falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 863, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Demand for CMOS image sensors projected to increase (14 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: I would hope the high end smartphones of the future would utilize the 1" sensor which should have become the norm since the Panasonic CM-1 was released 2yrs ago. One can only dream...

This isn't physically possible (in anything slimmer than 15mm).
But camera arrays are and arrays can simulate larger sensor cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 19:13 UTC

Funny thing is,
in their latest Instagram video (linked from https://www.facebook.com/Fotodiox ) Fotodiox mounts a PENTAX-M 50mm 1:2 lens without a mention of E mount ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 11:41 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: DxO places a lot of weight on colour depth. Something that can be only tested and not discerned under normal viewing. DR and noise should be given more weighting.

@nokinonacynos
This is a common misconception.
DxO measures and weights color depth as a means to benchmark a camera's color performance overall. The other scores are all luminosity scores.
Wouldn't DxO do what they do, a monochrome camera, or a camera with a ridiculuously weak CFA (resulting in strong color noise) would have too high a score.

Overall, too few people really understand what DxO does and why.

Summary: a good DxO portrait score is a sign of low color noise in shadows.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: The case should be thrown out of court for being frivolous. I don't care what happened; she's asking for $2.2 Billion and therefore the case should be dismissed on the basis of it being frivolous. It's stupid and I'm tired of the games. If there's ZERO chance she could get $2.2 Billion; then drop the case until she gets reasonable.

Secondly, why is the restaurant being sued? Wasn't it the photographer who did the actual "damage"? Sue the person not the deep pockets. Again, frivolous and needs to be dropped. If anything, she should be fined for bothering the public with her nonsense.

The irony in the McDonald's case is that the victim first approached McDonald's off-court asking for a $20k settlement.

Here in photo rights case where no physical damage was caused, the "victim" goes straight ahead to ask for $2.2bn. That's a new record for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: The case should be thrown out of court for being frivolous. I don't care what happened; she's asking for $2.2 Billion and therefore the case should be dismissed on the basis of it being frivolous. It's stupid and I'm tired of the games. If there's ZERO chance she could get $2.2 Billion; then drop the case until she gets reasonable.

Secondly, why is the restaurant being sued? Wasn't it the photographer who did the actual "damage"? Sue the person not the deep pockets. Again, frivolous and needs to be dropped. If anything, she should be fined for bothering the public with her nonsense.

@stevo23
The McDonald's case is pretty famous and all known in the public this far was that it settled for less than $600k. Your less than $300k figure is new information. Would you mind being cited on this? Or is this confidential information?

The medical cost were $13k plus $5k care by her daughter. It was said in public that the amount paid was sufficient to pay a live-in nurse until the victims death in 2004.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 14:03 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrew Butterfield: Back to analog... well, they sold 30 million vinyl records last year. But there were 45 billion songs downloaded or streamed. So analogue is potentially a reasonable sort of a business, but stil a relatively small one and likely a temporary one too because of format boredom and reality setting in...

@Dragonrider, you got my point, almost.
My point was, media produced for car listening are more low dynamic range than media produced for the listening room.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 11:06 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (417 comments in total)
In reply to:

Andrew Butterfield: Back to analog... well, they sold 30 million vinyl records last year. But there were 45 billion songs downloaded or streamed. So analogue is potentially a reasonable sort of a business, but stil a relatively small one and likely a temporary one too because of format boredom and reality setting in...

I believe marike6 refered to "small dynamic range" when saying "compressed" which is true for many CDs MP3s are made from, and also true for many digital downloads.

High bitrate MP3 or FLAC can sound great, if made from good content.

Vinyl often has higher dynamic range not for technical reasons but for the past and present preferences of the target audience.

A good source to study the impact of CD/vinyl/lossy downloads on compression is
-> http://dr.loudness-war.info
(Spoiler: the truth is much more complex than you may expect)

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 01:13 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: The case should be thrown out of court for being frivolous. I don't care what happened; she's asking for $2.2 Billion and therefore the case should be dismissed on the basis of it being frivolous. It's stupid and I'm tired of the games. If there's ZERO chance she could get $2.2 Billion; then drop the case until she gets reasonable.

Secondly, why is the restaurant being sued? Wasn't it the photographer who did the actual "damage"? Sue the person not the deep pockets. Again, frivolous and needs to be dropped. If anything, she should be fined for bothering the public with her nonsense.

The legal system in the US is severely broken. I never found anybody abroad thinking otherwise and even in the US, many people think this way.

The reason why Caldwell's laywers ask for this absurd amount of money in the first place is that it creates a better starting position for the out-of-court settlement.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 00:47 UTC
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (417 comments in total)

This recent "back to analog" hype must be more massive than I was able to envision...

I now predict a "back to all mechanical" hype and will try to get hold of one of those gramophones :)

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 12:07 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Stefan Wrobel: Great, first PetaPixel, now you guys are posting this with NO SPECS? There is next-to-zero detail about these lenses ... seemingly important for "pro" photo sites.

Has no specs because the importer couldn't translate the Alibaba page?

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 12:39 UTC

First I wanted to comment "how lame" ...
But then, I really appreciate DPR reblog news not only from MIT and Stanford press offices, but Tohoku University too ;)

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 17:25 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

johnapp: He is fortunate, he didn't get killed.

Doesn't seem to be true.
There is a video and more material available. The killer points his gun at the audience and actually, there are a few other injured people in the audience. Moreover, the killer eventually dies after a 15 minutes shootout with the police. The killer was an off-duty police officer.

So indeed, the photog was fortunate not to be killed himself.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 13:22 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I hate, abhor, detest, despise, that someone who was not even holding a camera and instead used a noisy, annoying, toy to take a picture and won a bunch of money.

Other people did their best, got on their knees in the muck, took bracketed shots to later blend so the dynamic range was there, and did their level best to portray the scene; and got beat by someone who artificially flew above the ground. Not even in a plane or helicopter, he just plain cheated; and still won.

I hate drones! HATE is too small and quiet of a word to describe my unbridled, uncontained absolute rage and malice I feel toward the drones and everyone associated with them.

Everytime I see one, I see some *$(@)*$&@ that is so selfish that he does not care if his loud, obnoxious, annoying, bee-buzzing ruins the experience someone else is having on their walk, hike, camping trip, or their attempts at photography with all the oppressive distraction of some toy model making noise.

I know, I am not Biological_Viewfinder ...
I think the drone photo was the weakest of the contest. Have seen much better drone photos of the "abstract landscape from above" type. I esp. dislike the composition with a vertical dark road running thru the center.

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2016 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

Tan68: I wonder if 'Canon Inc' was misprinted so the people could argue it wasn't a complete copy in some effort to later divert a copyright infringement suit..? Not that I think that would be a successful argument.

I am just trying to rationalize how they could miss such an obvious part of the lens markings. Surely, it is possible to put a space between the 'Canon' and the 'Inc'

Perhaps someone in the crime syndicate had second thoughts and deleted the space as a warning to the unwitting public..

If so, I hope that hero was not teabagged with cement shoes into the Giants football stadium.

Blue birds help us if the counterfeiters add that space on their next effort !

That's expected.
In this flood of phishing spam emails I received, not a SINGLE one was actually correct wrt spelling or grammar (in German language). Not a SINGLE one, I swear!! Germans have become so trained to recognize phishing mails because they are badly crafted that the day the first 100% correct one emerges, big damage may be caused.

You are right, one would think fakers could do their job better. But I tell you this: if fakers could really do, they won't be criminals but serious professionals.

Link | Posted on Dec 17, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: I repeat:
This lens is 95mm F/1.4; at infinity! The 105mm are a blatant lie.

If you scroll down 4 comments, all info is in my reply to my own comment. As I said: I repeat. ...

In a nutshell, cf. https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-105mm-F14E-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D810---Measurements__963 -> Distortion/Profiles and read DxO documentation what exactly they measured (their "Effective Focal Length" EFL).

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2016 at 10:27 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: I repeat:
This lens is 95mm F/1.4; at infinity! The 105mm are a blatant lie.

DxOmark does a very precise measurement, actually measuring the variation of focal length at infinity over the field of view. Due to distortion, FL at a given distance is no constant. DxO measures between 47.5 and 47.7mm across the field and they do an effort to measure at infinity which isn't easy. I simply assume Lensrentals has a larger margin of measurement error here.

Moreover, prime lenses typically have longer FL at shorter distances (i.e. Unlike zoom lenses with focus breathing). The typical dependency is known as thin lens formula in optics.

But the price of tele lenses (with a given F stop) increases with something between square and cube of focal length at infinity (aka as lens diameter). Considering the steep increase of price with diameter this false advertizement is a significant lie. (Cf. Price jump when going from f/1.8 to f/1.4 or from 50mm to 85mm).

The jump from 50 to 85, 95, 105mm is 1.7x, 1.9x, 2.1x resp.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 23:25 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)

I repeat:
This lens is 95mm F/1.4; at infinity! The 105mm are a blatant lie.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:13 UTC as 5th comment | 6 replies
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

kobakokh: Great lens! Just very expensive...

As I said above: cf. my comment just below.
It contains all information. In a nutshell:
Nikon lies, it is a 95mm lens advertized as 105mm. It is 95mm at infinity.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:11 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: Did somebody notice the fine print in DxO charts:
"Measured focal length: 94.8mm"

95mm seems to be a big step below the advertized 105mm. Right in the middle between 105mm and 85mm actually.

Is anybody else wondering?

I am able to confirm:
-> https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-105mm-F14E-ED-mounted-on-Nikon-D810---Measurements__963
shows the EFL and it is 95mm (at infinity).

(Go to "Distortion", then "Profiles" --
If this doesn't load, go to "Grid", then back to "Pofiles")

BTW, the Otus 85/1.4 was measured 84.5mm

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 12:33 UTC
On article Got Bokeh? DxO reviews the Nikkor AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: Nice update from DxO.
Unfortunately, not very helpful until they also test its direct peer, the Sigma 85/1.4A on Nikon D810.

Nevertheless, the test reveals that the Nikon 105/1.4 is a stunning lens. Just not yet in one league with the Otus 55/1.4 (DxO didn't test the Otus 85/1.4 which is a tad weaker than the 55).

@Aranu,
Yes, DxO testet the Otus 85/1.4, even on D800E. It shows that the 55/1.4 is a tad sharper in the center at f/1.4. They become equal at f/2.8. The 105/1.4 at f/1.4 is like the Otos 85/1.4 in the center but weaker than both Otus for half the field. This is still true at f/2.8.

However, DxO results are much better represented by MTF measurement which only DPReview published here. They are very hard to interpret on the DxO site. Unfortunately, DPReview misses many results on their site here, including the Otus 85.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 12:24 UTC
Total: 863, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »