vFunct

Lives in Canada Canada
Works as a Working class
Joined on Mar 14, 2004

Comments

Total: 514, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

cinemascope: I'm a video guy who got into photography a few years back.
To me photography is the pursuit of perfection, whereas truly beautiful video embraces chaos - which can sometimes feel almost like opposite endeavours. Perfection in video is multi-frame and emotional, it resides in people's heads, and you'll never find it in a single frame - that's not the point anyway.
My romantic advice to a photographer would be to drop the perfection chase, dump the control freak mindset and stiffness, and embrace motion and chaos. Beauty will slap you in the face in ways you never anticipated.

Yah, but no. Video is one of the most controlled environments around. That's why videographers generally use tripods instead of hand-held.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 22:06 UTC
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (100 comments in total)

You'll also find that smaller sensors actually work better for video than full-size 35mm sensors, mostly because of the increased depth-of-field. In fact, most high-end video cameras are around 1" sensor size, which would be smaller than APS-C.

The blurry F1.4 depth-of-field that photographers love so much is actually very distracting in video (unless you want some horribly cheesy romantic shot).

In video, you generally want a smaller blur, where F4+ lenses are fine.

If you're shooting full-size 35mm sensors with F1.4 lenses, you're never going to have anything in focus.

Never hire a videographer that uses a 35mm full-frame camera for their main rig.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 22:04 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On article Apple Photos gets smarter in iOS 10, macOS 'Sierra' (61 comments in total)

Big news! Raw image processing coming to iOS 10: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/505/

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 06:15 UTC as 9th comment | 8 replies
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter62: Dynamic range is a joke!

Look here:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750

2 EV (!) less DR compared to the D750 is nothing short of a disaster!

Nobody uses low ISO.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 02:57 UTC
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (516 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter62: Dynamic range is a joke!

Look here:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D750

2 EV (!) less DR compared to the D750 is nothing short of a disaster!

Where? I see an +1 EV improvement over the D750.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Interesting that Sony isn't even considered. Typical. I have used Canon and Nikon for sports. My Sony A77ii with Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 HS and a 2X teleconverter is much better than both these cameras. The Sony has IS built into the body, 12FPS with RAW and full time phase detect AF linked to real time object tracking. It also has adjustable front and back focus limiters. And the high speed shaft drive AF is much faster than any Canon or Nikon lens. All this with an old lens.
And of course everyone is going to spam me now with all the Canon an Nikon propaganda defending their investment. I love(d) Canon but they stopped innovating many years ago and now I have to use what works best and that is my Sony. I know there is very little chance that DPreview will ever take Sony seriously either. Oh well.

Didn't I tell you that no one cares about Sony?

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 03:57 UTC
In reply to:

JRFlorendo: The noob disclaimer, we're "NOT pro sports photographers" ....Blah blah blah. What that practicality means, is that, they have no idea how to customize the complex AF system to fully take advantage of its potential that ONLY a Canon pro sport shooter have acquired from YEARS(not days) of field experience.

Despite that, they definitively concluded, "the Canon still can't match the Nikon's uncanny ability to track objects reliably and accurately as they progress across the frame while also coming toward or moving away from the camera."

Reviews between the two are coming in before DP, most including D5 users, have concluded X is still the superior pro sports camera due to its AF speed/in focus reliability and video. One reviewer suggest to take D5 at night indoor stadium venue, where lighting is flickering(off & on), 50%-30% of images will be dark. Canon wins at base iso(dr) and night venues(flicker mode), according to one reviewer.

Hopefully you have charts in your reviews of these cameras that show how many shots were in focus out of all the shots you took per camera.

I'm curious about the Canon side.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 06:27 UTC
In reply to:

Vitruvius: Interesting that Sony isn't even considered. Typical. I have used Canon and Nikon for sports. My Sony A77ii with Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 HS and a 2X teleconverter is much better than both these cameras. The Sony has IS built into the body, 12FPS with RAW and full time phase detect AF linked to real time object tracking. It also has adjustable front and back focus limiters. And the high speed shaft drive AF is much faster than any Canon or Nikon lens. All this with an old lens.
And of course everyone is going to spam me now with all the Canon an Nikon propaganda defending their investment. I love(d) Canon but they stopped innovating many years ago and now I have to use what works best and that is my Sony. I know there is very little chance that DPreview will ever take Sony seriously either. Oh well.

Nobody cares about Sony.

Get a real camera.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 06:22 UTC

Broncolors are the best lights in the entire industry.

Top of the food chain.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2016 at 08:29 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
On article Heavenly bodies: Nikon D810 & D810A field test (111 comments in total)

This is the best video you guys have made so far. Production is dead on perfect.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 03:21 UTC as 30th comment

lol these guys keep trying to figure out a business plan.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2016 at 23:22 UTC as 54th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

aris14: I really can't see the needs of 100 Mp, but it's professionals cup of cake.
I really wonder who can see the difference of a 50 Mp image compared to an originally shot 100 Mp, no matter the final size to be printed.
Anyway, pros problems and tastes.

This goes way beyond even advertising needs, though.

This might be useful for scientific purposes or fine-art.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2016 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Do all 1" cameras have cyan skies like that? That's pretty bad dynamic range right there.

And, any way to control it in camera? Reduce exposure while dynamically enhancing shadows perhaps?

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 22:04 UTC

Do all 1" cameras have cyan skies like that? That's pretty bad dynamic range right there.

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 22:02 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (281 comments in total)

The camera JPGs are so much better than the raw edits.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2016 at 22:12 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

vFunct: This should be obvious. When I first saw the ISO range, I knew it wasn't going to be ISO invariant.

You're not going to get ISO invariance with a sensor that can do 3.2 million ISO. The sensor's electron well depth has to be larger than the base ISO range for ISO invariance. The well in a modern camera only has about 100,000 electron capacity. And you have to have a perfect readout to even get that range.

The test here didn't really cover dynamic range. It's more about noise under low-end push-processing.

A Dynamic range test would also measure noise under high-end pull processing as well, and compare the difference between the two.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 01:06 UTC

This should be obvious. When I first saw the ISO range, I knew it wasn't going to be ISO invariant.

You're not going to get ISO invariance with a sensor that can do 3.2 million ISO. The sensor's electron well depth has to be larger than the base ISO range for ISO invariance. The well in a modern camera only has about 100,000 electron capacity. And you have to have a perfect readout to even get that range.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2016 at 00:40 UTC as 153rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

joe6pack: I'm still not clear after reading their webpages. Do they have a single software that can read and process RAW files? What are the supported formats?

No. There's no raw converter here. This is all for post-processing.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2016 at 19:48 UTC

Was hoping the new Nikon DL series was about to output Log or at least Flat picture profiles to record onto these, but it looks like it won't.

I was hoping to find a good camera that can do 120fps or 240fps for cheap.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2016 at 15:14 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Flickr makes Auto-Uploadr tool a Pro-account exclusive (97 comments in total)
In reply to:

BubbleGum: Well, that's the last drop. Bye bye Flickr.

Indeed. You never would have paid for it.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2016 at 11:33 UTC
Total: 514, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »