Roland Karlsson

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Programmer
Joined on Feb 23, 2002
About me:

Collector of K-mount and M42 stuff. Main camera K-1. Also interested in camera technology, e.g. Foveon. Also interested in computer based image analysis and transforms.

Comments

Total: 2461, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Andy Crowe: It should be a tin with a removable lid, not something you have to destroy just to get a single image. What a waste.

Exactly my thought. On the other hand. It will take one boring image. The next will look the same.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: I'm sure I'm being slow, but how is the paper-image developed?

It's a nice project.

Yes, if you expose long enough you will get an image without development.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 19:58 UTC
On article Canon will add C-Log to the EOS 5D Mark IV for $99 (444 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I could google it. But what the /&%&%¤# is C-LOG?

Funny :P

So - I had to look it up then. OK, it was a kind of logarithmic encoding of the image. Why this is better than gamma encoding, I do not know.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 17:35 UTC
On article Canon will add C-Log to the EOS 5D Mark IV for $99 (444 comments in total)

I could google it. But what the /&%&%¤# is C-LOG?

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 14:04 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The main problem with the Warhol interpretation is that it is NOT 100% a drawing. It is the original photo, Photoshopped, then adding some lines and decoration. You can still see the original photo.

I actually think it is both.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 13:53 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The main problem with this issue is IMHO that Warhol is dead, and have been so for 30 years. I have a very hard time accepting that there is anything to argue about at all. There is no artist to sue, and the artist cannot sue back. It is very unsound that we have laws that makes this kind of Foundations possible. At least 30 years after someone is dead.

Yes, you got that right. The reason for the foundation is to make money on his name, his work and his immaterial rights. On a person that has been dead for 30 years. How come you think that is reasonable?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The main problem with the Warhol interpretation is that it is NOT 100% a drawing. It is the original photo, Photoshopped, then adding some lines and decoration. You can still see the original photo.

The way we photoshopped in 1984 :)

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The main problem with this issue is IMHO that Warhol is dead, and have been so for 30 years. I have a very hard time accepting that there is anything to argue about at all. There is no artist to sue, and the artist cannot sue back. It is very unsound that we have laws that makes this kind of Foundations possible. At least 30 years after someone is dead.

Yes, they can. And that is where the system is faulty IMHO.

She should have no one to sue for Copyright, and the Foundation should have no means of suing someone claiming that a dead artist's work is infringement. This whole thing should be a non issue. The law machinery should just ignore it.

BTW - the Warhol piece of art was made 1984, i.e. 33 years ago. Has the photographer been trying to sue since then, or has she waken up more than 30 years later?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

JordanAT: ...the statute of limitations has run out...

The only two things that last forever are diamonds and copyrights*.

*Nobody alive to day will still be alive when the copyrights on content created today run out. That's close enough until congress extends copyright length again in a few years.

Fully agree. The "long lived" Copyrights is an abomination. Probably a result of too skilled lobbying and also corruption.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 16:10 UTC

The main problem with this issue is IMHO that Warhol is dead, and have been so for 30 years. I have a very hard time accepting that there is anything to argue about at all. There is no artist to sue, and the artist cannot sue back. It is very unsound that we have laws that makes this kind of Foundations possible. At least 30 years after someone is dead.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 16:05 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies

The main problem with the Warhol interpretation is that it is NOT 100% a drawing. It is the original photo, Photoshopped, then adding some lines and decoration. You can still see the original photo.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:59 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Rodger in Edmonton: My money sides with the Warhol Estate and the artist of the Wall St. Bull will win his too.

The works by both these " additive " pieces would have zero artistic value but for the work the addition is set against.

Can I add a few brush strokes to the Mona Lisa and call it my work?

In both cases one artist appears to usurp the fame of an existing work for their own ends. The seek the honors due the original artists by attaching their work to someone elses and they always choose a famous artist to add their schtick to because their intent is self glory not artistic creation.

Yes, you can add an extra smile to Mona Lisa and claim it your own work. Nema Problema.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 15:56 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

PAntunes: I feel this is just a prototype for technology that will be sold to cellphones.

It looks much bigger than a compact camera with similar zoom. The low light images don't even come close to a DSLR. The sunny images lack fine detail.

Looks like a great experiment but I don't really see any advantages of this over an advanced compact camera. Why not an rx100IV?

It poses a practical problem that the images are different. You need to do some morphing of the less exposed image and maybe fill in some small areas. This is where the "computational" part of the solution comes in.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 14:38 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

PAntunes: I feel this is just a prototype for technology that will be sold to cellphones.

It looks much bigger than a compact camera with similar zoom. The low light images don't even come close to a DSLR. The sunny images lack fine detail.

Looks like a great experiment but I don't really see any advantages of this over an advanced compact camera. Why not an rx100IV?

Easy. One sensor exposed 1/60 second to make a sharp image, one senor at 1/6 second to collect more light. Use the latter for dark areas, offering sharpness.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:52 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

gavin: Interesting but expensive. I thought my RX100 III was expensive for a small camera...

i7 simply has two cameras. The L16 is something totally different.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 08:40 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

gavin: Interesting but expensive. I thought my RX100 III was expensive for a small camera...

This is the first generation of a totally different camera. If it would not have been expensive, it would have been extremely subsidized.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: This looks like a repeat of the Lytro flop, albeit with 16 smartphone cameras crammed into something that looks like a 1990s Palm Pilot. It's clunky, chunky and doesn't have a chance as a standalone product. Maybe they can license their software? Hardware startups are always difficult.

This is not even remotely a Lytro. This one takes real and sharp images with high resolution. Lytro needs an enormous amount of hardware to do that.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

PAntunes: I feel this is just a prototype for technology that will be sold to cellphones.

It looks much bigger than a compact camera with similar zoom. The low light images don't even come close to a DSLR. The sunny images lack fine detail.

Looks like a great experiment but I don't really see any advantages of this over an advanced compact camera. Why not an rx100IV?

I doubt you will find this in cell phones. That brick is full of optics and mirrors. There is no room for any phone in there. Moreover, it probably needs a serious amount of energy for the image manipulation.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 21:53 UTC

I sincerely think that it was our work at Kalpanika that made them do it. We showed them that it can be done and how to do it. They might even have looked at our code, as it is open source.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 16:34 UTC as 5th comment

In this particular case, maybe they did know what they were doing.

OK - it is possible that they might inspire someone else that do not.

In practice, it seems like selfies at bridges and on cliffs is more dangerous though.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 20:45 UTC as 58th comment
Total: 2461, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »