Matthew Bartok

Joined on Oct 17, 2011


Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

dash2k8: I think "gamechanger" is relative. At that price, it had better produce 10x better images than cameras it costs 10x more than. If it is barely better than a Hassey H6D ($15k) or even the Pentax 50S ($6,500), then... and keep in mind that those other cameras can record color. Black and white is self-limiting in that not everything works in black and white. Some images need color to work.

I am a firm believer in paying through the nose for the right tools, because it's the results that matter. But if I can get almost similar results from a cheaper camera, there's no reason to splurge.

Honest question: many pros on these boards will buy one of these?

If you divide your resolution by 50%green, 25%blue, and 25%red you will have a better understanding as to why both ends of the spectrum get crushed. Even better, your computer has to fill in the blanks by using a de-mosaicing algorithm to make a "best guess" as to what the color actually is.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 05:10 UTC

Any camera that has a multishot function for sampling full RGB values can essentially get you close to this cameras output once properly converted to monochrome. However, since multishot is relegated to mostly studio use, PhaseOne would have the advantage by simply taking three consecutive shots with each shot having either a red, green, or blue filter on the lens.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 03:48 UTC as 47th comment
In reply to:

Pritzl: A game changer would be a filter-less colour sensor. When we can capture ALL the light hitting the sensor and dispense with the interpolation game while still capturing full colour information then we'd be talking.

Oddly enough, back in the day high end video cameras relied on the use of a prism which directed the light captured from the lens into three independent color values that was then captured on three sensors that were filtered for either red, green, or blue.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 03:31 UTC
In reply to:

Petroglyph: 2010 = 645D, 2014 = 645Z, 2018 = ? Could be full frame medium format, that is the correct size for the FA645 mount so very possible. What would that one score?

I could definitely go for a full frame 6x9cm medium format sensor. Especially if it had pixel shift and was able to focus by moving the sensor forward and backward.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 04:09 UTC
On article Leica M10 added to the studio comparison tool (210 comments in total)
In reply to:

DanielFjall: Film is DEAD!

I agree, until they start making 10x8 inch Efke 25 speed again, film is dead to me.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2017 at 02:33 UTC
In reply to:

Matthew Bartok: "to give audiences new eyes with which to see our world," ... I only see one camera, therefore this is more like pirate vision. This would have been infinitely more impressive had it been shot in stereo3D.

Practical Experiment Time-

First, cover one eye. Without moving your head look directly forward.

Congratulations, you've just successfully simulated a 2D photograph in real life.

Second, cover one eye. Look straight forward, now rotate your body in a full circle.

Congratulations you've just simulated a 360x180 panorama in real life.

Now open both eyes and follow the procedures above and you will magically see everything in Stereo-3D. It's that simple.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 03:24 UTC

"to give audiences new eyes with which to see our world," ... I only see one camera, therefore this is more like pirate vision. This would have been infinitely more impressive had it been shot in stereo3D.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 19:26 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies
On article Worth the wait? A look inside the Pentax K-1 (643 comments in total)

I can only imagine how amazing the image quality will be when they implement their pixel-shift technology to the next version of the 645Z. Also, the led lighting system is pure genius. I expect a lot of these ideas will spill over into the competitions designs, at least I hope so.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 04:14 UTC as 50th comment | 1 reply

As long as nothing is moving in the scene between both shots you might as well process them as a stereo3D pair with a shift of about 3" Use this program to edit your separate left/right files to be seen as a stereo image.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 01:35 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

Charlie boots: This is very interesting as it should also be very useful in criminal investigations to extract faces from the reflections.


Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 01:33 UTC
On article Week in Review: Sony FTW (293 comments in total)

Correct me if I am wrong, if the camera has in body image stabilization, is the sensor potentially capable of utilizing a multi-shot function to render full RGB colour ? I know this capability is not in the specs but am curious if it could be implemented with a firmware update by Sony if they even bothered to think about it.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 04:38 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

This is Sony, I seriously doubt that they will dedicate this new design to just fixed-lens point and shoots only. Think about the benefits to having a curved censor on a video camera, this is where the new design will truly shine.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 21:11 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
On article Mobile Arts Festival touted as world’s largest (21 comments in total)

How are they presenting these photographs ? I would assume that they are not enlarged prints hanging on a wall. I am not saying that these images are lacking in artistry or vision, just quality.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 19:19 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

WayneHuangPhoto: Really sad to hear this, but I believe in the coming years people will experience digital photography overload and there will a collective nostalgia for the simplicity and experience of making film photos, which will reinvigorate Kodak.

@T3 The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that all of us who are nostalgic about film are just amateurs out and about happily snapping away roll after roll of 35mm film and printing it out in a bathroom temporarily converted into a darkroom, which of course is something that I have done and do miss. Your point however is off the mark because most of us who have worked with film in a professional or enthusiast capacity would never use 35mm if given the option over medium or large formats. Our "nostalgia" stems from the fact that we lost a lot of the benefits associated with film photography that are now lost or restricted with digital. You seem to forget that the film aspect was only half of the equation, the other half being the print, especially from large format. Most people today will never bother making a print more than 8 1/2 x 11 in. For me the nostalgia for film was the fact that I could make a 16x20 print from an 8x10 negative and have it look amazing.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 19:11 UTC
On article An introduction to OLED (67 comments in total)

This technology has a lot of promise for a lot of different areas. First of all a refresh rate 1,000 times faster, assuming an lcd refreshes as 60hz, an oled could refresh up to 60khz. This would be an amazing solution for stereo monitors and shutter glasses, which at the moment are stuck at 120hz or 60hz for each eye. Even doubling that would be a huge improvement. Also, any time a technology uses less to give you more is always a win, the fact that you don't have to backlight or filter the lightsource should make the quality of the image that much better with lower distortions.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 20:16 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Charly Diaz Azcue: Seems to have a decent output quality but man the design is pretty ugly

The look of the camera is related to the accessories that are added onto it: matte box, external monitor, focus and zoom controls, etc. A nice looking professional 35mm cinema camera is just as ugly when nothing else is attached.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

shaocaholica: I've worked with a ton of middle-to-big commercial productions shooting DSLRs and I will assure you none of them are going to jump on this $20k camera any time soon. For that kind of money you might as well go Red but then again, that kind of money is hard to come by even for what you would think of as high budget productions.

This camera is not being marketed as the next big thing for uploading videos to youtube. Of course you can create amazing content that looks amazing with a DSLR setup, but you have to figure what the output is going to be. This system is being marketed as a usable replacement to a 35mm motion picture film camera which the film stock alone would probably cost twenty thousand dollars. Of course in five years this tech will be standard in every DSLR for a tenth of the price : )

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

olyflyer: So, finally Canon joined the mirrorless competition... Nice camera if one is interested in video and has pocket money to buy it.

Vadimka, I believe that you are confusing the difference between a film camera and a video camera. Most video cameras, even high-end broadcast video systems for live t.v. in the 50's and 60's to today are purely mirror-less systems due to the fact that the viewfinder is an electronic feed from the sensor. Also, esentially all Dslr's that can take video are "mirror-less" due to the fact that when using the video function the mirror is locked up allowing a live feed to the viewfinder from the sensor.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

f8pc: What's the point of having the lenses an inch from each other? The 3D is hardly going to have any effect...

Can't wait for 3D to die out.

They are assuming that most people will be taking photos/video, especially in stereo, of subjects that are around five to ten feet away. Such as a group portrait of some freinds or pics of your kids at the park etc. Anything beyond twenty feet will lose the effect. This camera was not designed for taking grand vistas in stereo. Like most compact consumer cameras it is meant to capture everyday moments at a relatively close range.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Ah yes, a pro using an iPhone. No matter what awards he wins, he (or she) is no pro at all in my book if they use an iPhone instead of something like a d-SLR or a mirrorless compact. I'm no pro, but even I know better than to regard a smartphone as a serious imaging device.

People are intimidated by SLRs, yet will prance & dance for a camera-phone? That's sure silly. Camera phones can immediately publish the images around the world seconds, while SLRs are "offline" unless an EyeFi card is inserted--yet the SLR intimidates? How silly is that? And yes, since an SLR or mirrorless can be connected via a smartphone & an EyeFi card, why not that route if real-time publishing is your goal?

Smart-phone cameras are fine for soccer moms & teens snapping themselves acting giggly at a bar, fine, no problem with that. But serious photographers? Oh puh-leeze.

I think you missed the point. A pro is somebody who under restrictive circumstances, such as a warzone, can utilize the tools available to them to achieve their goal. He is not taking glamour shots for Vogue magazine after all.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2011 at 22:24 UTC
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »