Michael Fryd

Michael Fryd

Lives in United States Miami Beach, FL, United States
Has a website at www.michaelfryd.com
Joined on Jul 28, 2002

Comments

Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: Film photography has found its feet again (616 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Fryd: Film has certainly been an influence on Digital; but not always in a good way.

Film photography has trained us to use an "exposure centric" workflow. This is so ingrained in our psyche, that many don't realize there's any other option.

With film, we need to target our exposure to be compatible with the film speed. As it's non trivial to change the speed on an exposure by exposure basis, the entire workflow is based on hitting that target exposure.

But this is not necessarily the best workflow for digital. With digital one is frequently better off manually setting Aperture and Shutter as desired, and then go with the resulting exposure. However, a century of film shooting has left many with the deeply held belief that this is wrong. They are convinced that the best workflow *always* starts with selecting the target exposure (ISO setting).

Yes, when have enough light that you are in danger of exceeding the full well capacity of the sensor, it makes sense to target the maximum exposure that doesn't. The workflow that works best in very bright situations may not work the best in low light, or studio flash situations. You need to use the workflow that best matches the needs of the situation.

My point is that film gets us in the habit of always starting by targeting an exposure. That's not always the best workflow for Digital.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 16:10 UTC
On article Opinion: Film photography has found its feet again (616 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Fryd: Film has certainly been an influence on Digital; but not always in a good way.

Film photography has trained us to use an "exposure centric" workflow. This is so ingrained in our psyche, that many don't realize there's any other option.

With film, we need to target our exposure to be compatible with the film speed. As it's non trivial to change the speed on an exposure by exposure basis, the entire workflow is based on hitting that target exposure.

But this is not necessarily the best workflow for digital. With digital one is frequently better off manually setting Aperture and Shutter as desired, and then go with the resulting exposure. However, a century of film shooting has left many with the deeply held belief that this is wrong. They are convinced that the best workflow *always* starts with selecting the target exposure (ISO setting).

Yes. With film, the workflow is to almost always start with the target exposure. With Digital, it sometimes makes sense to start with a target exposure, but that isn't always the case.

If I am shooting products in my studio, I may very well start with targeting the maximum exposure my digital camera will happily handle. However, if I am shooting in an active hospital operating room, I may manually select the widest aperture that yields sufficient depth of field, the slowest shutter that doesn't result in unwanted motion blur, and then use Auto-ISO to match the ISO to the exposure. Although this seems very wrong to a many who are used to film, this sort of workflow can actually minimize noise in an environment with rapidly changing lighting condition, and no flash allowed.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 15:29 UTC
On article Opinion: Film photography has found its feet again (616 comments in total)

Film has certainly been an influence on Digital; but not always in a good way.

Film photography has trained us to use an "exposure centric" workflow. This is so ingrained in our psyche, that many don't realize there's any other option.

With film, we need to target our exposure to be compatible with the film speed. As it's non trivial to change the speed on an exposure by exposure basis, the entire workflow is based on hitting that target exposure.

But this is not necessarily the best workflow for digital. With digital one is frequently better off manually setting Aperture and Shutter as desired, and then go with the resulting exposure. However, a century of film shooting has left many with the deeply held belief that this is wrong. They are convinced that the best workflow *always* starts with selecting the target exposure (ISO setting).

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2020 at 15:15 UTC as 154th comment | 32 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: B&H's alleged knowledge of the law aside, I'm surprised NY (and perhaps other states) require vendors to pay sales tax on the discounted amount of products sold if they're reimbursed that discount by the manufacturer. If the customer didn't ultimately pay that actual amount then why should states be allowed to tax it? That amounts to a revenue tax on businesses rather than a consumption tax on consumers.

The sales tax rules cited by the state of NY are intended to cover the situation where a third party offers to help pay for a consumer product. A common example would be a "50¢ off" coupon issued by the Kellogg® company for a box of Rice Krispies®. Your local grocery store buys those Rice Krispies from a local distributor. They do not buy direct from Kellogg. In this scenario, the party funding the discount is not the party that sold the product to the distributor.

This is likely not the case with B&H. They are not receiving a "rebate" from a third party. They are receiving a discount/refund/price adjustment from the distributor that sold them the camera.

Consider an "instant rebate" on Canon EOS 5D4. B&H most likely bought the 5D4 from Canon USA, and received the credit from Canon USA. That's not a payment from a third party, it's a retroactive price adjustment.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2019 at 14:14 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Fryd: Actually, B&H is being accused of under-collecting sales tax. Sales tax is not paid by B&H, it is paid by consumers. B&H collects the sales tax and remits it to the state. B&H is being accused of miscalculating the sales tax, and collecting from consumers less tax than required.

In particular, if a printer normally sells for $500, but an "instant rebate" coupon discounts the price to $400, B&H sold the printer for $400, and only collected the tax on $400. This is consistent with almost every other merchant.

NY state would be happy with the additional revenue, and has gone after B&H based on a Whistle Blower tip. The whistle blower receives 15% to 30% of additional tax collected. If you live in NY and want some extra pocket change, you may wish to file a whistle blower complaint for just about every other store that charges sales tax on the actual sales price. Assuming the state prevails, you could pick up millions of dollars for exposing this issue.

It is the job of the NY Dept. of Revenue to describe things in a manor that maximizes tax revenue. It is not their job to give an unbiased description to the court.

The issue here is the nature of the money B&H receives from the manufacturer? It may simply be a price adjustment on the wholesale price (no sales tax is due on that refund).

it may be a commission on sale. Commissions are not subject to sales tax.

B&H might be a facilitator between the manufacturer and the consumer. The consumer would owe the additional tax. B&H may owe a penalty for miscalculating the amount. However the state would be entitled to collect from the consumers.

The wording in the contract is not dispositive. Applying a name to something does not make it so. Calling something a "rebate" is not sufficient to make it fall under that legal classification.

My point is that this is not a slam dunk case. The courts will need to figure it out, but the answer is not obvious.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2019 at 23:06 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Fryd: Actually, B&H is being accused of under-collecting sales tax. Sales tax is not paid by B&H, it is paid by consumers. B&H collects the sales tax and remits it to the state. B&H is being accused of miscalculating the sales tax, and collecting from consumers less tax than required.

In particular, if a printer normally sells for $500, but an "instant rebate" coupon discounts the price to $400, B&H sold the printer for $400, and only collected the tax on $400. This is consistent with almost every other merchant.

NY state would be happy with the additional revenue, and has gone after B&H based on a Whistle Blower tip. The whistle blower receives 15% to 30% of additional tax collected. If you live in NY and want some extra pocket change, you may wish to file a whistle blower complaint for just about every other store that charges sales tax on the actual sales price. Assuming the state prevails, you could pick up millions of dollars for exposing this issue.

"Remit" and "pay" are not the same. The consumer "pays" the tax. The retailer collects the tax and remits it to the state.

In many states it is actually illegal for a retailer to pay the tax on behalf of the consumer.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2019 at 22:08 UTC

Actually, B&H is being accused of under-collecting sales tax. Sales tax is not paid by B&H, it is paid by consumers. B&H collects the sales tax and remits it to the state. B&H is being accused of miscalculating the sales tax, and collecting from consumers less tax than required.

In particular, if a printer normally sells for $500, but an "instant rebate" coupon discounts the price to $400, B&H sold the printer for $400, and only collected the tax on $400. This is consistent with almost every other merchant.

NY state would be happy with the additional revenue, and has gone after B&H based on a Whistle Blower tip. The whistle blower receives 15% to 30% of additional tax collected. If you live in NY and want some extra pocket change, you may wish to file a whistle blower complaint for just about every other store that charges sales tax on the actual sales price. Assuming the state prevails, you could pick up millions of dollars for exposing this issue.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2019 at 20:01 UTC as 150th comment | 23 replies
In reply to:

ewelch: How can they afford to do this with razor-thin margins on camera profits?

Usury.

29.99 percent interest. They're counting on most people not paying it off in the first month. No thanks. I'll stick to PayPal if I'm paying off over time, and I'll go with the local stores now. It was a good run. But time to support the local stores before they go under.

If you read the fine print, for "promotional purchases" they charge interest from the purchase date, even if you pay each statement in full at the end of the month. The minimum interest charge is $2. Consider a purchase of a $100 camera with a 5% sales tax. Your cost is $102. $100 for the camera, $2 minimum interest, $5 in sales tax, and a $5 promotional credit. If you had bought that same camera under B&H's old promotion, your net cost would have been the same $102. That's $100 for the camera, and the $5 you remit directly to the state, less the old B&H 2% reward bonus, and less 1% back from a typical cash back credit card.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2019 at 15:32 UTC
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

IR1234: Why is it that depth of focus calculators show the exact opposite of what you state? Dof calculators show a narrower depth of field for the smaller the sensor at same f stop. If crop is taken into account, a smaller sensor wins by a bigger margin.

"Same Angle of View" is another way of saying "Same Equivalent Focal Length."

Imagine ypu are 6 feet from your subject, You have a full frame lens with a 50mm lens at f/4 (12.5mm aperture diameter) and a 2X crop body. What should the settings be on the crop body in order to compare Depth of Field?

If we use the same focal length/aperture on the crop body we end with more magnification, less DoF, and see less of our subject. We also get more image noise.

If we use the same aperture diameter and the equivalent focal length (25mm at f/2), we get the same framing, same DoF, and same image noise.

If we use the equivalent focal lenght (25mm) and the same f/stop (which gives us a smaller 6.25 mm aperture diameter), we get more DoF, and more image noise (less total light).

Depending on which comparison you think is the correct one, the smaller sensor has less, the same, or more DoF.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 18:06 UTC
On article Choosing a camera Part 3: the trade-offs of sensor size (432 comments in total)
In reply to:

IR1234: Why is it that depth of focus calculators show the exact opposite of what you state? Dof calculators show a narrower depth of field for the smaller the sensor at same f stop. If crop is taken into account, a smaller sensor wins by a bigger margin.

"All other factors being equal" a smaller sensor offers more, less, or the same Depth of Field (DoF) as a larger sensor. The trick is that it is not possible for all other factors to be equal. How DoF changes will depend on the factors you allow to vary. At the same Angle of View (different focal length), and overall image noise (same aperture diameter) DoF is the SAME. At the same focal length and subject distance, smaller sensors have LESS DoF, but you also have a tighter framing on your subject. At the same angle of view, same subject distance, and same f/stop (which is a different aperture diameter) the smaller sensor has MORE DoF.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2019 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

it is common for homes in Florida to have hurricane resistant "impact windows". These windows attenuate sound quite a bit A typical drone is much quieter than a helicopter. A helicopter is more than loud enough to be heard through these common windows, a drone typically would not be.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

What makes a drone unique is the ability for stealth movement and observation. This sets them apart from cameras on helicopters, tall towers, blimps, buildings, etc.

Helicopters make a lot of noise and makes its presence known when it is nearby. A drone is quiet and can observe you without you noticing.

A tall tower with a camera, or a tall building is hardly stealthy.

Furthermore, a drone can get quite close and take advantage of viewpoints not available to a helicopter. A drone can hover outside your 3rd story window and look into the house. A helicopter could not practically take that viewpoint, nor could someone on the ground.

I suspect the law was specifically intended to preclude drone operation.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

Perhaps. But they are allowed to use a camera on a tall extendable tower. The blimp serves the same purposed but is easier to use, less expensive, and a little taller.

Again, the drone law talks about protecting people from warrantless surveillance on their private property. The MB Police are watching people at a public event on a public beach.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

The police are not allowed to use mobile cameras on a drone to surveil private property without a warrant. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home, or a fenced in backyard.

A camera on a tethered blimp watching a pubic event at the beach is not mobile, nor is it being used to surveil private property. Thus it is not a violation of the spirit or letter of the anti-drone-surveillance law.

While a blimp is in the air, it acts more like a camera on a building/tower than a camera on a mobile drone.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

I don't think the Florida Supreme Court agrees with your interpretation. Florida law enforcement agencies routinely use fixed exterior cameras for gathering of evidence and law enforcement. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that police departments are allowed to use "Red Light" cameras.

"Red Light" cameras allow a police department to gather photographic evidence that a vehicle has run a red light, and to issue a citation based on that evidence.

Additionally, the Miami Beach police has cameras located throughout the city watching public spaces. There is a room in the MBPD HQ where they monitor these these cameras 24/7. In the event a crime occurs, the recorded feed from these cameras can be used as evidence. This public surveillance has not been in issue.

Furthermore, there are cameras on some of the causeways into Miami Beach that read license plates and alert the police if a stolen car enters the city.

The only thing the law prohibits is a mobile drone mounted camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 20:56 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

The same way moving it from a drone to a building or a light poll is in accord with the spirit of the law.

Florida is perfectly happy to allow cameras on light polls to watch for crimes (including running red lights). Building owners are free to install exterior cameras on their buildings.

The only thing that's different about drone cameras is that they are mobile. A blimp based camera is not mobile.

If you read the law, it is intended to prevent police from using drones for warrantless observation of people on private property (i.e. at home), where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. 15,000 people at a public event on a public beach do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and are not on private property.

Cameras that are not mobile, plainly visible, and watching public events seem to be compatible with the letter and spirit of the law.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "City Manager Jimmy Morales explained the police department's use of the camera blimp, citing necessity due in part to 'the legal restrictions on police departments under Florida law..."

So they violated the spirit and intent of a law because they found it too restricting. I wonder if ordinary criminals will start using this defense in court. "Your honor, I violated the law because it wouldn't let me do what I wanted to do."

I believe the spirit of the law is to keep an unexpected mobile camera from following you. A camera on a tethered blimp is closer in spirit to a camera on a building. The location of the camera is fixed. It's obvious that there is a camera there. The camera isn't mobile, and can't follow you around.

It seems to me that the blimp camera follows both the letter and spirit of the state law.

It's an entirely separate discussion as to whether or not the state law is reasonable.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2019 at 19:18 UTC

Just a FYI - Most of the Kickstarter members who funded this project have not received their bags. However the creator of this project is happily selling them on his web site. When you buy a bag from this guy, you may very well be buying a bag that was paid for and promised to someone else.

I do not trust this vendor, and do not believe any of his claims about the product.

I do not recommend this product, or this vendor.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2018 at 17:07 UTC as 3rd comment

The real difference is the coatings. Good coatings reduce flare, increase contrast, and reduce ghosting. Great coatings are durable, repel fingerprints/grime and are easy to clean.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 17:33 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
On article Lexar acquired by Chinese flash storage maker Longsys (71 comments in total)

It seems they are only buying the right to use the "Lexar" name. They are not buying any of the Lexar technology, support infrastructure, etc. Nor are they taking over the responsibility to support existing Lexar customers or products.

What we are likely to see is the "Lexar" name and logo on their existing Chinese products. I would be surprised if there is anything more than a packaging change to Longsys products.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 15:16 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »