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: 2288, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Maybe time to make a digital film camera that makes a buzzing sound while filming, where every frame is displaced slightly, that is now and then out of focus, with added noise, scratches, dust and graininess and where you have to hold the film button in during filming. And, of course, with bad colors. The realistic colors of normal digital cameras is of course unthinkable.

Actually, the buzzing sound might be a good idea. Also to be forced to hold the button in. It will add a tactile feeling. The major problem for me to film with compact cameras and phones is that I am not sure it is filming.

@Tungsten. You find it hostile, That does not mean it IS hostile.

In this case it is quite reasonable to ask what the use is of a super 8 camera. It is quite surprising, is it not? And quite hard to explain how Kodak is thinking. At least too me. And then it is also natural to ask the question.

OK - I can buy that, if you think it is a splendid idea and even might consider getting one. Then, it is annoying to read that soem are questioning the wise in doing so. No problems. I understand that.

But - to conclude that they do this as an hostile act against you is a bit far fetched IMHO.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I see nothing wrong with young people, even old, trying out something that was wonderful at the time.

Not everything that is old is bad. What is wrong with people doing what They want, not what some people think they should want.

Learn to shoot on film? It seems to be much more efficient (and cheaper) to learn on digital, before getting that Arri. I do not think "The Force Awakens" was filmed with some Super 8 trained personnel in order to make them suited for using film cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

oatstao: gee zuz alot of hatin goin on - on both sides here. Lot's of misinformation , fallacy and straight up dogmatic / box thinking.

FROM BOTH SIDES NOW!

Use what you can - for your application! If you know how to use film and know it's properties and like it (100 plus years of photography have proved it's effective in it's appeal) Digital photography while convenient and amazingly sharp - the comments clearly reveal modern photog is akin to shooting video, not taking photos. 100 photos taken for one composition which with 5 seconds of forethought can then save literally hours of sifting through slightly adjusted redundant photos. This is what people are missing about the FILM format - it basically set the photographer up (generally) to compose on the spot (once familiar with the tools / lens) and become way more efficient when shooting. Yes film is NOT forgiving..and that's the charm. It's about application. If Kodak feels it has an application..so be it. You didn't invent it.

I have three comments.

1. Why those hate/hating comments/accusations? Immature IMHO.
2. It is not about film - it is about Super 8. Super 8 is low-fi.
3. Seems like you are mainly talking about still photography?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 20:06 UTC
In reply to:

photosen: So everyone's photos look exactly the same, great.

Are you a good photographer or are you not? If you are good photographer, then you can make a unique image even of a scenic spot. Please stop the whining. Hints have always existed. Just look in any guide book and you will get advices what to visit.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: No fair - a person should have to work for it. It's like fishing holes: you don't tell people where the fish are.

Just search the net for fishing pictures and extract the GPS coordinates. And you will find "fishing holes". :)

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 19:49 UTC

The map over Stockholm is very weird. Can't really relate to photogenic spots at the hot spots. Moreover, most of the images are taken at one spot. I assume that is the spot that is considered as a generic representation of Stockholm.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 18:51 UTC as 8th comment

Actually, I think it might become cool. Now - I would say that we need a bigger image database than 500px. And I do not agree with those that think it sux because this will increase the - me too - images. Yes, it will, but this will mostly be used by tourists. So, it does not matter. "Real" photographers will use this with some afterthought. And ... that is what counts when creating good photography.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:20 UTC as 22nd comment
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

@sg - yes the output is an analogue signal - just as I wrote. My point is only that the source is digital. And, if it is noise free enough you can extract that digital information. At low levels today you might be able to know that this is 16, 17 or 18 photons. And, 16, 17 and 18 are digital numbers. So, it might be considered a digital signal with some error. To be really analogue it has to be able to correspond to 17.138 photons. But, as we know that is never the case, due to quantization of light, the detection is not truly analogue. And acually, with some more development of the technology, we will know that it is 17 photons detected. Then it is truly digital, even if the signal is analogue.

I hope this is clear enough.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 20:21 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

webrunner5: I see nothing wrong with young people, even old, trying out something that was wonderful at the time.

Not everything that is old is bad. What is wrong with people doing what They want, not what some people think they should want.

Star wars was not filmed with Super 8.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Maybe time to make a digital film camera that makes a buzzing sound while filming, where every frame is displaced slightly, that is now and then out of focus, with added noise, scratches, dust and graininess and where you have to hold the film button in during filming. And, of course, with bad colors. The realistic colors of normal digital cameras is of course unthinkable.

Actually, the buzzing sound might be a good idea. Also to be forced to hold the button in. It will add a tactile feeling. The major problem for me to film with compact cameras and phones is that I am not sure it is filming.

Focus is very much a function of the medium. Digital sensors are extremely flat and do not move when filming. Movie film on the other hand has to be kept flat and it is moving.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:56 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

@sg. Perfectly fine paper, describing how sensors works. I see nothing in that paper supporting your claim though.

@probert. Digital means that you are working with discrete values and analogue means that you work with continues values. If the detector works in photon counting mode, it is digital. The best of current detectors have read out noise that is quite close to that mode. So, the detection is, kind of, noisy digital. Then, this "nearly" digital value is treated as an analogue signal, and you are doing analogue amplification and A/D conversion.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:48 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

A digital circuit also consists of transistors, resistors, capacitors, diodes. All analogue elements. There are no digital elements. Still, there are digital circuits, built to handle digital information. Built with analogue elements.

The same goes for light detectors. The information that light detectors measure is digital. It is number of photons detected. A digital value. If you can decrease the noise well below one detected photon, then you get a photon counter, that is clearly a digital detector. Current image sensors are very close to that. Very, very close.

That this digital value is converted to a voltage with analogue elements is totally besides the point. It is still digital. The only reason for it being a bad digital detector is noise. Calling it analogue is misleading.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:58 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: To all the haters:

My grandfather shot Kodachrome Super 8 & also black and white movies of his kids. Those movies look as good today as they did when they were shot.

How good will all your digital videos look in 65 years from now? Will they even exist?

I can shoot some film and put it in an archival box with a projector, and know it will be viewable in 100 years as long as there is a source of electricity. I'm not sure you can say the same thing about any digital information formats.

And honestly how much more often do you really want to watch such videos? lol.

Also, protip: clouds evaporate.

So - the lame haters argument again. I dare say that no one (or almost no one at least) here has any hate for analogue. Just as they do not hate steam engines. Still, they do not plan to get a steam engine driven car. And look at wonder at those that claim it is a better choice.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:45 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)

Maybe time to make a digital film camera that makes a buzzing sound while filming, where every frame is displaced slightly, that is now and then out of focus, with added noise, scratches, dust and graininess and where you have to hold the film button in during filming. And, of course, with bad colors. The realistic colors of normal digital cameras is of course unthinkable.

Actually, the buzzing sound might be a good idea. Also to be forced to hold the button in. It will add a tactile feeling. The major problem for me to film with compact cameras and phones is that I am not sure it is filming.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 13th comment | 7 replies
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: An LCD screen? A split prism? And a film cartridge? You see anything wrong with this?

I mean -- there is a digital image already. Why record on film and then scan it to a digital image? What can this do that a software filter cannot do?

This is as crazy as it can get.

Oh my! Art! :) The art argument again. If you cannot make art with the digital medium, you are poor artist.

Noise, unsharpness and weird colors no art makes. Artists make art.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:24 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

Then, that the voltage you get out is generated with analogue methods is totally besides the point. A detector cannot detect 104.53 photons. It detects 104 photons.

The only reason why it is considered analogue is that noise makes it uncertain whether it is 104 or 105 photons detected, and therefore you might get a (faulty) value that 104.53 photons have been detected.

And ... you can make any digital value "analogue" the same way. Just add random noise.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:19 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

Totally nonsense. All electronics is analog if you look close enough, even computers. Because, voltages are analogue and not digital, as I said, even for computers. Still we call computers digital, because it can do digital computations. And the reason we call computers, and memories, etc digital is that it can, using the analogue circuits be made to store digital numbers.

Now, our computers are binary (on/off) for practical purposes. But, with suitable fabrication methods, digital computers could be made that stored several levels in each cell. Just as the detector in the image sensor can store several levels. The detectors are essentially digital, as it store a number of charges.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

@sg - that is only partly true. In the detector electron/hole pairs are created. And, there is a max amount of such pairs that can be created before the detector is saturated. The number being in the order of 10K-100K or so. So, there is an integral number of values the detector can have on the voltage you are talking about. This is clearly digital.

Now, there is noise, so the accuracy for reading this integral value is generally more than one level. So, then it looks analogue. But, before noise, it is digital.

NOTE - this has nothing to do with JPEG or Bayer.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:06 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Well, we live in an analog universe so it's no wonder to me why digital tends to "feel" wrong. But I'm also not sure that going back to a old technology is the answer, especially considering that Kodak digitizes the film from what I understand, looping us right back to that which we seek to avoid.

Anyway .... just some food for thought 💭

Image sensors are not analogue devices. They are detecting photons. The only reason they may look analogue is due to noise. And - noise can be added to any digital recording, if you want it to be less digital. One such added noise is dithering. Moreover, image sensors are clearly not analogue in the spatial domain. It is NxM detectors, in a regular grid.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (408 comments in total)

An LCD screen? A split prism? And a film cartridge? You see anything wrong with this?

I mean -- there is a digital image already. Why record on film and then scan it to a digital image? What can this do that a software filter cannot do?

This is as crazy as it can get.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 19:03 UTC as 17th comment | 17 replies
Total: 2288, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »