raphaelmatto

Joined on Oct 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

NotArt: Umesh of PiXimperfect is unimpressed https://youtu.be/cfTbrJP5TXs

That video is ridiculous, dude has no idea what he's talking abt & hacks the Adobe function. Fake news.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2021 at 07:55 UTC

Really excited to see progress on the Nikon apps. I downloaded the Mac version of NX Studio & the UI is much more intuitive. I'm a paying Adobe customer & Bridge/ACR user, but Nikon's software matches the in-camera profiles exactly & ACR doesn't. Colors always look a bit wrong / bad in ACR when comparing to NX-D. The main reasons I'm still stuck on ACR are 1) I have other cameras (griii), so other raw files to deal with & want one workflow, 2) the panorama stitching in ACR is fantastic, & 3) ACR is fast & NX Studio & NX-D are super sluggish to interact with, almost like I'm using them remotely over remote desktop. Do people experience the same sluggishness on Windows? I'm guessing the programmers aren't using the graphics card capabilities on the mac version & letting the cpu do it all & it just feels painful going from ACR, which is smooth as butter.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 06:47 UTC as 106th comment

I've worked in the animation industry for 20 years & this is 1) mind-blowing / so exciting but 2) I want to cry thinking about how much time friends/colleges put in painstakingly chasing this effect, doing it all brute-force. Looks almost perfect, a game changer.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2020 at 01:30 UTC as 17th comment
On article DPReview TV: Fun with bokeh (52 comments in total)

Everyone has their preference, but I've always leaned towards trying to downplay the bokeh effect, preferring to stop down to f2.8 on a f1.4 lens, for example, to soften the edges of oof elements w/sharp edges, like branches, grass blades, or lamp posts. I like separation of subject & background & find that the background jumps forward when sharp lines boarder objects that are otherwise oof, &, for me, this defeats the point of pushing your background oof.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2020 at 15:43 UTC as 10th comment

Watched this line for a while, but the griii ended all that for me. Same or better image quality, more useful lens length, faster operation, smaller/lighter, more discrete. If not for that camera I might pick up one of these.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2020 at 00:16 UTC as 113th comment
On article How HDR display could change your photography forever (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jack Pangolin: I still need to be convinced that HDR capture requires HDR display.
Photography has always been about dealing with shadows and highlights to achieve intended levels of details/contrasts.
HDR capture is great since it allows for a wider tonal space to work with.
Yet, once the intended image is achieved, it has necessarily lost some of its original DR and been reduced to a human-friendly pixel matrix which isn't supposed to burn one's eyes blind with excessive contrasts.

Get a HDR 16bit raw file, edit it on a HDR display to achieve an intended LOD, then let me edit the same raw file on my SDR display, to achieve the same percieved LOD on my SDR screen.
Then kindly tell me where is the benefit of HDR displays.
Sure, editing the raw file on an SDR display will differ (the sliders won't be set the same as on the HDR one), but who cares, since the same LOD is achieved ?

Maybe I'm missing something big here. In that case don't be rude, I'm sincerely looking for the point of HDR displays.

It's the kind of thing you have to see in person to be convinced by (or not, if you don't like it).

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2020 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

nnowak: Personally, I found very, very few of his images even remotely compelling.
https://www.tatsuosuzuki.com/works.html

How is this even considered "art"? It is literally "spray and pray" in the lowest form.

Step 1: Set the camera to one of the B&W film sims
Step 2: Enable burst mode
Step 3: Walk around a crowded city thrusting your camera in people's faces while mashing the shutter button.

The only skill Tatsuo has over any other random person is the willingness to be a jerk in public.

The method seems rude to me, agree there, but rude people get to exist. I wouldn't shoot that way, but I have to disagree w/you abt the result, his images are wonderful. I followed ^ that link & clicked on the 2009_2018 TOKYO STREET gallery. & it's not just about shooting, it's about the selections / cropping & story you create w/context, he's clearly putting a ton of effort in & it pays off.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 22:49 UTC

I found VueScan in 2006 & it's been at the core of my scanning workflow ever since, wonderful/reliable/professional product. Keeps me shooting film :) Love the upgrades & continued support. Frankly, I'm surprised & delighted Ed stuck with it for so long, long past what we deserve for our dollars. Perhaps best value for money of any purchase I ever made.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2019 at 14:22 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

raphaelmatto: I don't see any difference between the pixel shift images and the "normal" A7RIV images--they're the same physical size & the sharpness looks nearly identical (w/the "normal" images looking slightly sharper if I had to choose). Is something wrong with the image comparison tool? I haven't downloaded the originals.

Awesome, thanks @PandaSA!

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2019 at 20:49 UTC

I don't see any difference between the pixel shift images and the "normal" A7RIV images--they're the same physical size & the sharpness looks nearly identical (w/the "normal" images looking slightly sharper if I had to choose). Is something wrong with the image comparison tool? I haven't downloaded the originals.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2019 at 13:22 UTC as 63rd comment | 2 replies
On article DPReview TV: Sony a7R IV preview (476 comments in total)

I have one hope for the A7IV: that they keep the high rez evf introduced here & don’t skimp out like w/the A7RIII vs A7III.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2019 at 12:18 UTC as 74th comment | 1 reply

Super excited about this adapter, as a Z6 owner! Combine this with Nikon's lens road-map & you know which Sony lenses to grab, & which Nikon lenses to wait for.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2019 at 14:30 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

Cool experiment, some of the nastiest rolling shutter Jello I’ve ever seen, but who cares. Can get a similar effect for stills with a phone shooting short panoramas, or stitch a hand-full of vertical 35mm frames together, tho hard to do w moving subjects :) ... & no famous smeared highlights. Reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZixDTrQdzo

Why not combine these ideas & do “cheap” anamorphic large format :P

Link | Posted on May 14, 2019 at 01:49 UTC as 17th comment

Well I'm one at least who would definitely not renew if it was $20. They just barely got me in with $10, it's the first time I've paid for any subscription, besides for web hosting.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2019 at 17:58 UTC as 345th comment | 2 replies
On article The best lenses for Fujifilm X-mount mirrorless cameras (277 comments in total)

An embarrassment of riches, looking forward to the z-mount buyer’s guide, when there are too many to choose from.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2019 at 03:42 UTC as 41st comment

Kind of surprised to see "University Professor" on the list. I have a bunch of friends clawing towards vanishing tenure track jobs who would disagree with that.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2019 at 20:05 UTC as 129th comment | 6 replies
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

raphaelmatto: The one thing no one seems to mention in these format size comparisons, arguably the most important thing, is the geometry of the image is different. Take a pic w a D80 w a 50mm lens, stand in the same spot and take a pic w a D800, you’ll get the exact same image, except the edges will be “cropped off” on the d80 image. If you want to include everything the d800 saw w a shot from the d80, you either have to step back or put on a dif lens, ‘bout 35mm, doing both of which change the geometry of the scene (objects in relation to each other). Larger formats let you use lenses with less distortion (80mm on med format vs 50mm on full frame) to capture the same scene, images feel more expansive, has nothing to do w dof/resolution/iso sensitivity. The difference between med format & full frame is more dramatic than full frame to aspc, but it’s still there & to me aspc feels cramped because of it.

... but, I guess I'm still not totally convinced--check out the "Angle of view, depth of field and depth of field transition" section in this article: https://blog.mingthein.com/2015/02/24/that-medium-format-look-what-is-it ... he's come to the same "intuitive" conclusion that I have, after years of working w/different formats: "Subjectively, this means that a lens that covers a very wide angle of view on a larger format just feels less ‘wide’ (usually characterized by geometric distortion, think edge stretching) than the same angle of view on a smaller format." ... so I think the effect is real, I just haven't exactly nailed down the technical "why" yet. Again, it's more obvious jumping between 6x6 & 35mm vs 35mm & asp-c, but still noticeable enough for it to "feel" cramped, after shooting 35mm & larger for 30 years. When I try to get excited about the fuji lenses & take a look through the 56 1.2 flickr group, for example, it's deflating, the images "feel" cramped vs a 85 1.8 on 35mm.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2019 at 03:20 UTC
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

raphaelmatto: The one thing no one seems to mention in these format size comparisons, arguably the most important thing, is the geometry of the image is different. Take a pic w a D80 w a 50mm lens, stand in the same spot and take a pic w a D800, you’ll get the exact same image, except the edges will be “cropped off” on the d80 image. If you want to include everything the d800 saw w a shot from the d80, you either have to step back or put on a dif lens, ‘bout 35mm, doing both of which change the geometry of the scene (objects in relation to each other). Larger formats let you use lenses with less distortion (80mm on med format vs 50mm on full frame) to capture the same scene, images feel more expansive, has nothing to do w dof/resolution/iso sensitivity. The difference between med format & full frame is more dramatic than full frame to aspc, but it’s still there & to me aspc feels cramped because of it.

Thanks for the clear explanation, RPJG! Ran a little test to believe it w/my own eyes. I've been working under that assumption a little too long, very happy to be corrected. Makes the asp-c format much more interesting to me (esp the griii & xt-30). I played a bit with this tool: https://mmcalc.com ... regarding aperture, interesting that the 56 1.2 fuji is "only" an f 1.8 equivalent, the fuji 35 1.4 "only" an f2 equivalent, the Ricoh GRIII "only" an f4 equiv, not a f2.8, etc ... so maybe there are more options in full frame for wider equivalent apertures, due to some design constraint ... not such a bad trade-off for the convenience of a small camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2019 at 02:46 UTC
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

raphaelmatto: The one thing no one seems to mention in these format size comparisons, arguably the most important thing, is the geometry of the image is different. Take a pic w a D80 w a 50mm lens, stand in the same spot and take a pic w a D800, you’ll get the exact same image, except the edges will be “cropped off” on the d80 image. If you want to include everything the d800 saw w a shot from the d80, you either have to step back or put on a dif lens, ‘bout 35mm, doing both of which change the geometry of the scene (objects in relation to each other). Larger formats let you use lenses with less distortion (80mm on med format vs 50mm on full frame) to capture the same scene, images feel more expansive, has nothing to do w dof/resolution/iso sensitivity. The difference between med format & full frame is more dramatic than full frame to aspc, but it’s still there & to me aspc feels cramped because of it.

If I take a pic w a 50 on a d800 where a cow in the fg appears the same size as a building in the bg, and there are fence posts on the left/right edges of frame, then shoot that same 50 on a d80, the cow and building will be the same size in relation to each other, but I won’t see the fence posts (they’ve been “cropped”). If I want to see the fence posts at the left/right edges of the frame on the d80, I slap on a 35, but then the cow appears larger in relation to the building in the bg, than in my original pic w the d800. What am I missing? Would like to know where I’m going wrong in my thinking & this example.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 20:05 UTC
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (435 comments in total)

The one thing no one seems to mention in these format size comparisons, arguably the most important thing, is the geometry of the image is different. Take a pic w a D80 w a 50mm lens, stand in the same spot and take a pic w a D800, you’ll get the exact same image, except the edges will be “cropped off” on the d80 image. If you want to include everything the d800 saw w a shot from the d80, you either have to step back or put on a dif lens, ‘bout 35mm, doing both of which change the geometry of the scene (objects in relation to each other). Larger formats let you use lenses with less distortion (80mm on med format vs 50mm on full frame) to capture the same scene, images feel more expansive, has nothing to do w dof/resolution/iso sensitivity. The difference between med format & full frame is more dramatic than full frame to aspc, but it’s still there & to me aspc feels cramped because of it.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 14:34 UTC as 79th comment | 7 replies
Total: 43, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »