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: 674, showing: 341 – 360
« First‹ Previous1617181920Next ›Last »
On article Reviewers offer first look at Microsoft Surface tablet (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Lammerse: I do own the ipad (3rd generation) and I bet it can't reach the hardware of the ipad by means of screen and battery life. But if you are not an apple junkie and you are more font of connectivity, compatibility and integration with your (Windows 8) PC - I think even this Windows tablet gives a better choice.

That this is a again written by an Appletologist (almost a scary Scientology level devotion) makes me wonder how much trust I have to put in this preview.

A couple of things: if you want to mention a huge number of apps, don't mention Apple but mention Android.
No it will of course not run IOS nor Android apps. But it will give you the freedom to install what you want and how you want it.

The intel based Surface Pro will. The ARM based RT tablets run app store apps, microsoft's way only. Not really that different from Apple or Android...

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 03:39 UTC
On article Reviewers offer first look at Microsoft Surface tablet (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

DougRight: It boils down to this - will we see Lightroom on an ARM? If not, then the surface photographers will want is the Intel version, not this Surface RT.

On a side note, I personally know well the appeal of the tablet set up, but after throwing money away on accessories for my iPad, I've come to the conclusion that for content creation purposes, nothing beats the portability and utility of a notebook out in the field. A Mac Airbook is nearly as thin & light as a tablet, and far far more productive.

I just finished my first RT app. Based on that experience and knowing what I do about raw processors, I'd say Lightroom isn't doable on RT.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 03:32 UTC
In reply to:

PicOne: I wonder if there's anyone working on development of a curved (parabolic?) sensor; isn't the fact that sensors are flat, and can't take lens light from oblique angles, the cause behind why larger sensor compacts can't be made? Ie.. compare to the old Olympus Stylus Epic ("fullframe").
http://www.d2gallery.com/cameras/olympusstylusepic.html

It's in any optical engineering text. I'd recommend Warran J. Smith.

Now, the conversion of an inherently planar projection lens to a curved projection by adding a cylindrical anamorphic lens that's larger and heavier than the original projection lens might fit within your definition of "insanely easy", but I'm tempted to drop both the "ly" and the "easy".

So, what inherent defect of sensor designs is going to be addressed by such a Rube Goldberg contraption?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2012 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

PicOne: I wonder if there's anyone working on development of a curved (parabolic?) sensor; isn't the fact that sensors are flat, and can't take lens light from oblique angles, the cause behind why larger sensor compacts can't be made? Ie.. compare to the old Olympus Stylus Epic ("fullframe").
http://www.d2gallery.com/cameras/olympusstylusepic.html

You can't remember where you read it, because it's wrong, which means that you didn't read what you think you read.

The central part of the retina is flat. The outer part just is basically used for motion sensing, so it doesn't matter that curvature of field makes it soft. Being spherical is a major optical problem for the eye. It's a side effect of the eye being able to swivel in its socket. It's all about motion and tracking, not "image quality", LOL...

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2012 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

Torkn Photo: In what universe is a 1" sensor even remotely close to 1 inch?

In my day, 1" was 25.4mm, and the so called 1" sensor is only around half that size. Even the diagonal is much smaller than 1".

In your universe, LOL.

The universe where, for a century or more, it's normal to talk about the width of the film, like 35mm, despite the cameras not taking an image that's 35mm diagonal, 35mm wide, or 35mm tall. 35mm covers 24mm tall formats in widths ranging from 18mm (Oly, Yashika, and other half frame) on up to 24x65 (Fuji XT/Xpan). It also includes 28x40 on cameras that used unperforated 35mm film, like Kodak 828, 20.955x15.24 academy motion pictures, and 24.89x18.65 "super 35".

So, video folks did the same thing, and talked about the width of the tube, something you can just whip out a ruler and check. Early digital cameras borrowed video sensors and the video terminology that came with them.

@robjons, forced? Really? I had no idea you were so formidable. I'll be watching eagerly to see how you manage this.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 13:47 UTC
In reply to:

PicOne: I wonder if there's anyone working on development of a curved (parabolic?) sensor; isn't the fact that sensors are flat, and can't take lens light from oblique angles, the cause behind why larger sensor compacts can't be made? Ie.. compare to the old Olympus Stylus Epic ("fullframe").
http://www.d2gallery.com/cameras/olympusstylusepic.html

Nope, not the cause, at all. A curved sensor has limitations with short lenses or fast lenses, and it can only match the exit pupil of a single fixed lens: it's essentially useless on interchangeable lens cameras or zooms.

Plus, optical projection is inherently planar, and lens design for curved sensors is insanely difficult.

But thank you for not mentioning the eye. Usually, when someone asks about curved sensors, they bring up the eye being curved...

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

Chekr: I would actually give this a try if the images format was an open standard...at this stage you can either view the images in the desktop program from Lytro or export them as flash files. Given that flash is well and truly on the decline and Lytro could disappear next year, remind me why I would commit my memories to this technology with proprietary image formats...

What would you do with the image data if it were an one standard? The system is effectively dead, no one else is ever going to write software to deal with the files.

You'd need them not only to open the standard, but to open the source to the software.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2012 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: The greatest challenge for the Lytro LF Camera is to find a really truly genuine USE for it.

The Wankel was great. The Segway was great.

The Lytro LF is great!

...great gadget, users please apply within.

.

That is not fair. There are some practical uses for the segway, and Wankel engines do have pretty good performance.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

facedodge: Heard they have the fastest Autofocus around.

;)

No. Their autofocus is slow, and inaccurate. It shouldn't be: the plenoptic system essentially makes the entire sensor a giant phase-detection autofocus sensor.

I think you're trying to be sarcastic, and make a statement about the lytro not actually needing to focus, which is not true. It only increases DOF about 3-4 stops worth vs wide open, and their lens is fast enough and long enough that wide open, the DOF is pretty shallow. It needs good AF to put the subject within that shallow DOF so you can do at least some "refocusing".

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

Tom view to a still: Light Field technology??? What isn't light field technology when it comes to photography?

I have heard the hoopla about this for a long time now. They don't explain anything really... bunch of techie double talk that really says nothing. I think the emperor has no clothes.

My guess at the big secret... focus bracketting. Several images taken simultaneously or near simultaneously. Software that uses the images to "slide the focus" (or de-focus) arcoss the multiple images. Give it a cool tech sounding name. You've got a new pet rock.

So far sounds like another red herring, time wasting gizmo. But.. love to see a true critical review. My mind is still open to facts, just not slogans.

If you had checked, like you accuse Tom of not doing, you'd have realized that the amount you can actually shift a POV with a lytro is about 10mm, making that feature useless at anything other than macro distances.

Past that, and you run into exactly the same occlusion problem you have converting a focus stack to 3D: an image that looks extruded rather than actually dimensional.

Focus stacking and lightfield imaging both produce volumetric data. The processing algorithms are similar.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: I see from the comments below that our usual flock of vultures have gathered again on the tree branch of DPR news to release their croak about things they've never tried, and matters they never bothered to understand.

Yes, that is what you do. But why are you bragging about being a vulture?

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 22:55 UTC
On article Coming soon: Lens Reviews to return to dpreview.com (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

readingaloud: One additional test that would be of immense interest to an (admittedly small, but growing) number of protographers would be to test lenses for infrared usability. It wouldn't have to be anything elaborate, but there are a bunch of us who would reallly like to know whether a lens has an IR hotspot before we spend good money for it, and currently there's no way to tell about a new lens until other IR folks start complaining about it.

There's two problems.

First is the "Sony lesson". High profile entities come under a lot of fire for offering any sort of support for infrared. It's one thing for some guys in a basement like Lifepixel or Max Max to do it, but dpreview would have the same problems that Sony had, religious groups and rabid mothers screaming about perverts taking "x-ray pictures" of their precious children.

Second is that IR hotspots are highly dependent on the wavelength of IR used, and the characteristics of a particular sensor, and that of the filter used for the IR mod. So there's no one test. That's also why you see so many "independent" tests disagreeing about particular lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 13:33 UTC
On article Coming soon: Lens Reviews to return to dpreview.com (272 comments in total)
In reply to:

David Rosser: I really think that the only satisfactory way of testing lenses is independent of camera using equipment such as this
http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/carl-zeiss-camera-lenses/industrial_lenses/products/lens-measuring-technologies.html#inpagetabs_41a6-0
I am sure that with the backing of Amazon DPReview could afford to purchase such equipment. The Zeiss lens testing equipment also has one important attribute that your methodology does not - it test the lens at infinity focus, your tests cover near focus only.

You do realize that you're advocating equipment that hasn't been updated in 15 years, can't measure past 6 microns (a 24mp APS camera is 4 microns) and, if memory serves, can't accommodate the short backfocus of EVIL lenses.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 13:27 UTC
On article Coming soon: Lens Reviews to return to dpreview.com (272 comments in total)

I've missed Len. He was my favorite of all the reviewers at dpReview, although Simon and Andy are pretty cool, too.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2012 at 17:50 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (613 comments in total)
In reply to:

CFynn: It seems Hasselblad must have got rid of their engineers and camera makers and just replaced them with some jewellers to make fancy skins for Sony cameras.

Indeed. They got rid of most of them in 1996, three takeovers ago. The new owners, UBS and CINVEN didn't take long to notice that there wasn't a single person among their existing staff who could design anything even remotely relevant to the day.

The thing was, those owners at least had (or brought in) some product planners capable of coming up with a tolerable survival plan, the rebranding of desirable Fuji products like TX and GX as xpan and the H system.

There's nothing wrong with that, Blad's roots are as a distribution company, actually making things isn't really their strength, and they never did as well at it as they did selling other people's stuff (truth often sounds like blasphemy, LOL)

Next owner, Shriro, also appeared to have some concept of helping Blad thrive, with the Imacon "merger".

It's just this latest owner, Ventiz, who started talking loud about leveraging the brand. We all knew something stupid was coming, we just didn't know it would be this epic.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2012 at 15:00 UTC
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: I knew the name Luca Alessandrini sounded familiar.

Isn't he the guy who "brand managed" Gitzo into their current straits? Remember the "basalt" (or "dirty fibeglass") tripod?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=10795245

I think that was one of his. How about the "Titanium Traveler", a $2500 limited edition?

If memory serves, he was also the mastermind behind Gitzo's plan to curtail all European manufacturing and outsource the entire product line to China (the move that accidentally created their competitor, Benro, AKA Induro).

Best numbers I have, about 2000.

The Luca should skyrocket that to at least 2003, maybe even 2005.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 18:29 UTC
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (613 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Hasselblad, truly, had a lot of respect, then.

Sony too.

This endeavor at Photokina 2012 saw them wipe it all out, by their own making.

.

They missed a compact system camera in the Luca's price range, LOL. The Leica M has a sensor with over twice the area of the "Blad" APS sensor.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 18:27 UTC
On article Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms (613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Carl Sanders: Just realised why it is called the Lunar, one would have to be a Lunatic to buy one! What an unfortunate mistake!

I think Luca named it after himself. Heck with Blad's history in the space program, an egomaniac got an opportunity to stamp his name on something, and he jumped at it.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 18:21 UTC
Total: 674, showing: 341 – 360
« First‹ Previous1617181920Next ›Last »