Robert Krawitz

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 30, 2010

Comments

Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Where this would really make sense would be a hypothetical R7 -- an APS-C action-oriented body. Put a 70-200 f/2.8 on it, and you now have a 50-140 f/2 -- something very useful for a lot of indoor sports

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2020 at 23:10 UTC as 7th comment
On photo balance in the Decisive moments in Still Life photography challenge (10 comments in total)

I'd sure like to know the physics behind *that*...but as a photograph, it can only be described as magnificent.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2020 at 03:24 UTC as 5th comment

I shoot sports for my college alma mater. My involvement with the men's basketball team (too slow and can't jump to play, so I managed the team) helped me through some tough times as an undergrad, so this both lets me get involved at a level I never could with professional sports and gives the players (primarily football and men's and women's basketball) some good memories. I've shot some other events for my school, also.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2020 at 03:11 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

lacikuss: Now I understand why they need IBIS...

They need in-planet image stabilization.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 22:22 UTC

It needs a speed booster. Imagine what you could do for nighttime street photography with a 50 f/0.032 lens?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 16:08 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

PankajDubey: Can they do street photography with this lens 🤓

That lens would do a pretty good job of concealing the photographer.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

PankajDubey: Can they do street photography with this lens 🤓

It's manual focus, so why anything but M mount?

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2019 at 00:52 UTC
On article Sigma to create 'Classic' range of cine Art primes (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

zkz5: Why does the lack of coatings reduce transmission from T1.5 to T2.5? Is that much light being reflected without the coatings?

In a word, yes (which also means there will be more flare, from multi-path reflections).

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2019 at 01:51 UTC
In reply to:

OneLeggedCat: Totally love your videos. One of the few things that has improved on this site since Amazon bought it.

Unpopular opinion: The world will be better off a hundred years from now once 24fps is dead dead dead, and everything is 120 or 240 or whatever, and everyone born then is no longer used to that blurred look of 24fps that does not happen in reality, and none of these shutter angles then matter.

True, but 60 fps (for example) is considerably smoother than 24 fps (the improvement beyond that point diminishes).

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2019 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

OneLeggedCat: Totally love your videos. One of the few things that has improved on this site since Amazon bought it.

Unpopular opinion: The world will be better off a hundred years from now once 24fps is dead dead dead, and everything is 120 or 240 or whatever, and everyone born then is no longer used to that blurred look of 24fps that does not happen in reality, and none of these shutter angles then matter.

@OneLeggedCat be prepared for someone else to join you in your unpopular opinion. Per https://www.quora.com/Why-are-movies-shown-in-24fps-while-60fps-looks-more-real -- and this person is largely defends its use -- the original reason was cost.

Our TV has motion interpolation that I think goes up to 120 fps. I much prefer the smoother and more natural appearance of the high refresh rate.

When I've seen IMAX films (the Boston Science Museum has a dome-type IMAX theater) I've always had problems with some sensation of motion sickness. I don't think it's the angular size alone that's the problem; I think it's the flicker and related artifacts that are so problematic.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2019 at 13:57 UTC
On article Olympus E-M1X vs Nikon D5: shooting tennis (655 comments in total)

What about team sports such as basketball and football (any variety), where the subject might be temporarily occluded by other players crossing the line of sight?

Link | Posted on May 1, 2019 at 17:16 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Robert Krawitz: I'd rather have a much thicker and heavier (and bigger overall) phone that doesn't need such cleverness.

No, I don't need thin either. Nor do I need small. I prefer big because it's easier to type on (not to mention more real estate in general) and because I don't have a problem carrying around a brick in a belt holster. Foldable, no way. I'm just too rough on gear; I want something I can get an Otterbox Defender type case for.

The Huawei Mate 20X sounds like a good phone; pity it's not supported in the US.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2019 at 19:46 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Krawitz: I'd rather have a much thicker and heavier (and bigger overall) phone that doesn't need such cleverness.

Everything else being equal, I'd prefer a big, thick phone (just easier for me to use, I find). But that's me. It's making it very difficult for me to shop for phones.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2019 at 19:59 UTC

I'd rather have a much thicker and heavier (and bigger overall) phone that doesn't need such cleverness.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2019 at 18:52 UTC as 28th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Some may attribute to printing being outdated but that's not true IMO.
These one hour photo places do a horrible job. I've tried them at Walmart and Meijer and I won't go back because the quality is lacking. I bet Costco is the same way.
I've moved to professional printing centers instead.
Print places such as MPIX and UPI actually calibrate their equipment. Colors are great, sharpness is good. No double image - all of which were problems at the box stores.

I suspect it varies a lot from location to location.

Something over 20 years ago -- in the film era -- I was in Tampa for something that I wound up being the semi-official photographer for, and shooting quite a bit of film. There was an Eckerd (chain pharmacy) right across the street from our hotel, and the quality of their work was superb. Their lab was run by an older, experienced person who clearly took great pride in the work done by him and his staff, and I noticed a number of awards hanging on the wall. But I've been to other places like that that did shoddy work.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2019 at 00:00 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: "Autofocus IS NOT and WILL NEVER be a good solution for professional cinematographers."
this kind of black/white statement always looks good in a college essay; but in 5 years will just look dumb.

@Eric Hensel then let's take it a step further: why do we need a camera with any controls at all? Just wear something that knows what photos need to be taken and done with.

That may be stretching it a bit too far -- but not by much.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2019 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

coyot3: I prefer Darktable but ill give it another chance.

@saiko Put

database=:memory:

in ~/.config/darktable/darktablerc (or wherever it lives on your system) and the database is not persistent.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2019 at 22:39 UTC
In reply to:

Satyaa: Nice article and an interesting point of view.

I think it poses two choices... do you include all the video-centric features and make the camera very expensive for stills photographers, or, do you remove most of the video-induced complications and make a simpler camera just for stills?

Both those options will have their own market but combining them into one will have a pricing issue.

I can see Panasonic having 3 models like Sony... (1) the S1R with high resolution and features for stills photographer. This is the model least useful for video due to the higher resolution, crop-factor, hug data to process, etc. (2) a new model (like A7S) that has all the features that video users like/need. A resolution at 1.5x 4K or 2x $K is enough so that the video can be down sampled in processing. This is what the author is requesting.

The S1 with 24 MP will always be the in-between all-in-one that meets both stills and video needs of enthusiasts but not have pro features for either.

How expensive would this be?

AF consists of three basic components:

1) The sensor

2) Something to compute the desired focus

3) Lens focus drive

The obvious way to implement what's described would be to make available the interface between (2) and (3). I don't want to minimize the work here, but it wouldn't likely require adding all that much. The alternate focus computer of course would be outboard of the camera and might not be cheap; people who want it would purchase it as an addon.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: As someone who played around with focus and motorized zoom on a camera I hacked and reverse engineered a lot, here are my thoughts:

Everything you said about display of distance scale, focus direction and linearity, DoF, making varifocal lens parfocal (already done on the fly by some cameras), etc, can be done in software. It's not even complicated. Wireless is a non-issue.

The same goes for flange discrepancies - could be done similarly to how D500 does AF micro adjustments.

Focus breathing is somewhat correctable by motorized zooms, but not completely and not on primes.

The only truly difficult part is that I doubt there is much profit in it. Or, to be more precise, those profits would pale in comparison to ones obtained by investing the same amount of effort into improving more popular functions (like actually usable video AF with tracking).

I've seen tracking AF blow up badly with video, if it decides to focus on something else for whatever reason. Then you wind up with the subject going way out of focus and drifting back in. With a still you might lose a shot to that, but other shots are of use.

I don't shoot a lot of video, but when I do I find it best to use manual focus or AF to set the initial focus and then turn it off.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: "Autofocus IS NOT and WILL NEVER be a good solution for professional cinematographers."
this kind of black/white statement always looks good in a college essay; but in 5 years will just look dumb.

I'm a big fan of AF myself. I shoot a lot of sports, particularly basketball, where manual focus would be very difficult since I've not developed the skills (and today's lenses and bodies aren't optimized for that).

At the same time, I recognize that there are situations that an AF system won't get right, and the OP provides enough specifics that make sense to me. Autofocus in the situations described would be analogous to autozoom/crop and automatic camera motion and positioning.

That's not to say that AF technology is not of use, and the OP provides some use cases that look to be well thought out and would provide real advantages.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2019 at 23:27 UTC
Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »