ctruta

Joined on Nov 21, 2014

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jimhughes: Read the article again. These are computer-generated images, the result of algorithms working on data obtained at a much larger scale. They aren't photos of atoms.

Actually, they are, very much so, photographs of atoms, obtained from captured photons bouncing off atoms. Not conventional photos of atoms, mind you; but, nonetheless, literal photos of atoms.

Daguerre may or may not have been able to recognize a CCD or a CMOS as a device to produce photos. But that wouldn't stop digital photos from being photos.

And that's because they're all what they are: the outcome of a convoluted process that starts at capturing photons.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2021 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: I am not sure what value these images have to the general public. A bunch of dots doesn't really tell me anything. They could have taken a picture of a table cloth and I would not have known the difference .

brownie314, I'll tell you what the value is.

Some people in the general public are scientifically literate, without necessarily being scientists; they consider scientific images fascinating. Others are artistically literate, without necessarily being artists; they consider artistic images fascinating. Others are both, others yet are neither, others yet have peculiar interests in flowers, or horses, or everything in general and nothing in particular.

These bunches of dots are photographed atoms. It's obvious from the title, and from the explanations. Moreover, the original scientific paper is linked in the article. If you are, indeed, "not sure about the value to the general public"...

The value is: scientific literacy.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2021 at 21:31 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: CCD is so 2004. 16mp is also so 2004.

This is like those B&W pics on mars.

I don't know how to use Google. I only know how to use Bing. I could bing on how to google, but I ain't gonna.

And now, if we may please leave search engine "learning" silliness aside and go back to on-topic subjects. This is a discussion forum about photography in general, and about digital photography technologies and equipment in particular.

On the topic of learning:

I am very glad for what I've learned in this conversation. It started from someone's incredulous questioning of the CCD technology, it continued with several highly informed responses from people who know about this stuff, and it ended (at least) with me knowing a bit more about this stuff. I asked a question somewhere in the middle, and I'm glad I did. It proves (at least) to me that a little time invested in forum participation is truly paying dividends.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2020 at 04:15 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: CCD is so 2004. 16mp is also so 2004.

This is like those B&W pics on mars.

Yakinabe, Alam12: good to know, and thank you very much for sharing.

Karroly: with all due respect, Sir, I believe that the team of research scientists at the Stanford SLAC laboratory, who built the most advanced camera sensor in the world, know what they are doing.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2020 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

dwill23: CCD is so 2004. 16mp is also so 2004.

This is like those B&W pics on mars.

It is my understanding that, due to specific electronic characteristics, the CCD is the more appropriate tool for astro-photography, even to this day, although the CMOS is getting better at this thanks to new developments. Manufacturing-wise, high-quality CMOS is cheaper than high-quality CCD, which may matter for large-volume production of consumer electronics, but not so much for a professional purpose at the highest end.

I am not an expert in semiconductors, however. I would gladly welcome an expert opinion.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2020 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: ‘You view the image directly with your eyes, and feel it with your heart.’

That's a lie! What you are viewing in a DSLR is an image that has been reflected inside the prism more than once before it's put on the focusing screen for you to watch through the lens of an eyepiece. To view it directly you need to use something like a view camera, field camera or monorail camera and look at an inverted image. 😆

Different people have understandings, preferences and opinions. That is normal. However, accusing Pentax of lying, simply because of one disagrees with someone else's understanding or preference or opinion, is not ok.

EVF vs. OVF? Anybody can prefer one or the other. I, personally, use whichever is best in any given situation. Thanks to the hybrid viewfinder on my Fujifilm X-Pro1, I have both at my disposal.

Back to Pentax's declaration: yes they do have a point, very much so. Agree to their understanding, or do not agree. Agree to my definition below, or do not agree. But there is no deceit in here, and no need to throw accusations.

***

My definition of *really* seeing a *real* tree:

*Real* photons *really* travel from that *real* tree to my *real* retina.

(Never on a straight path, of course, because we live in a medium and not in a vacuum; but the geometry of the path of the photons is a peculiar detail that has nothing to do with my definition.)

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2020 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: ‘You view the image directly with your eyes, and feel it with your heart.’

That's a lie! What you are viewing in a DSLR is an image that has been reflected inside the prism more than once before it's put on the focusing screen for you to watch through the lens of an eyepiece. To view it directly you need to use something like a view camera, field camera or monorail camera and look at an inverted image. 😆

They (Pentax) have a point.

I can see the world around me, including myself, in a mirror, with my own eyes. That is fundamentally different from seeing anything, including myself, more or less or much less faithful to reality, on a screen.

Not to mention that my eyes are themselves refracting the light. So what's wrong with the pentaprism? Yes, you may for example, tint the glass, and then you get a colored reality. Which is still reality. Far different from tiny LEDs pretending to be reality, building a truly fake image from data from a virtually uncontrollable pipeline, jam-packed with processing.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2020 at 11:05 UTC
In reply to:

robertfel: Nice update for niche use case.
Where's the 400MP pixel shift?

@robertfel: Lumix S1R produces 187 megapixels in high-resolution mode, so that one should also do the trick for you.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2020 at 06:26 UTC
On article DPReview TV: We re-created bad product photography (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

Flowchart: Got to say it , these quarantine times have really boosted DPReview; tutorials, software reviews and fun stuff :)

Maybe you guys should stick to working from home.. evidently it's very creative and it sends out positive vibes.

I wish I could "like" this comment more than just once :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2020 at 01:42 UTC
On article Sigma shows EF-M mount primes for Canon cameras at WPPI (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Making the expensive and slow Fuji 56 1.2 less of a differentiator...

It depends on the expectations of each individual user. I can only speak for myself: I haven't used the Sigma 56mm/1.4. I can only see the test scores on lenstip.com. Good, but not great. I wouldn't bother.

On the other hand, I've been using the Fujifim 56mm/1.2 for almost 5 years. Yes it's slow to focus. (I don't care.) Other than that, in all the other areas (including the ones that I personally care about) it's one of the best lenses ever.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 02:23 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoRotterdam: Blockchain technology is the most energy inefficient technology imaginable. Having the validity of the incredible amounts of jpegs being produced checked against a blockchain will probably smoke our planet within a month. It is simply impossible to implement at such a large scale.

I don’t know who comes up with these inconsiderate plans, but ‘blockchain’ isn’t the magic word anymore, like it was 5 years ago. We’re past the hype.

The mining of crypto-currency is *purposely* energy-inefficient. In order to successfully "dig out" a few more cents of crypto-currency, you have to show "proof of work", and that specifically means that you must have exhausted a computationally-expensive search that *by design* cannot be short-circuited in any possible way.

You should read what Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, had to say on this matter.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2020 at 20:00 UTC
In reply to:

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa: Bruce Gilden made a career out of doing this. And I bet Suzuki is much more polite.

Art should not be exploitative.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2020 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Hopkins: It's worse than it looks. Smartphones have not only killed camera sales, they've destroyed the value of photography. Where's the magic when anyone can do it, and everybody does? Smartphones have made it cheap (effectively free), unbelievably easy, and ubiquitous.

Photographers used to be cool, professionals could earn a good living, and cameras were aspirational possessions. Now we're more nerdy old geeks than cool, professionals are out of work, and nobody needs a clunking great camera that's a PITA to use when their smartphone does more of what they want anyway.

IMHO only a few niche areas will remain, where smartphones and their users will find things difficult. Those subjects and techniques that require expensive additional equipment, extra skills, and dedicated time and effort. Such as sport (long lenses), wildlife (expensive long lenses, time, fieldcraft), studio work (lighting gear).

FWIW, I've just invested several £k in Godox battery-powered flash kit :)

@Richard Hopkins, I respectfully disagree with the claim about smartphones and the destruction of the value of photography.

"Film will only became an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper." (Jean Cocteau)

I remember reading about the above statement being made in response to a comment about the art of filmmaking. Besides being an exceptional artist, Cocteau was the President of the Jury at Cannes, twice.

Back to smartphones and the art of photography: I do agree that we are being inundated with a very high volume of low-quality photographic content. At the same time, however, a smartphone may exist in the hands of a highly creative person who would otherwise not have had a photo camera at all.

Consider this:
Everybody in *modern* history had access to pen and paper. Today we have blogs aplenty. And yet, somehow, the world of literature doesn't cry out loud about the low quality of literary content that's coming out every single minute.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

D_Gunman: Came here to see people who don't want a Fuji camera complaining about a Fuji camera. Not disappointed.

LOL, it's both funny and true :D

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2020 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Robert1975: Artificial intelligence is just human, natural stupidity applied to the machines. They won't become more creative than us.

Found this: just check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfLCTRuh7U

At this time, it has 2.9K likes. Not bad for a robot, not bad at all.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2020 at 09:54 UTC
In reply to:

Robert1975: Artificial intelligence is just human, natural stupidity applied to the machines. They won't become more creative than us.

@Robert1975: Machines and algorithms can be creative and in fact they already *are* creative, very much so. You run into trouble when you start using a comparative: "more creative than us", "less creative than us", etc. Such as statement cannot have meaning unless you specify: more, in what way? Or less, in what way?

Case in point: AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist). It's algorithmic music composition. I don't know about real musicians; but for myself, I hardly believe that I could ever be "fractionally as creative" as that thing. And I do care about music, quite a bit actually, even though I'm not a musician.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2020 at 09:50 UTC
On article Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick (664 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob890: I wish Fuji or Ricoh would make one of these. A monochrome GR would be really nice. A X100 camera would be interesting

[Following up]
In order to truly reap the benefit of removing the CFA, and to go from decently-interpolated to perfectly-uninterpolated, you need the software that is smart enough to know not to interpolate anything whatsoever. Can Photoshop and friends figure that out? That'd be great. (I don't know if they do it, but it shouldn't be hard to do. It's actually trivial, if you implement the right logic in the right place.)

Fortunately, at the very least, we know for a fact that at software solutions exists. See, for example, Monochrome2DNG:
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/Monochrome2DNG

[Bonus info]
I just found this: https://www.monochromeimaging.com/

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2020 at 00:29 UTC
On article Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick (664 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob890: I wish Fuji or Ricoh would make one of these. A monochrome GR would be really nice. A X100 camera would be interesting

Although the original camera software "doesn't know" that the image is always monochrome, the X-Trans interpolation (or, in the case of the non-Fuji cameras, the Bayer interpolation) should be smart enough to figure that out.

This is not unlike the case when you use a conventional (color) digital camera in order to photograph an already-existing B/W photograph, or a screen showing a B/W movie.

Suboptimal? Maybe. Or maybe not... it really depends on the ability of the color interpolator to figure out the black-and-white-ness and give you back the raw data, triplicated (3x for R,G,B), and uninterpolated. But at the very least, you should be getting both a decent display in the EVF and a decent black-and-white SOOC JPEG.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2020 at 00:28 UTC
On article Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick (664 comments in total)
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: Terrific camera for a wealthy dedicated monochrome street shooter.

@entoman: about monochrome Fujifilm: see my post about Maxmax in another thread above.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2020 at 15:29 UTC
On article Why Leica's M10 Monochrom is more than just a gimmick (664 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob890: I wish Fuji or Ricoh would make one of these. A monochrome GR would be really nice. A X100 camera would be interesting

I stumbled upon the article below. There is a one-person company, named Maxmax, that performs "monochrome camera conversions" for you. If you still have an X-Pro1 lying around, for example, you may find new use for it.

"Want A Fuji Monochrome? Now You Can Have A Fuji Camera Dedicated To Black & White"
https://www.slrlounge.com/want-a-fuji-monochrome-now-you-can-have-a-fuji-camera-dedicated-to-black-white/

They only do it for select cameras, but notably they do it for Fujifilm cameras. If anybody cares, they also do it for Nikon D850. Check out this article:

"Nikon D850 Monochrome"
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190913_1640-NikonD850m-FruitBowl.html

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2020 at 15:20 UTC
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »