Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 451, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
On article DxOMark Mobile report: Apple iPhone 6s (27 comments in total)

Key question is, does it make phone calls? I already have rather a good camera ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 10:22 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Light L16 packs 16 cameras into a single portable body (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: The apparently random spacing/clumping of the different lenses/sensors seems very odd to me. A geometric arrangement would have stunk a LOT less of "gimmick".

Brian

Yay sweet video, but still doesn't explain an apparently random lens aperture layout, with or without mirrors.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
On article Light L16 packs 16 cameras into a single portable body (398 comments in total)

The apparently random spacing/clumping of the different lenses/sensors seems very odd to me. A geometric arrangement would have stunk a LOT less of "gimmick".

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 09:56 UTC as 57th comment | 4 replies

Have the fixed the happy-snappy, break-off kickstand yet? The one that "cannot be replaced"? All that money resting (literally) on a couple of flimsy pins puts me right off.

Brian

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2015 at 21:40 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: Does it allow changing FOV?

Actually I do believe you. I was forgetting that in VIDEO modes, the GoPro is downsampling its sensor!

The confusion occurred because I nearly always use my GoPro for time-lapse sequences, and take full screen, full sensor, top resolution shots for each frame, which I crop, as required, later. THESE, I cannot better by taking cropped shots in the camera.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 12:23 UTC
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: Does it allow changing FOV?

Felix, I know my (Black, V3) GoPro offers different FoVs, but given it only has one sensor, and one fixed-focal-length, fixed-focus lens, there is TOTALLY no way the "cropped" views can somehow offer high quality than the whole-sensor view that I normally record. Photoshop is just as able to perform "digital zoom" as the firmware inside the GoPro, with the added benefit that you can make your mind up in the cool calm of your studio, rather than while perched on an electric monocycle, tyres off, about to run a tightrope across Niagara.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: Does it allow changing FOV?

No small action camera has any form of mechanical (optical) zoom. Some can record only a portion of the sensor (effectively, what folks call "digital zoom"), or you can record everything and crop later in post-production.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Does anyone know if this has ZERO rolling-shutter artefacts?

At some point I’d like to record bicycle rides from the handlebar. Something like this might work, but I can’t stand the wavy weirdness of electronically stabilised video of moving objects, from a moving platform, with rolling-shutter artefacts – as seems to be the case of about 90% of on-bicycle footage on YouTube.

All GoPro cameras use rolling shutters (as indeed do most CMOS video cameras from all manufacturers). You'll get jello artifacts unless you mount your camera on a very good 3D active gimbal.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2015 at 19:31 UTC
On article RED unveils RAVEN, a lightweight and portable 4K camera (161 comments in total)

Wow that looks like twin cooling fans on the top ... so guess no on-camera mic'ing with this one, and a hefty battery, which will not help its drone compatibility ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2015 at 18:20 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies

As someone who is on the verge of buying a multi-rotor photgraphic platform, I am torn between the "does everything automatically with extra safety features" of items like this, and the raw "flying beheading machine" variety.

As I probably want to keep my fingers on my hands, this model has its attractions. But ultimately, I think I want to take (at least) a micro-4/3rds camera up to several thousand feet, grab some serious areal stills, and then get it back in once piece.

Yes, away from flight paths, airports, and #10 or Buck House.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 17:58 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article DxO ONE real-world sample gallery (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.

My camera is easier to hold than that combo, has a bigger sensor, and a large built-in touch screen. And it can transfer images to my iPhone or iPad wirelessly - or even be controlled from them.

With NO fragile connector to break.

Brian

If so, that's good to know - especially as I am about to buy my first Lightning devices (iPad Pro and maybe iPhone 6S). Up till now, I've been on 30-pin devices.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
On article DxO ONE real-world sample gallery (185 comments in total)

I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.

My camera is easier to hold than that combo, has a bigger sensor, and a large built-in touch screen. And it can transfer images to my iPhone or iPad wirelessly - or even be controlled from them.

With NO fragile connector to break.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2015 at 19:22 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies

If I want to strap a camera on to go snorkeling or splashing around in a pool, or send one up in a drone or on a kite I'll use my GoPro. If I want to hand-hold photos with a waterproof camera, I'll use my TG-1. And for any real photography, not in and around the pool, my OM-D E-M1.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 12:51 UTC as 48th comment
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Simple reply: #whatever

Serious reply: #yeh_right

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Roland, go and learn about fish-eye lenses. It should then be obvious! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 09:33 UTC
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Roland, I think you miss my point.

A TRUE 180 degree fisheye lens (say, with an image circle that is 100% in frame, is measured across the DIAMETER of the image. From 90 degrees down to 90 up, is 180 degrees. From 90 degrees left, to 90 right, is 180 degrees. It is NOT measured around the CIRCUMFERENCE.

And yet this is EXACTLY what "Kodak" is doing here. Pointing a 180-degree lens at the sky, then marking out the points of the compass around its periphery, with distortion software to make it look like an all-round image ... which EVERY shot on a classical 180-degree fisheye, already is/was.

Again: we measure lens field of view ACROSS the diagonal of the image circle, NOT around the DIAMETER.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
On photo Humble Church and the Universe in the My Best Photo of the Week challenge (6 comments in total)

Beautifully conceived and executed - lovely image! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 08:46 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)

Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 08:42 UTC as 10th comment | 8 replies
Total: 451, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »