Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.

Comments

Total: 680, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

They just passed $1,000,000.

They're at 10x their funding goal, with 34 days to go.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 18:58 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

fmaxwell: I pledged about $1 so that I could ask the following questions (where everyone could see the answers or lack thereof):

Lens:
1. Will the lens have any means of being focused? If not, what is the model doing to the lens at 0:30 in the main promo video?
2. Will there be any means of adjusting the aperture to something other than wide-open f2.0?

Country of Origin
1. Will this camera be designed or manufactured in Japan? Is YASHICA's headquarters in Japan?
2. If not, why does the project location shows "Tokyo, Japan?" And why does the video show a lens that says "JAPAN" and have a text crawl that reads "YASHICA...Japanese Camera Brand...Since 1949?"

continued...

Yashica hasn't been a "Japanese Camera Brand" in quite some time. Kyocera sold the name to a Hong Kong product distribution and "brand management" company called "The Jebsen Group". In addition to sticking labels like "Yashica" on Hong Kong products, they distribute consumer electronics, commercial electronics, wine, building products, you name it. They're the Hong Kong distributor for Porsch, Kitchenaid, Dyson, Pentax, Richo, Stadler Form, Braun. Casio, John Deer, Lowel, Moen, Spacecam, Stedicam, Arri, Volvo.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

StevenLee: I'm certainly not a technical expert, but I'm struggling to understand the concept here. How can it be any sort of advantage or benefit to have to swap out cartridges to essentially change the shooting mode? Seems a really strange idea.

Except that Minolta used them to actually add data. This just "sets the controls" that they didn't want to build onto the camera.

A retro ISO control would have been fine. ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

StevenLee: I'm certainly not a technical expert, but I'm struggling to understand the concept here. How can it be any sort of advantage or benefit to have to swap out cartridges to essentially change the shooting mode? Seems a really strange idea.

The technical term is a "marketing gimmick"

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 22:12 UTC

They're already at 7x their funding goal, and they still have 38 days to go.

Talk about laughing all the way to the bank.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 22:00 UTC as 35th comment

I'll tell you all something interesting about the 2017 iPad Pros (at least the 10.5 inch) in the next day or two.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 01:30 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)

There is simply no way for a case as extreme as the foreground lights in the second picture to look natural. The human visual system doesn't work that way. If the foreground lights were important, the brain would refocus the eye on them for an instant, and add an in-focus image to its "3D scene".

So, given that they have to be "unnatural" we go for "pleasing", I'll vote for the smooth blur as the "lesser of two evils".

Now, look at the blur in the upper left of the second image, and tell me you honestly don't think the apodized version isn't radically superior. That's a less extreme, more realistic example of the sort of thing we encounter constantly, and this lens is doing a splendid job of it.

Now, something to keep in mind is that an apodizing filter only produces the best effect wide open, utilizing the edge of the filter that fades to solid black. Stopping down decreases the amount of blur, but what blur is left looks considerably harsher, more like an "ordinary" telephoto.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 01:13 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

aliquis: I think even / flat discs look very nice on some occasions though.

The "stars" effect can add to the image whatever it's "natural" / as viewed by the eyes or just a result of technicalities.

I don't necessarily view this as (always) "better" from an end result perspective.

Maybe it's more correct, not necessarily more beautiful.

@BBQue, ever hear the saying "cats are Satan's eyes and ears"?

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 01:01 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo_AK: Cool, now you can spend lotsa money to make look your portraits like you blurred their backgrounds with gaussian filter in Photoshop and still claim "No Photoshop Used" :)

@berleconi, yes, you can do it with a round diaphragm that gets darker to the edge. Problem is, you'd need a bunch of them. Soligar (remember them) made such a thing decades ago. Except, instead of using a gradually darkening glass, they used a disc with an intricate pattern of holes. Mathematically, it's pretty much the same thing, and much more cost effective.

And you'd have to develop a lens movement mechanism that allowed for a full semicircular arc of the barrel to be cut out for a slot (which eliminates modern focusing mechanisms).

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

Quantum Scientist: If true, I think they've finally gone overboard on this one.

If true?

If true?

Remember the "sapphire screen" that the Apple fanboys dreamed up?

How about the wireless charger with the 15ft range (can you say "death ray"? Sure, you can)

The iPhone 7 intro gave more stage and screen time to black paint than to any other feature of the new phone. The biggest iPhone 8 features appears to be the adoption of their biggest competitor's display tech.

I'm not expecting 3D laser scanners. ;)

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 21:37 UTC
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: It's like a combination of FaceOff and Silence of the Lambs with this facial recognition stuff. They'll still steal your phone and take your head as well,
Jeez, all to get to your FaceBook page.

Something I've always worried about with fingerprint readers.

I like my fingers: I'm really quite attached to them.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

NeilJones: 1 inch Sony sensor for the camera along with all new Carl Zeiss f2 lens. thanks

They make gadgets like that which clamp on to the phone.

What would impress me from a phone maker is a couple of factory stock mag mounts, one for accessories over the existing camera, one for bigger things like a supplemental camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 21:30 UTC

> Removing the fingerprint reader would be an important step to make the edge-to-edge display possible

Or they could just do what LG and rising star Huawei do and put it on the back of the phone.
> and would also reduce user frustration in wet conditions when Touch ID doesn't work well.

Nor does 3D laser scanners, or facial recognition.

> Additionally, it could potentially be more secure,

How? The false-positive rate in state-of-the-art facial recognition is over 100x that of fingerprints. Facial recognition only makes sense as a passive 2nd factor in a 2 factor authentication system.

> making it ideal for Apple Pay and other mobile commerce applications

Again, how?

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 18th comment
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo_AK: Cool, now you can spend lotsa money to make look your portraits like you blurred their backgrounds with gaussian filter in Photoshop and still claim "No Photoshop Used" :)

The lens blurs each background (or foreground) element in direct proportion to how far that element is from the plane of focus.

In order to do that with software, you need a complete 3D reconstruction of the scene. You can either do this with a 3D camera (time of flight (very limited range), stereo or n-eo (complex), lightfield (but we all know how that turned out), or focus stacking (not all that practical for live subjects)) or by using image recognition to sort out all the foreground and background objects (like the rather giggle-worthy results that various smartphone makers have achieved).

Give it a couple more years, and increased processing power in phones and other small cameras, and you'll see the software approaches look a bit better (techniques like SLAM, aka "inside out tracking" build better 3D scene models, but require huge resources).

Right now, the only way to do it right, in one shot, with any combination of subject, foreground, and background, is with a lens.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

George1958: great, mobile phone technology has taken another quantum leap with the inclusion of a hand warmer or in the case of Samsung a fire lighter.

No compact camera could do this, I am so glad mobile hand warmers and fire bombs have killed the compact market.

Nikon recalled the battery from one of my cameras because it was starting fires.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 01:54 UTC
In reply to:

TwoMetreBill: About once a week there is an announcement of a revolutionary new power storage technology. About once every decade one makes it to market. Please leave nonsense like this to Popular Science magazine.

Magic batteries are dpReview's favorite filler piece. So many of them over the last decade, and always emphasizing the fast charge aspect. Not a single one has ever made it into production.

Fuel cells had to have been the best of them all.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

sharkcookie: Every week some scientists claim to have been making a breakthrough energy storage technology. Interestingly it is never ready for commercial use and no sample of the product is available.

My dad has a complete collection of Popular Science going back to the 40s. How wrong some of those predictions were is fascinating...

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2016 at 02:52 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: Oh good grief, not the "charge in seconds" inanity again.

“you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My S7 has an 11.1 watt-hour battery that gets it through a day. To get through a week would, therefore, be 77.7W-h. That's 280kW-s.

How many seconds is "a few seconds"? Let's be generous and say 60. You charge the phone at 4.7kW to hit 60 seconds. A bit much for a single domestic circuit, even in 220V countries. Let's make it 1kW, to make sure we can charge the phone on a single domestic circuit in a 110v country, with some lighting or a computer or TV sharing the circuit. That's 280 seconds, not really "a few", but about 5 minutes. We can live with that.

How much does a 1kW charger weigh? About 5 pounds and it's around 6in square, 4 in tall. Costs about $500. And you sure can't run 1kW through a USB-C connector.

Which brings us back to a practical charger, 5-20W, affordable, packable. In short, status quo.

Oops.

Looks like Lee Jay beat me to this by about four hours. ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

Jose Ernesto Passos: I hope that this new technology use abundant materials, so that it can be applied to fulfil the needs of all. Looks like it could be the way out of fossil fuels and resulting in a cleaner world. Great news!!!

Well, there is the little detail of tungsten being about the most expensive to process non-radioactive element.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Anything that gets us away from LiIon or other batteries is a positive step forward, especially if it is durable and extends capacity.

Electronics with non removable batteries should be outlawed. Why consumers have accepted this I have no idea. Another brilliant idea from Apple.

> Why consumers have accepted this I have no idea.

Weatherproofing, waterproofing, styling, etc.

Now, why consumers accepted it from Apple, who brought it to us without weatherproofing or styling that required it, that's another story.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 03:50 UTC
Total: 680, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »