PowerG9atBlackForest

PowerG9atBlackForest

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a Pensioner
Joined on Apr 10, 2008
About me:

Canon G9
Olympus E-PM2, E-PL7, P & O Lenses

Comments

Total: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Sirandar: The picture in this article is very misleading ......

AI couldn't upsample the pixelated image on the left without identifing and understanding the context (it's a feather of this type) and using a reference texture for modelling......

This algorithm may be able to recover those slightly out of focus and shutter shock images though.....

I agree to what Sirandar said. Understanding the context and the reference texture for modelling of all thinkable objects to come somewhen, to me it seems impossible.
AI also couldn't upsample the pixelated vertical leaf (is it a leaf?) on the right of the grasshopper photograph or wasn't it "allowed" to do so?

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 17:52 UTC
On article First samples: Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 (223 comments in total)

Ok, now it is nice and enthusiasts probably will be able to produce some intriguing photographs. But guess what, in a short time we all we be sick and tired of that obtrusive atmosphere.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 21:27 UTC as 100th comment

May be the lens is more suitable for videos rather than stills.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:27 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: When applying the Orton-effect to my regular photographs I can create similar images, and as an extra bonus, I will be able to modify the parameters.

(at) Roland:
i. Of course not, I will not be able to pre visualise when taking the regular image. I can guess how it may come out in the end. Every modification is left to the computer works.

ii. Yes, I agree. With Orton, there is a kind of enhanced color saturation (adjustable!) but there is also that characteristic sort of haze.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 10:23 UTC

When applying the Orton-effect to my regular photographs I can create similar images, and as an extra bonus, I will be able to modify the parameters.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 77th comment | 3 replies

Bears prefer salmons

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 15:19 UTC as 151st comment
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Honestly, Brittany, fake news or should I say - a joke?

Thanks for the reminder. So, it's not in what it says on the tin.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 11:55 UTC

Honestly, Brittany, fake news or should I say - a joke?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 20:11 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Incredible microscopic close-ups of a peacock feather (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

kevin_r: Oh...by the way, the colors are due to the actual physical arrangement and composition of the molecules themselves. It's not due to some embedded extra pigment. The strands are the pigment in itself. This requires a thorough understanding of the characteristics of light as well as biochemical bonds. Something that could not have happened by accident, given the marvelous functionality of the whole tail segment.

On a simpler scale, interference, Newton's rings which can be considered as beautiful are not a proof of intelligence.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
On article Incredible microscopic close-ups of a peacock feather (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

adegroot: Surely an argument for Intelligent Design, how can something this complex and beautiful (and explain why we as humans find it beautiful, why should we; does it make sense to Darwin?) be just a random "invention" of a Darwinian type random process? Over time? We assign some kind of magic to "time". The mathematical possibilities of it are quite impossible. Quite.

Interesting question! I'd like to agree.
How impossible is infinite? How many examples of Intelligent Design are there? And semi-ID? How many attempts that went terribly wrong? ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 07:51 UTC
On article Why hyperfocal distance charts are inaccurate (44 comments in total)

It's a lot of fuss about nothing

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 12:18 UTC as 10th comment

Once upon a time 18x24mm film for movie cameras was considered "full-frame" and the Leica format 36x2 mm was called "double-frame". Now the Sony Venice is called a 36x24mm full-frame motion picture camera. jm2c

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 11:21 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Bumblebees: Well, actually it isn't f/4 if you talk about equivavlense.

The f number is actually f/10,8 which is far from impressive.

at Bumblebees: *yawn*

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

Bumblebees: Well, actually it isn't f/4 if you talk about equivavlense.

The f number is actually f/10,8 which is far from impressive.

Good morning! Did you sleep well?

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 10:16 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (589 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: I profess that I know less than nothing about Olympus lenses, so that makes me highly curious as to the feasibility of getting this camera as a vacation or travel camera. Is it going to cost a lot to get going?

at dash2k8: The M.Zuiko 1.8/45mm (90 mm equiv.) as an inexpensive but excellent lens is a first must have.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2017 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: Is this double the Norway price, or double the U.S. price?

A new car in Denmark, another Scandinavian country, is double the continental price due to 100% VAT.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
In reply to:

Haim Hadar: F5.6 lens? Oh, slow...

Never mind. It's a fixed focus lens as well...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
On article Don't buy another lens, buy a flash instead (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

cruisefor2: Can you share info on specific manufactures / model numbers of TTL metering flash units for $50 ? Everything I see is in the $90 to $100 range.

Recently I was able to purchase two used Nissin Di466 MFT for 50 Euro each.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 11:49 UTC

Nonsense

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 09:23 UTC as 49th comment
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Why bother with publishing an article raving about how sharp a zoom lens from the 70's is, but then provide only low res images?

I'm not impressed by these photographers who are happy to accept free publicity from a leading photography website, but are not willing to share anything more than low-res images. In this article in particular, which is of a technical nature, it is especially inappropriate and amounts to teasing.

On a side note, I also would not have recommended using such obviously-processed images for an article describing how a lens performs.

Yeah, why bother with Ansel Adams, e.g.?

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 11:22 UTC
Total: 324, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »