guyfawkes

guyfawkes

Lives in Birmingham, UK
Works as a Retired.
Joined on Feb 20, 2012

Comments

Total: 386, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gregm61: Just what we need. A way to convert high quality 35mm film images into cheap quality iPhone pics. Last place this should be pushed is DPReview. I'd expect to see this in a cheap product magazine in the back of the airplane seat in front of me.

@sibuzaru.

Whilst it is true that there are fewer companies making scanners today, this does not negate the usability of earlier, now defunct, scanners. Unlike the perceived need for advancements in digital camera technology, a scanner's function is fairly basic. Any reasonable flatbed scanner can outresolve a photographic print, such that scans in excess of 600dpi, or1200dpi at the most, are unnecessary and often only result in huge file sizes, not any increase in true resolution over the original print. And there is only so much resolution to extract from a 35mm negative or slide that dpi's in excess of 5000 simply aren't that necessary.

It is my opinion that the performance of domestic scanners peaked around 2004. Commercial scanners are a different kettle of fish but I have no experience of these.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 11:28 UTC
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

ms18: I don't really understand people still like / shoot film. Because an escalator can be used as steps as well. Shoot digital turn off auto preview. Do not see the images in back screen bring them home and see in computer only. If you need just take the camera to super market comeback then view it in your PC to simulate you went to studio to develop it. don't shoot more than 24/34 pictures. Now you get the feeling of shooting film. Fuji cameras are more like mechanical cameras.

If you can't control mind. Go to a meditation club. Do not shoot film to learn calmness.

In this video he says he has problem with negative scanners. No there is no problem with scanners. Problem is applying chemicals to the film before we could scan.

@Kodachromeguy.

Two very valid observations. Top quality won't be the objective here, but convenience, and the cost certainly isn't outrageous.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 11:00 UTC
On article FilmLab is a film negative scanning app for smartphones (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edac2: I placed a slide on a small light box. I placed a loupe on top of the slide and took a photo with my iPhone thru the loupe. The result was comparable to the same slide scanned with an Epson flatbed scanner, which is — for better or worse — how most people are scanning slides and negatives these days (even printers).

Try asking your photo lab for 24MP scans of your next roll of film. You'll get a blank stare and "we scan film at 600 DPI," whatever that means. The problem is, all scanners and scanning software today measure scan resolution in DPI instead of megapixels. Is your lab's 600 DPI the same as 600 DPI on your slide scanner? Is 2400 DPI better, or just interpolated? Who knows. Could you imagine the chaos if DPI was used for camera sensors!

If you use Dr_Jon's method and mount a DSLR (with a 6000x4000 pixel sensor and a good macro lens) on a copy stand and get a good photo of a slide or negative illuminated on a lightbox, you know the resulting "scan" will be 24MP.

@Kraaketaer,

I'm not sure why you believe flatbed scanners don't have lenses, they most assuredly do. This is a quote from Canon's own site in respect of one of my scanners, the 9950F.

"The spherical lenses of conventional scanners introduce aberrations that cause a softening of the image towards the edges. The CanoScan 9950F aspherical Super Toric lens eliminates these aberrations to increase sharpness, contrast and colour stability, as well as transmitting more light for faster scanning."

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 10:46 UTC
In reply to:

tonywong: Where is the multicard reader version? No SD card reader on new MacBook Pros so #donglelife continues.

Another me too product because Sandisk already has had one (USB-A) out there for a while now.

And so has Lexar with its Professional reader and which accepts both SD and CF cards. This is the model I've been using for quite a while now.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 10:16 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Fixed Prime Lens Cameras (464 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phily: No mention of my fixed lens setup: EOS M3 + 22mm

Oh well ...

@ peterpainter. Whilst I understand the remit of the article, I also agree with your sentiments. For my money, if there were cameras of roughly similar price/performance ratio why would one need to be restricted by a fixed lens model? I do like the look of the optical v/f equipped Fuji's though.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 09:04 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

AARonron: Ha! My first real digital camera was the DiMAGE x20 (https://www.dpreview.com/products/konicaminolta/compacts/minolta_dimagex20/overview) that came out the next year. It was basically the same layout, though minus the viewfinder and powered by a pair of AA batteries (which was very handy).

One feature I found amusing then and now see as ahead of its time was the small convex mirror on the front, right next to the lens. It was solely put there to aid in taking "selfies" long before that term even existed! It actually worked pretty well and resulted in some cherished photos me and my then-girlfriend (now wife).

It was also the catalyst for my real start into photography as a hobby, and I still have it sitting on a shelf. Two years later I upgraded to a Rebel XT, but this camera was the beginning.
It was also actually well reviewed on imaging-resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/X20/X20A.HTM

And heaven't I read somewhere recently that a mobile phone has emulated the idea of the mirror for selfies?

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:43 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)

Reading this brought a smile to my face, and I went to get mine out to play with it again. Found the box in which were the charger, cables, software, manual, but no camera! it's around my home somewhere, but where?

I bought it for its compact dimensions as a "carry anytime" camera when I wasn't out with my heavy Sony R1 or Panasonic LC-10. My memories about its performance echo most of those here: its imaging properties were abysmal, but as I purchased it used, cheaply, it was no great loss. What surprised me most reading the original review was the price of small capacity SD cards in 2002.

So why have I kept it? Simple, I can't find where I put it after the last time I used it!

My last hands-on with this type of camera was the 8meg X-1. Beautifully crafted in, if I recall correctly, highly polished stainless steel. A design icon IMO, but too slippery to hold comfortably. But IQ had been improved considerably and was acceptable, if I didn't lose an image to camera shake.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2017 at 08:39 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

mxx: Very interesting! For instance, I did not know that the F3 was styled by Giugiaro.

Leica M3 1954 to 1968, or M6 from 1984 to 1999, perhaps?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 12:09 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steven Lungley: On the question of cropping, consider this actual event from a few years ago:

Photographer shoots an ad campaign for a national client. The ad agency and company reps are on set and approve the images as they go. The favorite image is a full body shot, including some foreground and background details, captured on a 40 MP medium format back.

The agency and client decide they want to use the same image across all media platforms. They take the select frame, and crop it into a mid-shot, throwing away half the data. With the cropped frame, they create print ads and online ads and have plenty of detail to work with. Then they create bus shelter ads, and POP cut-outs for use in-store. In both situations, the viewer can walk right up next to it and stare the actor in the eyes.

And the photo is.. a bit soft, which does not make the agency or client very happy. When they plan their next project, they go looking for a different photographer, who has more advanced equipment.

Looks to me that neither the Ad Agency nor the client knew what they were doing. Did they fully inform the photographer that such cropping and huge images were contemplated? Makes one wonder why serious work is still the domain of large format photography, and even larger than 5x4.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2017 at 12:45 UTC
In reply to:

Bill Spencer: Love the LX4~ Still have it~

LX4? A typo, surely? The range was LX1, LX2, LX3, LX5, then LX7. There is something about the number 4 that a number of Japanese camera companies avoided using it. I think it has something to do with bad luck, or death. In the Canon G range, for example, starting with the G1, they subsequently issued a G2, G3 and then jumped to a G5 jumping over G4.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

Lloyd B: I prefer the pictures shot with LX3 than the LX7. Maybe it's because of the quality of the LX3 lens. Without the new features of the LX7, I would have stayed with the LX3.

Lloyd B. I fully agree. I also got the LX7 for its added advantage of quick aperture setting on the ring, a little zoom extension and plug-in EVF. I'd owned my LX3 since its launch (it replaced my LX1) which I foolishly let go to a friend before I'd tested the LX7. Sadly, the IQ of the lens on the LX7 fell short of that on the LX3, and the additional zoom range wasn't that useful as it under-performs at the tele end. Also, I believe stretching it to f1.4 was a design move too far. Build quality of the LX3 was better, too.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 20:06 UTC
On article Ming Thein joins Hasselblad as Chief of Strategy (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Curious why Ming Thein decided to go with Hasselblad over Fuji & Pentax who especially make better & transparent medium format cameras in my analysis & survey research after talking to famous camera reviewers like Steve Huff who have used literally every piece of expensive new gear that comes out.

Reading Ming's blog for a while, you would come to understand. Ming's reviews had to be based on cameras and lenses he purchased with his own money. He was thus able to honestly review, without bias or fear. "Loaners" for reviews came with editorial control by the camera makers and which he said he found totally unacceptable. Also some of the big names have a prejudice for reviewers to come from certain geographic areas and Malaysia wasn't deemed important enough.

Link | Posted on Mar 31, 2017 at 12:45 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

Nice cameras, those Pentaxes. I sort of went the same way re Contax when I added the 139, but I didn't really warm to it.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 14:04 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

The "Black Dial" IIa and IIIa cameras were the ones fitted with the non-standard flash synch connector. One needed the synch chord, one each for bulbs and electronic flash. Part no. 1361 is needed for bulbs and can still be found, with a little bit of luck, but the electronic flash version, part no. 1366, is arguably far more useful and is very rare indeed to find today. I found 1361 relatively easy on ebay, but 1366 took a while to track down. I only need them for my IIIa, as my IIa has a colour dial, see below.

Users who want to use flash would be better off to seek out the colour dial versions, so called because the 1/50 speed is in yellow, and the faster speeds are in red, as these cameras have a standard PC socket. Still, the black dial Contax IIa and IIIa are better in this respect than my Contax II and III as these have no flash synch at all!

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

GiovanniB: I love Swiss German! This language is so cute.

Long live local accents, or dialects, of any nationality. Variety is the spice of life. Wouldn't it be boring if we all spoke the same!

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

guyfawkes: When saving an image to jpeg after editing the original my software gives me the option to select a quality setting where 100 equals best quality jpeg, but having just saved a jpeg of 450KB from a 16MB RAW image, with the image dimensions remaining the same, on screen I can't see any difference. This represents a reduction to roughly 1/32nd of the original. So what am I missing here with google announcing just 35% saving?

@meanwhile. Understood. My image editing software has allowed me to reduce the original file down to roughly 3% of its original, so I was somewhat confused by the claim to reducing a file by "just" 35%. In fact it is going in the opposite direction to the .jxr file. Incidentally, I did try reducing the file even further, but then started to get colour artefacts.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2017 at 14:21 UTC

When saving an image to jpeg after editing the original my software gives me the option to select a quality setting where 100 equals best quality jpeg, but having just saved a jpeg of 450KB from a 16MB RAW image, with the image dimensions remaining the same, on screen I can't see any difference. This represents a reduction to roughly 1/32nd of the original. So what am I missing here with google announcing just 35% saving?

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 19:46 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

ScarletKnight: Never mind the old cameras, Dan Bracaglia's reference to the Daily Targum, the Rutgers University student paper, was the throwback comment for me. Decades ago when I attended Rutgers, all the students read the Targum regularly. This was, of course, when the printed page was all we had available to keep us abreast of what was happening on campus. The ad section of the paper was the most amusing, usually a guy placing an ad hoping to get date with a co-ed he met at the campus pub: "Hi, I'm looking for the cute blond girl wearing the blue fair isle sweater I met at the College Avenue pub on Thursday. I'd love to continue my conversation with you. If you're interested, contact me at (campus post office box)." I have no idea if those ads ever succeeded.

Thank you so much for pointing me to the YouTube footage. Seeing it again now, after all these years, I appreciare even more their skill, as I am able to take more in than was possible at the time. It also shows how the intervening years have shown my memory to be defective with regard to the rifle throwing sequence. I would have sworn that the Guards were in single file, but I suppose this could be down to my focused vision and not being able to take in the scene as a whole. Or it could even be down to the fact that the movement blew my mind! Once again, thank you.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 13:54 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

pandionutv: In 1961 I inherited my father's for many years unused Ihagee 6 x 9 bellows camera from around 1925. It had a Tessar lens f=6.3 and a fastest shutter speed of 1/125. It also had a removable back where you could attach a roll film magazine, a sheet film magazine or a matte screen! Just lika a Hasselblad ... For macro photos you could unscrew the front lens. With such a start, I could claim that "When God said "Let there be light", I was ready with my camera"!

When my father saw that I could handle this he bought me a used Zeiss Contax IIa, probably of pre WW2-vintage. From then on it's been Pentax, Contax 137 and Canons for film, until I transitioned in 2005 to digital with a trial Canon S95, followed by a 350D.

If it was a Contax IIa, then it would be post WW2. Lovely cameras, these Contaxes. I have models II, III, IIa and IIIa in my collection, and all work faultlessly, even the meter in my 1942 III.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 23:05 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

geepondy: First film camera as a kid was a Kodak Instamatic that took 120 film and used "magic cubes". As an adult I eventually made my way up to a Minolta XD-11 SLR. First digital was a Nikon CP900 in 1998, 1megpixel, $1000 and I sure was the envy of my friends. I later moved up to a CP990 and many since. I think Nikon ruled in the early days of relatively affordable digital cameras, say from 1998-2000 or so.

@geepondy. Some hi-spec 126 cameras were made by the likes of Rollei and Zeiss, but the film format was not up to their capability. The problem, actually, was not with the film, but the cheap and nasty plastic molding used by Kodak to house the film. I can't remember who it was, but when I read about this, there was another manufacturer that used high precision molds, but more expensive. The results using this film could be every bit as good as conventional 35mm film.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
Total: 386, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »