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: 3164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

It weights 2 Kg. Just saying.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:33 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Franz Weber: And once more Samsung copied the successful concept of another company.
All this 360 is nothing new, it was invented by Microsoft with the launch of Office 360

Office 365

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

Sorry - I do not understand your answer. Your claim above was that CC was an answer to pirating. I see nothing about CC in this article.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

Then I should have insisted some more :)

The trick here is to decide, which is most important, the light level or the amount of light. The speed booster increases the light level but do not add any extra light, of course.

The light level is most important if you preserve the ISO number. Therefore, the naive answer is that the speed booster actually is a real "speed booster". And, if you put the same lens on the same camera, with or without the speed booster, that is true. But, of course, then the FOV will change.

But, if the comparison is using the bare lens on an FF camera and the speed booster adapted one on APS-C (for a 0.7 SB) or m43 (for a 0.5 SB) then things are changing. Because, you can use the FF camera at a higher ISO and get the same quality. Then, the amount of light is more important.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:10 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

OK - but how about your faulty statement that CC is an answer to piracy?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

Yes, we are both right. Just different view points. Thanks for pointing it out. Maybe I should have gone elsewhere a long time ago, but I am quite annoyed with someone reading what I write, says I am wrong and then talks about other things. In particular since I am right. I wonder if cosinaphile can read it and see it now and admit it.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Fun, but can I use any of those lenses on my camera?

OK - I assumed they had a smaller flange distance. But - if it is 52, it should work. And I assume the lenses for 35 mm film quite nicely matches APS-C.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 21:30 UTC

This is nice. I have seen similar before, and I do not know how unique/price-worthy this one is. But anyhow, as far as I can judge - this is a good kick starter.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:16 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

proudfather: I'm no expert but couldn't a drone take a lot of these clips?

This is easier.

You saw the wire in several videos though.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (643 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: In section 6 (Appendix - Tests) there is a section regarding X3F and DNG. Most cameras (all but Sigma?) scales the RAW data so that they are "correct". They even do digital scaling for higher ISO, when the signal is not analogue amplified. This digital scaling is unnecessary and it only causes clipping of highlights. In the X3F file this is not made, which is a great advantage. Instead, the actual max value is stored in meta data. Nice thinking Sigma! And bad thinking, all other cameras!

Unfortunately, Sigma scale the data to DNG. This is totally unnecessary as our Kalpanika X3F->DNG converter shows. DNG also has meta data to tell the max value. As far as I can see a serious mistake by Sigma.

https://github.com/Kalpanika/x3f

I also wonder when DPR will mention that all other cameras has the disadvantage of Sigma DNG. Would be nice to read in a review in the cons list :) Or - at least in the pro list for Sigma.

Done

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

@String - what? You wrote about piracy. How can you prove yourself not wrong by talking about the cost for your company?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:33 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedWattlebird: Some dimwits try to compare a subscription model with Netflix or mobile
phone plan or coffee etc....

What ignorance.

I can stop a tv subscription and switch to another and it won’t affect any thing else at all. I can switch mobile phone plans anytime and keep my number etc.

With Lightroom it is different. The catalogue can not be easily ported to another software so Adobe know they are twisting your hand behind your back with the subscription model.

If I can’t buy a standalone, I’ll pirate.

And Lightroom classic will not support newer cameras in RAW. So, you have to add another RAW converter to your work flow. Which, apart from being an extra step to do, actually is totally foreign to the idea with non destructive editing.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

Of course. There are other alternatives. My point is that Adobe really wants to get rid of amateurs (and they do it in a very unfriendly way). They are not cost effective. So, it is a good thing that there are alternatives.

Personally I own the latest non CC Lightroom and Photoshop. This is a dead end now if you do not want to rent your software. Or if you do not want to complicate your work flow using more steps.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

MPS Photographic: A bit OT, but the article mentions "mirrorless medium format" cameras. Isn't that like driving a Mercedes S-class with a flat-screen TV replacing the windshield?

@Chris. Was that a reply to my post? In that case - please explain. (Not what WYSIWYG is. That I know what it means, but why you wrote the comment.)

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:13 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

GrahamHO: "Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital"

Well it already has; quoting from Wikipedia re "Canon 1n"
"During the late 1990s Canon and Kodak collaborated on a range of professional digital SLRs which combined Canon EOS-1n bodies with Kodak digital sensors and electronics. They were Canon's first ventures into the digital SLR market place and divided into two distinct generations.
The first generation was the Kodak EOS DCS series of 1995 which encompassed the 6mp EOS DCS 1, the 1.5mp DCS 3, and the 1.3mp DCS 5. The EOS 1n (FILM) camera bodies were almost unmodified from stock configuration and were mounted on a removable Kodak digital back" etc etc.
I still have my reliable 17 year old Canon 1n (film) camera which is upgraded with every new film stock. Meanwhile I have got through 5 generations of digital EOS which eventually become outdated because their technology is locked in the body of the camera. Doubtless my 5D4 digital will be long out of date in 17 years.

@GrahamHO. Kodak did not rebuild already existing cameras. And in particular they did not rebuild any random analog camera that people already owned. They had a cooperation with Canon, Nikon and Sigma to make a camera together based upon an existing camera type. It was (probably) a carefully planned development all the way. Much easier and with a much better result.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:09 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Hallelujah!!! The laws of physics have been changed. Thanks to Metabones. An f/1.2 becomes an f/0.7 after inserting a chunk of glass, with multiple elements, between it and the camera.
Give them the Nobel Prize for physics!!!

@cosinaphile. What I wrote was 100% correct. Why do you say something else and then say I am wrong? What is your game? Not reading what I write? Strange game?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

@String. Nope. You are wrong. Totally wrong. You can pirate CC. So, CC is not for stopping pirating. CC is a method for getting more money from companies, that do not pirate. Punkt! It is a business decision that probably increases Adobe's income, at the cost of losing their **paying** amateur users. It does not affect those that pirate anything at all.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (456 comments in total)

The major problem with CC, for us that do not want to go CC, is RAW conversion. My K-1 is not supported directly by ACR for my Photoshop CS 6, and never will be. The same kind of problem now applies for Lightroom, as can be read above.

And the two major problems with CC are that it is more expensive and that CC cannot be used after you stop paying.

Sure, Adobe's business is to make money and sure they can do whatever they want with their product. The sad thing though is that advanced amateur Photographers, that cannot motivate having a monthly cost, now are the losers.

We have bought your d/(&%d product, helped sustain your income, and now you kick us in the ¤%¤#¤%. You are not really liked all that much. At least not by me.

I almost wished I had pirated it instead. Then you would have owed me nothing.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:22 UTC as 144th comment | 12 replies

Too short!

Yes, it can be used for improving short scenes, if you plan to make a longer film consisting of many short scenes.

But, even this film is filmed with longer ones now and then. Or maybe just gimbals.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 19:52 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Enginel: I think there is much worse problem not mentioned in text: most of film camera shutters were not made for tens of hundreds of actuations like those in digital cams.
And in cameras with leaf shutter it's closed by default so with you're not liveview option like with a real digital cam.

I wonder - if any film based SLR ever have had as many shutter actuations as the most used DSLR today. Hmmmm ... I guess Enginel has a point. Even though I cannot prove it.

On the other hand - I guess most people that are interested in eFilm or digital backs to old SLR cameras are not the machine gun types.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
Total: 3164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »