Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik

Lives in Croatia (Hrvatska) Osijek, Croatia (Hrvatska)
Works as a photographer / photo editor
Has a website at www.stojcic.com
Joined on Sep 27, 2007

Comments

Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Guys, you really need to take this down and do a reshoot of the outdoor takes. The disclaimer about you underexposing the talking footage doesn't suffice - this is a review of a camera, you just can't mess up this much and still post. If this was a review about tripods - who cares, no harm done.

Mistakes happen, we've all been there, but the quality here is so horrible that it's just not acceptable to post the video as is. It's bad business practice. Surely Dpreview is aware of their reach and audience. You just can't allow yourself to mess up this bad.

Imagine the reactions if you did a review gallery of R5 with all photos taken at 128,000 ISO. No amount of "oops, sorry" can fix that.

Usually I really like your video reviews, but this will come back to haunt you if you don't do something quickly.

[EDIT: Obviously - all of this applies under assumption that this isn't some strange PR / troll / joke and you come out and reveal you actually shot this with a Nokia 3310.]

Watched the footage again. I'm starting to think this wasn't shot on a 12k camera and that Dpreview is playing a joke on us. While the noise is certainly possible, the lack of details and the overall mushy edges seem more like it was shot on some very old camera. I just don't see the footage from Ursa falling apart this badly, even with heavy pushing in post.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2021 at 23:57 UTC

Guys, you really need to take this down and do a reshoot of the outdoor takes. The disclaimer about you underexposing the talking footage doesn't suffice - this is a review of a camera, you just can't mess up this much and still post. If this was a review about tripods - who cares, no harm done.

Mistakes happen, we've all been there, but the quality here is so horrible that it's just not acceptable to post the video as is. It's bad business practice. Surely Dpreview is aware of their reach and audience. You just can't allow yourself to mess up this bad.

Imagine the reactions if you did a review gallery of R5 with all photos taken at 128,000 ISO. No amount of "oops, sorry" can fix that.

Usually I really like your video reviews, but this will come back to haunt you if you don't do something quickly.

[EDIT: Obviously - all of this applies under assumption that this isn't some strange PR / troll / joke and you come out and reveal you actually shot this with a Nokia 3310.]

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2021 at 23:22 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Calphate: Honestly I don't see the point of one shot the whole movie (and it's not even a real one).

One shot technique sometimes provides better experience but sometimes does nothing but set limitation to the camera work/stage setting and lighting/story telling. The director's job is to decide when to use it instead of abusing it all the time. You just get tired of it eventually. But like a lot of other Deakins movies I feel like he's the one controlling everything instead of the director, and he's willing to sacrifice one thing or two just for the cinematography.

And dare I say 1917's story line is mediocre and full of deus ex machina (because the director wanted to make it "real-time" so things just need to happen coincidentally)

"And dare I say 1917's story line is mediocre and full of deus ex machina (because the director wanted to make it "real-time" so things just need to happen coincidentally)" - yes, because you would've much preferred had they just got stuck in the first ditch and had to lay there in the mud for the rest of the movie. Which certainly would've been more realistic, but would it be entertaining? It's silly that on a photographer / videographer forum people are complaining about condensing action into a frame so it has maximum effect on audience. It is literally what we all do every time we take a photo or shoot a video.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2020 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

PeterAustin: I encourage to read the review of 1917 in Salon.com: ""1917" has one major flaw - it's irresponsibly nationalistic".

I went and read that article and it's a pile of cr*p. The author is so heavily invested with dragging Trump (!) into a review of WWI movie it's almost bizarre. This quote: "it is immoral to tell a story about a war without analyzing the reasons behind that war" is just one of the ridiculous arguments laid out in that article. Not to mention that the author of the article completely ignores the fact that the "1917" was based on stories Sam Mendez's grandfather, who was a trench messenger in WWI, told him before his death. Insisting that every war movie needs to have an instructions manual, a political manifesto and detailed historic context attached is simply absurd.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2020 at 17:16 UTC

The movie is excellent and the single-take technique used compliments the story very well. The cuts are well hidden, and even though it's not impossible to spot them if you're looking for them, majority of audience will not know any better. Especially since you just can't help but be immersed into the action. Those that are discussing realism probably never saw a real shell explode. They do not actually kill anyone within 50m radius, especially the field artillery that used lower caliber shells. The movie is a technical marvel that deals with a part of history that hasn't been recently explored in cinema - barely at all, compared to big WWII movies that seem to come out every single year. Personally, I enjoyed the movie immensely and would definitively highly recommend it!

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2020 at 13:58 UTC as 12th comment

Snoozefest. This sounds like a firmware update rather than an actual product update. I mean, same sensor, same body, same features, with a small bump in image quality.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2018 at 14:27 UTC as 4th comment

Yeah, they don't want you to see their expensive products, then walk to that last area where all the Chinese sellers are and realize you can get the same thing for 10 times less money.

Hope they use this break to improve their softbox assembly process, because honestly it's kind of annoying that some random Chinese company has a better and faster way to assemble a light modifier, at a fraction of the cost.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2018 at 12:19 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies

Seems unreasonably expensive. If you were to split this into a sepparate SSD docks (probably the most expensive part of the rig), a normal card reader and a specialized reader for XQD, you could still get it all for around 100$. Even splurging on the top of the line brand name products, it still wouldn't go over 250$. Not to mention you're much safer having a few separate cheaper products rather than all-in-one. This is a very niche product, so I guess there are productions out there that need this and don't care for the cost.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 12:02 UTC as 8th comment

I just talked to my buddy Canon, he spent 20 minutes convincing me we're still BFF. Then Sony called, asking if I wanna go for some coffee this week... I don't know what to think anymore!

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 13:43 UTC as 136th comment | 1 reply

We bought some Chinese battery grip for our A7RII, it's been going strong for over a year. Also, we use several non-branded remote controllers for our various Canon and Sony cameras, without any issues. People can bash Chinese gear as much as they like, but there is really a point in pricing where the advantage of using much more expensive branded gear starts feeling like a rip-off. I wouldn't go for cameras and lenses just yet, but flashes, grips, remotes, triggers... Absolutely!

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 12:21 UTC as 3rd comment | 2 replies

Over here in Europe, Croatia, you don't need to register anything to enforce your rights. You become the author of the image as soon as you take it and you cannot give up that authorship to third party for as long as you live. Basically, you just need to have sufficient evidence that you are in fact the author (full size res, proof of purchase or the camera itself image was taken with, other photos taken at the same time etc.). You can register with intellectual property office if you want, but the law specifically says you become the author as soon as the artwork is created regardless.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 08:55 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (190 comments in total)

If you want to see a much prettier moonbow, please check out our timelapse video of National park Krka (Croatia), at about 0:55 mark... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnNA_I_PQko

We honestly had no idea this was sooooo rare :D

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 16:02 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Pretty much the only thing GoPro had going for it's drone launch was it's good reputation as a inventor and producer of solid performing action-cams. With that gone, and with DJI pretty much ruling the market, I'm guessing this company won't be around for long.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 10:03 UTC as 7th comment

I bet you dorks at Samsung are now thinking "if only we stuck with the user-replaceable batteries". Which is the sole reason for me still using the Note 4 - and I couldn't be happier.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 11:20 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On article Polaroid-branded BrightSaber Pro wand packs 298 LEDs (41 comments in total)

I find it strangely ironic that a former western industrial giant such as Polaroid is now selling cheap rebranded Chinese products. Slap a "Polaroid" logo onto a 99$ light and now it magically costs 162$!

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 12:47 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

vscd: Before you judge... please note that even the latest Star Wars Film used film for some scenes, while the big blockbuster from Nolan or Tarantino used film nearly for everything. Even today. There are some specs on the Vision 3 based emulsions which outresolve any digital sensor, even today (-5/+5 lattitude, no highlight clipping). It's not for me, not for my neighbor or my aunt, but maybefor for new filmmakers out there. The work is harder, but driving an old car is not about efficiency or costs, it's about the thing the driving aka filming was all about. Long time before pixelpeeping and equivalencetrolling ;) I like the idea and still take pictures on film. Using the fullframe digicam for metering the light, only.

The reason why film is still used in Hollywood (mostly large 65) is because it still holds up to, and in some cases even surpases, digital film cameras. But just barely. For example, DOP on The Revenant, an ardent film-shooting guy, declared after shooting with the latest Arri digital camera that this is probably his divorce from film for good. I would be very hesitant in making an example out of quirky directors, because a vast majority of movies today is shot on digital. And for good reasons too - sensitivity performance, resolution, speed of workflow, grading flexibility and even dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 13:58 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)

Here's a great tag line - "If you're going to make bedroom home movies with our Super 8 - you better be quick about it!"

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 13:47 UTC as 96th comment
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)

Next up from Kodak - a (re)volutionary product where an authorized Kodak painting artists comes to your set and paints frame-by-frame shots of what you want recorded for posterity. Then all you need to do is wait for a few months so that your recordings are animated and delivered to you on a digital format. All that for only $500 an hour!

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 13:43 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

chlamchowder: More competition is always a good thing for consumers (typically brings better quality and/or lower prices).

But no one knows better than the Chinese that mainland Chinese companies shouldn't be trusted...so....

More than half a century of communism followed by going for a market economy brings many things, but integrity and accountability sadly aren't included.

I own a few Xiaomi products (battery packs, usb hubs, pcie cards etc.) and they have all performed flawlessly for over two years now. I would have absolutely zero worries buying anything from them. They are a huge tech company, google it!

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 15:07 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Everyone know that GoPro is terribly overpriced, considering how cheap smartphones are nowadays. Still, I don't like xiaomi making absolutely shameless copy products. They could at least change the dimension and UI (I think GoPro design is stupid and can be vastly improved)

Are dimensions really same as gopro? That would actually make it very tempting, considering the amount of gopro accessories...

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 15:04 UTC
Total: 47, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »