for this reason.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 09:00 UTC

VR has been "coming" for what, 15 years? Oculus restarted the enthusiasm to the topic, but the tech is not there yet and won't be for 5-10 years what comes to mass-market adoption.

I think AR will make to the true mass-market before VR, but that's not easy either.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 09:00 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

ratboy2008: The headline is somewhat misleading. Less dynamic range than the A7RII maybe. Comparable to Canon 1D Mark II and the Nikon D5. In other words, top notch performance.

@osv. It's in the DPR article. And have a look the sample photos.

"well-behind" is my trollish emphasis added on differences one needs to laboratory test setup to verify. But that seems to be inline with the terminology used here to express one's unwavering fanboyness towards a commercial corporation. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: This kind of NEWS are getting old:

- Three years ago, 2014 "First Photo Taken with the Sony Curved Sensor",

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/04/first-photo-taken-sony-curved-sensor/

- Last year, 2016. "Canon Files 2 Curved Sensor Patents, One You Can Control"

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/09/canon-files-2-curved-sensor-patents-one-can-control/

- Now, MSFT.

- Next year, will be....

Yeah, it's bit far-fetch/weird that MSFT patents things like this, but MSFT research is one of the very few real corporate research centers that do research on many things not directly related to today's business. So they may have silicon experts that decided to ... file a patent. That's all.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 08:53 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: This kind of NEWS are getting old:

- Three years ago, 2014 "First Photo Taken with the Sony Curved Sensor",

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/04/first-photo-taken-sony-curved-sensor/

- Last year, 2016. "Canon Files 2 Curved Sensor Patents, One You Can Control"

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/09/canon-files-2-curved-sensor-patents-one-can-control/

- Now, MSFT.

- Next year, will be....

@Mike. Please read complete sentences instead of twisting my words based on your own bias. I said:

"The point here was that MSFT has accomplished to produce curved sensor in a _different_ way they claim to be "better" (whatever it means)." (emphasis added on "different").

There are several ways to do things, each having their pros and cons. I take no position whether MSFT's way is better or even as good as e.g. Sony's. It is just different and MSFT thinks it is "better" and thus they have patented it.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 07:31 UTC

Great PR move :-D

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2017 at 05:42 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Mike FL: This kind of NEWS are getting old:

- Three years ago, 2014 "First Photo Taken with the Sony Curved Sensor",

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/04/first-photo-taken-sony-curved-sensor/

- Last year, 2016. "Canon Files 2 Curved Sensor Patents, One You Can Control"

https://petapixel.com/2016/12/09/canon-files-2-curved-sensor-patents-one-can-control/

- Now, MSFT.

- Next year, will be....

Patents are different from "ideas". The point here was that MSFT has accomplished to produce curved sensor in a different way they claim to be "better" (whatever it means). The idea of curved sensor is probably as old as image sensor itself. But the question with innovations and patents is a feasible way of implementing an idea in practice. Thumbs up for MSFT Research.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

ratboy2008: The headline is somewhat misleading. Less dynamic range than the A7RII maybe. Comparable to Canon 1D Mark II and the Nikon D5. In other words, top notch performance.

Sony A9 is well behind Canon 1D X Mk II, but I understand some folks have double-standards for favorite brands...

Btw. Canon is now ahead of Nikon in dynamic range with 1 D X mk II. But I guess now dynamic range does not matter anymore, right?

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2017 at 05:36 UTC

I use averaging with my 5DII. I can shoot reasonably sharp images at 1/10s handheld with an IS lens (16-35/4L IS, 24-105/4L IS) and use ISO 1600 that is the max reasonable ISO for 5DII considering the sensor noise profile. But that is not enough for dark conditions like museums, churches etc. I shoot a burst until the buffer gets full (i.e. 7-8 images) and combine those photos with PhotoMatix HDR software using averaging (i.e. not a HDR processing).

This results good improvement in noise and sharper images. Recommended!

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 13:07 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: Won't an engineer bundled along with each Google Nexus 6P present a bit of a logistics problem for both Google and the buyer?

At least there might be issues with Visas etc.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1189 comments in total)
In reply to:

entoman: Am I the only person here who actively DISLIKES the current trend to produce hybrid stills/video cameras? Most of the photographers I know don't want video, which just makes stills cameras more complex and more expensive. I'm sure the Pansonic is a great compromise (biased towards video), but I'd much rather see cameras designed EITHER for stills OR for video. "Jack of all trades, master of none"

There clearly is need for the video features since companies keep adding those. If you don't use video, you just are not in the target segment of GH-5. I don't shot video either, but there are plenty of people who do.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 02:38 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (904 comments in total)

Those example photos look something one can take with a pocket camera... There is no "wow, medium format" element at all. Great to hear a MF camera made by Fuji is now good for street-photography. That area was previous dedicated to small-sensor mirrorless cameras only.

And where is the standard bicycling tracking test? This was supposed to be full review?

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 02:02 UTC as 80th comment
In reply to:

tinternaut: I think it's telling that Fuji went with Bayer for their medium format camera. That said, I'm currently bargain hunting out of curiosity for their JPEGs ...

@badi, et. al. By "had any realistic alternative" I did not mean pure technical reasons, but economic ones. The GFX (or any MF) volumes will be so low that customizing the sensor for Fuji only would not have been economical. That's why I said _realistic_ alternatives.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 03:36 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: I think it's telling that Fuji went with Bayer for their medium format camera. That said, I'm currently bargain hunting out of curiosity for their JPEGs ...

As if Fuji had any realistic alternative for the (Sony's) bayer sensor...

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 06:23 UTC

Which company is the next after Panasonic drops the gloves? Olympus?

I have said it long time how the bigger industry trends are not in favor of m43 system. Sony Alpha's are the same size with far better image quality and the whole market is getting eaten from below by the smartphones. If you have paid attention to the latest announcements, most of those are about companies extending to upper market segments (Fuji MF, etc).

As a consumer is always a bad thing to see choices and competition getting fewer. That can only mean that prices go up and that the consumer loses in the process.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2017 at 03:58 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jylppy: There is a nasty economic factor in play here too making larger sensor to be behind in silicon technology. The probability of defects on processed silicon is fixed per area assuming the same level of manufacturing. Let's say it A% over area size of X. And the probability of defect-free sensor of area X is then P(defect-free) = 1-A. Now let's make the sensor 2x larger in dimension making the area 4X. What happens to the probability of a defect-free sensor? Well, P(defect-free 4X sensor) = (1-A)^4.

Replace A with let's say 5% => P(defect-free|size X) = 95%.
Sensor sized of 4X: P(defect-free|size 4X) = 0.95^4 = 81%

Not only does a larger sensor cost more money since it takes more expensive silicon area, but there is lower production yield increasing the cost further.

Plus edge loss is larger with larger sensors (silicon wafers are round, sensors dies rectangle).

And then the lower production volumes.

Lower cost products / components sell in higher volumes in general. Assume now a sizeable fixed upfront investment for a new sensor (RD + production line). The fewer number of products (i.e. sensors) one is going to produce, the higher the amortized unit cost of that fixed investment is.

In summary, economics don't play well for larger sensors.

What does this then mean for larger sensor? Well larger sensors cost exponentially more to produce. And those will have to use older silicon technology (that has higher yield) .

Maybe Sony can accumulate enough volume for their MF sensor and update the tech to something more competitive in the next generation (after 4-5 years?) . Then we need the lenses...

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 15:03 UTC

There is a nasty economic factor in play here too making larger sensor to be behind in silicon technology. The probability of defects on processed silicon is fixed per area assuming the same level of manufacturing. Let's say it A% over area size of X. And the probability of defect-free sensor of area X is then P(defect-free) = 1-A. Now let's make the sensor 2x larger in dimension making the area 4X. What happens to the probability of a defect-free sensor? Well, P(defect-free 4X sensor) = (1-A)^4.

Replace A with let's say 5% => P(defect-free|size X) = 95%.
Sensor sized of 4X: P(defect-free|size 4X) = 0.95^4 = 81%

Not only does a larger sensor cost more money since it takes more expensive silicon area, but there is lower production yield increasing the cost further.

Plus edge loss is larger with larger sensors (silicon wafers are round, sensors dies rectangle).

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 14:51 UTC as 191st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jylppy: The scale of smartphone sales is just beyond anything else in consumer electronics. The new Personal Computer.

And this is not say that "PC will disappear". No, it will continue as high-end workstation proposition for smaller market segment. No one has come up with more effective way to input text than a keyboard. Mouse is unbeatable for tasks requiring precision. Certain tasks require display size and computing power only a PC can deliver. For now.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 03:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jylppy: The scale of smartphone sales is just beyond anything else in consumer electronics. The new Personal Computer.

The Great Irony of the story here is that since PC was created, it has aspired to compete against Workstation - a segment then dominated by UNIX-workstations from Sun, IBM, etc. For long time PC was good-enough for many "ordinary" tasks at the home and office, but could match the requirements for a high-end workstation. But economics of scale were on PC's side and finally PC beat Workstations! PC became the Workstation. But then smartphones emerged and suddenly PC was not Personal Computer anymore.

Today's PC is a Workstation. A product for specific, demanding tasks like CAD design, document creation, media workflow, high-performance gaming. But smartphone is THE Personal Computer for most the things people need. My wife sold her Macbook in 2013 and has been smartphone/tablet only since that.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 03:00 UTC

The scale of smartphone sales is just beyond anything else in consumer electronics. The new Personal Computer.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 03:48 UTC as 90th comment | 7 replies
Total: 278, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »