thielges

thielges

Lives in United States San Jose, CA, United States
Has a website at http://www.thielges.com
Joined on Feb 24, 2004

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Sony reveals faster, higher-res OLED viewfinder display (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Unlike more megapixels, improvements in EVFs should be a plus for all users. A shame they're expensive but what's more important than a decent viewfinder?

"...what's more important than a decent viewfinder?"

A high quality sensor+lens combo is more important to me. While having a great viewfinder for composition is valuable, it is nothing without a high quality image file.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 00:11 UTC

It would be interesting to understand the effects on image detail. The methods applied risk either destroying detail or inserting detail that does not exist. I'm sure the researchers at U of I have a solid background in Information Theory and understand the limitations of what can be possible.

For casual photographers this technique is useful because the image recovery exceeds the detail lost/faked. But it could lead to some interesting court cases where the veracity of photographic evidence is questioned.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2018 at 19:21 UTC as 49th comment | 2 replies

This ap might be useful if it identifies general sites that are good for shooting. By that I mean hidden vista points that afford wide views and a variety of shooting angles. Or large areas that contain unique subject matter that can be photographed in thousands of different ways.

There may be some sites like this on the ap though I'd expect that most will be of the form of "stand here and take shot #13950 of this interesting building's facade". Kind of wish there was a way to view a trial sample of locations to understand the proportion of useful vs. cliche sites.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2018 at 19:55 UTC as 37th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: What exactly do the Corephotonics patent claim?

I mean, you cannot patent having two cameras.

And you cannot (I hope) patent using two cameras and combine them to one virtual zoom lens. It is just too obvious.

There must be something more. Like some clever technique to do it.

So, what was the patent?

mattd007 - To clarify, you can *file* a patent on anything, but that doesn't ensure that the USPTO will grant such a patent. There are a large number of hurtles to clear before an invention is considered to be patentable.

Beware of unscrupulous firms that claim that they can get you a patent on anything. They'll just drain your bank account with fee after fee for processing an unpatentable idea that will ultimately be rejected by the patent office.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 00:01 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: ... it is not even remotely slightly confusing at all ... there was no patent when iPhone released their dual-cams. What took Corephotonics so long to patent it? Obviously, P20 Pro got away with patent infringements and thievery because P20 use triple-cams against iPhones' dual-cam.

What is sneaky about Apple is Corephotonics demo'ed their dual-cam to Apple. Chuckle! Snort! Chuckle! ... and the rest is his story against their story ...

Corephotonics will get overwhelmed and swamped by Apple's army of ivy-league lawyers.

> What took Corephotonics so long to patent it?

A lot of time can elapse between filing and grant. The worst case I ever experienced was over a decade between filing the provisional patent and grant of the patent.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2018 at 21:26 UTC

I really appreciate the added effort that the authors put into this article to hyperlink the text to relevant details. Especially nice are the links that zoom the comparison tool to the various negative effects of moire, false detail, jagged edges, etc. A picture is worth a 1000 words!

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2018 at 22:27 UTC as 38th comment

It was a long, strange, expensive trip but at least the courts finally restored sanity. The irony is that this whole thing could have been avoided if the photographer did not reveal that the monkey pressed the shutter button. I can't blame him for too much sharing of info, who would have ever imagined that PETA would sue?

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 19:01 UTC as 98th comment

Folks, this is not absurd at all. This is intended to be used to preview the effect of a lens and perspective without moving the whole camera in place. It is not for filming directly on a smartphone.

If you watch documentaries about films are made you will notice that the director often carries a lens attached to an eyecup to make quick checks on lens settings, angles, and perspective before shooting. This widget is just the next step in the evolution of that eyecup, turning an OVF into an LCD display.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 00:34 UTC as 42nd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

thielges: Some excellent photos there, I especially liked that nighttime temple scene.

Still I do not see the advantages of a monochrome camera versus doing a B&W conversion in post. I get that there's loss in the Bayer conversion. However there are advantages too, notably that you can separate the RGB layers and remix in post. That's basically emulating the effect of using colored filters at capture time. For example a red filter would darken blue skies and you can do the same simply by reducing the blue channel in the RGB mix.

For me it comes down to simplicity and flexibility. I travel light and move fast. Carry one camera, capture in RAW color. Adjust later when there's more time.

(coincidentally my avatar icon was shot in Japan. And would look terrible in B&W :-)

SafariBob - I do not doubt that a monochrome sensor can produce a better image right out of the camera. It makes sense because there's no unnecessary color mask to interfere.

What I mean is that the extra flexibility of RBG channel mixing outweighs the out-of-camera advantages of a monochrome sensor. I guess a monochrome shooter could achieve the same effect by going back to using old fashioned colored filters at shot time, but that is certainly not for me.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 19:55 UTC

Some excellent photos there, I especially liked that nighttime temple scene.

Still I do not see the advantages of a monochrome camera versus doing a B&W conversion in post. I get that there's loss in the Bayer conversion. However there are advantages too, notably that you can separate the RGB layers and remix in post. That's basically emulating the effect of using colored filters at capture time. For example a red filter would darken blue skies and you can do the same simply by reducing the blue channel in the RGB mix.

For me it comes down to simplicity and flexibility. I travel light and move fast. Carry one camera, capture in RAW color. Adjust later when there's more time.

(coincidentally my avatar icon was shot in Japan. And would look terrible in B&W :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 19:53 UTC as 16th comment | 4 replies

This is a pretty amazing example of photoduplication. Kudos to Ron and Eric for getting to the bottom of this apparent mystery.

One aspect I've realized about my chosen subject matter is that hardly anyone else is interested in shooting the same. There's rarely anything close to duplication though once and a while I stumble across a like minded shooter who chose a similar perspective on the same subject. With digital there's so many more exposures made and it is harder to come up with a truly unique image.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 21:50 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

PhotoFactor: Just imagine when a government puts guns on the same technology, you have ther Terminator scenario.

At $2500 it isn't the government you should be worrying about.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 21:45 UTC

A feature like this should be opt-in, not opt-out. Its gonna catch a lot of instagram users snoozing who may be upset when they find out after the fact that their content is shared.

The choice of opt-out is simply a way to extract extra $$ from their user base.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 20:45 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Photato: If iPhones had user replaceable batteries none of this debacle would be an issue.
It is ridiculous !

Karroly - You can replace iphone batteries, it just requires extra technical skill.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: If iPhones had user replaceable batteries none of this debacle would be an issue.
It is ridiculous !

I'm on the fence. The downside of a replaceable battery is the need for a battery door, spring contacts, and the associated hardware. That makes the phone larger and less reliable.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2018 at 00:47 UTC
On article Kodak shows off Super 8 camera in first sample reel (218 comments in total)

I was among the last people shooting R8 and super-8 film when Kodak and Fuji discontinued producing new film stock. In fact part of the reason I shot 8mm was because camera stores were closing out their inventories and selling off film stock for one dollar a roll.

Even shooting $1 film on $5 flea market market cameras felt expensive and extravagant. I cannot imagine paying modern/artisinal prices for the same today.

All I can guess is that Kodak is taking random stabs at niche markets hoping to strike it rich and become somewhat relevant again. That's sad considering how much Kodak has done for the early years of imaging. Surely there are niche commercial/scientific markets that would be a better bet.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 00:28 UTC as 75th comment
In reply to:

evogt500: Why is it always referred as a "fake Leica"? Its obviously a sculpture. No one is going to thing its a real Leica camera.

The Treachery of Sculpture.

Ceci n'est pas une camera

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 22:21 UTC
On challenge Pareidolia finding faces in everyday objects (2 comments in total)

Just to be clear, cropping is not allowed and would disqualify an image?

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 23:59 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, harmless 2-pound models are banned from these sites but you can still fly a 777 over them and look up their imagery on Google Maps/Earth.

Makes sense.

Without going into details lets just say that there are things that a drone can do but a 747 (or Cessna 152) cannot.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 20:38 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, harmless 2-pound models are banned from these sites but you can still fly a 777 over them and look up their imagery on Google Maps/Earth.

Makes sense.

Drones are capable of more than just collecting photographic data.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
Total: 70, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »