Enginel

Joined on Jun 9, 2011

Comments

Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SteB: This whole claim upheld by the court that the Macaque took the photo, and therefore the photographer doesn't own the copyright is beyond absurd. It really does entirely discredit legal thinking, exposing it to be seriously ignorant of photography. For a start if the photographer had not revealed how the photo came about, there would be no case. The photographer specifically gave the Macaques the camera to see what would happen, and then downloaded and probably processed the camera. Almost certainly the Macaque had no insight that it was taking a photograph, or even the process of capturing an image.

There are numerous instance in photography where the photographer does not physically take the photograph. Such as an assistant tripping the shutter of a studio scene set-up primarily with the direction of the photographer, to various types of camera trap. For years photographers have remotely triggered cameras at sporting events not knowing what the scene was they were capturing.

The assistant (and the model) should have a written agreement with photographer, shouldn't they?

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 06:40 UTC
On article Leica chairman contemplates Leica smartphone (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Don't post cell phone images until you put organic graphene sensors.

@endofoto
did they claim '1000 times better' in it?

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 09:25 UTC
On article Leica chairman contemplates Leica smartphone (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Don't post cell phone images until you put organic graphene sensors.

eeek how it can be 1000 times better if quantum efficiency of modern sensors already exceeds 60% (for green)

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 19:31 UTC
On article Leica chairman contemplates Leica smartphone (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

surlezi: Yawn. This is so boring. Smartphones are junk now. Anything 3 years old is same as newest, market is saturated. They really need this kind of stuff to go on selling overpriced silicium.

It's a latin name for silicon, the main component in the CMOS image sensors (and most integrated circuits)

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 17:28 UTC
On article Leica chairman contemplates Leica smartphone (115 comments in total)
In reply to:

endofoto: Don't post cell phone images until you put organic graphene sensors.

how that would improve IQ?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 17:26 UTC

I guess what is the state of art of restoring such old films (both physical and digital). Maybe something like electron scanning might get more info than a simple scan.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 17:24 UTC as 57th comment

Disapprove of transgenderism/same sex marriage: bad, conservative, redneck, creationist.
Disapprove of google glass: protects universal human values from evildoers.
'progressive'....

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 03:34 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: With mechanical cameras they had no equal. With electronic gadgets, not so much.

all modern cameras are "electronic gadgets" and how fast they shoot, find AF and large buffer is as important to every photog as much as mechanical quality.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Wow Leica. Bad sensor in the M9 and weird power up problem on the M240 (had one yesterday). A bit more testing would have gone a long way. Kudos on replacing the M9 sensors until the 15th of August this year.

@Photoman
I know it's not that easy to replace sensor with different type, but given that CCD sensors do not have much circuitry but CMOS can have, and M9 has no liveview nor video and has slow fps, it does not seem outside reach that a CMOS sensor to be developed to be replacement.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 09:27 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: Wow Leica. Bad sensor in the M9 and weird power up problem on the M240 (had one yesterday). A bit more testing would have gone a long way. Kudos on replacing the M9 sensors until the 15th of August this year.

btw I heard somewhere Leica began to replace defective CCD sensors in M9 with CMOS ones, is this ture?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
In reply to:

Lobbamobba: First company ever to have a bug.
Accept for Fuji.. and Nikon..Canon, Pentax, Samsung.. and Sony.. Panasonic.. Olympus.. Kodak.. Red, Blackmagic..

At least they are fixing theirs (looking at you Fuji and Sony).

Camera temporarily shutting off (when shooting video in a stills camera?) is "bricked"? How so?

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
On article This $31 lens will turn any room into a camera obscura (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ergo607: Now to figure a way to put in a mirror and pentaprism to have the image reversed...

Pentaprism would be too heavy. I'll guess two diagonal mirrors will do they way

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: As always, I'm confused by human emotions. A $1950 24mp camera with 4K video that opens the door to the exquisite world of Leica lenses? How is this in any way a bad thing? You say it can accept M42, but what about Leica's M39?

it accepts M lenses via adapter and since M accepts M39, it accepts M39 too xD

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

Simon Zeev: I would like a dual sensor camera with a 7cm stereo base to take stereo pictures.

@BBQue
There are some difficulties in doing this, e.g. many cameras much wider than 7 cm.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 12:28 UTC
In reply to:

Josh Leavitt: If any company nails down a cost-effective mass-production method, then curved sensors are going to have a huge impact on the industry. The ramifications this has for reducing weight and size of lenses, while reducing production cost and increasing quality of the optics, will finally allow smartphone manufacturers to produce cameras capable of rivaling micro four thirds systems.

It's going to be a tough pill to swallow for professional photographers and manufacturers, because legacy glass will no longer be compatible with new curved sensor camera bodies. But I think the potential gains outweigh all opposing arguments. Ultimately because the lenses will be so much easier and less expensive to produce. It won't take long at all for companies like Nikon, Canon, and Sony to rebuild their lens libraries from the ground up.

@melgross
new sensor might still find use for specific cases where curvature matches such of object's (e..g insect faces) where you do focus stacking anyway but curved sensor might reduce amount of it.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 12:12 UTC
In reply to:

Alberto Tanikawa: A curved sensor would not reduce vignetting, or improve peripheral illumination from lenses. That is dictated by the lens design itself. Light fall-off towards the edges will be exactly the same whether on a flat sensor, or elevated by a few millimeters on a curved sensor. More modern lens designs mitigate the need for such sensors. Not to say they are useless, far from it. Matching a telescope to a specific curved sensor should make coma a thing of the past.

@Jon Stern
I'm talking about these modern 18-21 mp sensors at 1/2.3" size. e.g. canon sx730 hs is 21 mp and the lens is rather slow f/6.9 at telephoto end (probably even it's a rounded value so it's even slower).
suppose the lens gives best IQ at 0.5 or 0.6 micron wavelength instead or 0.55, then we could improve IQ by picking data from corresponding color channel.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 11:17 UTC

If it uses same expensive film as film Instax camera, what's the use?
Logically this this should be closer to inkjet/laser jet printer in print cost than film.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 10:52 UTC as 9th comment

Everything correct. He should have used remote shutter, or a video and get frames from it. Being stick to an old paradigm is no good

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 09:19 UTC as 68th comment
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: After reading for hours up on curved sensors, white papers, ten patents or so and latest productions: I can assurely tell you that this is only advantageous for a single focal length per sensor.

If we design an ultra wide angle lens with a correspondingly curved chip that has the cheapest and least number of elements yet gives edge-edge sharpness (long-story-short a really good cheap small ultra wide made possible due to the sensor curve)

and then want to design an 85mm portrait lens for that same chip, we'll be working with constraints of the sensor curve that's ideal for the ultra wide lens and it wouldn't give an advantage to that lens.

Same story with any zoom lens.

It just doesn't work the way they make it seem (we will make sensors that make your lenses cheap and small) Yes you will, but only one lens for one sensor will be made smaller, compared to an identical flat sensor and an identical flat plane lens.

So is it the future? No. Not unless they cam male sillicon chips with photosites and microlenses plus AA and Infrared filters and glass that can bend all as one unit when given a numerical value in-camera (HINT: they can't and won't be able to with any kind of current modern lithography processes, maybe in 50 years or more)

So useless? Of course not: This is, if cheap enough, can make wonders with prime fixed-lens cameras like the Fuji X100 or Sony RX1 or mobile phones or maybe best of all a 16-18mm FF equivalent pocket camera with quite a large chip and edge to edge sharpness, wouldn't that be cool? It would.

@ProfHankD
virtually every time I ran optimization of prime lens in CAD with image curvature as free variable, it tended to chose curvature radius equal to FL. Well, maybe this doesn't work in fisheyes which need to be retrofocus anyway xD

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 08:15 UTC
In reply to:

Ebrahim Saadawi: After reading for hours up on curved sensors, white papers, ten patents or so and latest productions: I can assurely tell you that this is only advantageous for a single focal length per sensor.

If we design an ultra wide angle lens with a correspondingly curved chip that has the cheapest and least number of elements yet gives edge-edge sharpness (long-story-short a really good cheap small ultra wide made possible due to the sensor curve)

and then want to design an 85mm portrait lens for that same chip, we'll be working with constraints of the sensor curve that's ideal for the ultra wide lens and it wouldn't give an advantage to that lens.

Same story with any zoom lens.

It just doesn't work the way they make it seem (we will make sensors that make your lenses cheap and small) Yes you will, but only one lens for one sensor will be made smaller, compared to an identical flat sensor and an identical flat plane lens.

So is it the future? No. Not unless they cam male sillicon chips with photosites and microlenses plus AA and Infrared filters and glass that can bend all as one unit when given a numerical value in-camera (HINT: they can't and won't be able to with any kind of current modern lithography processes, maybe in 50 years or more)

So useless? Of course not: This is, if cheap enough, can make wonders with prime fixed-lens cameras like the Fuji X100 or Sony RX1 or mobile phones or maybe best of all a 16-18mm FF equivalent pocket camera with quite a large chip and edge to edge sharpness, wouldn't that be cool? It would.

@drajit
true

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 08:13 UTC
Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »