Horshack

Lives in United States United States
Has a website at http://horshack.smugmug.com
Joined on Jun 7, 2008

Comments

Total: 671, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Horshack: From Sony's release notes:

"Improves the overall stability of the camera"

This sounds like a catch-all for multiple bug fixes. It would be preferable to list them out individually.

@RubberDials, how can a person come 'here' (comment section) to see SOMEONE find a negative thing about SOMETHING without also finding the negative SOMETHING that SOMEONE said? Perhaps if a bot posted it rather than a human?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: From Sony's release notes:

"Improves the overall stability of the camera"

This sounds like a catch-all for multiple bug fixes. It would be preferable to list them out individually.

@RubberDials, a distinction without a difference.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 02:13 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: From Sony's release notes:

"Improves the overall stability of the camera"

This sounds like a catch-all for multiple bug fixes. It would be preferable to list them out individually.

@fjbyrne, You came here expecting to find something negative about a company fixing things and sure enough you did, even where it doesn't exist. Confirmation bias.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 01:47 UTC

From Sony's release notes:

"Improves the overall stability of the camera"

This sounds like a catch-all for multiple bug fixes. It would be preferable to list them out individually.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 00:12 UTC as 15th comment | 9 replies
On article Sony 'striping': here's the fix (620 comments in total)

Great job pulling all this information together Rishi. In addition to Hank's great contribution via his utility, dpreview user 'pippo27' should also be commended - he's the one who implemented the striping fix for Raw Therapee. And as always, Jim Kasson for being one of the major technical forces behind the ongoing investigation of the striping issue.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 16:21 UTC as 105th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon dominates World Press Photo 2018 camera breakdown (350 comments in total)

I find it curious no smartphones are on the list, when you consider the pervasiveness of smartphones and thus the likelihood that a noteworthy event is more likely to occur around someone who has a smartphone than a dedicated camera. Then again these are photojournalism awards so maybe the selection criteria was limited.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2018 at 18:57 UTC as 123rd comment | 7 replies

The best smartphone is the camera you have with you.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 14:59 UTC as 102nd comment | 1 reply
On article Tiny micro-camera sensor is self-powered by light (75 comments in total)

Based on the laws of equivalence, a 1mm sensor powered by available light is equivalent to a full-frame sensor powered by a potato.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 18:37 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

kelstertx: Looks like the media isn't standard SSDs like (most of the) previous models. It's some "AtomX SSDmini", which uses the SATA3 connector according to the site, but it's physically smaller. For it to fit the Ninja V caddy, you'll probably have to buy expensive new small format non-standard drives. Last time they did this, they tried to use CFast with the Ninja Star, but the media was ghastly expensive -- on the order of 10X the cost of SSD. Since I can't find a single seller offering the "AtomX SSDmini" yet, I'm guessing it will be atrociously expensive too. (It's possible they are just using M.2 SSD drives, and that would be cool/clever/inexpensive.)

Might not matter though. I typically enclose the Ninja with a SATA drawer to make the SSD swap simpler. SATA3 is SATA3 when it's connected to a SSD drawer with a 6" SATA extension cable.

I was in Atomos's booth today at NAB. The unit supports regular 2.5" SSDs that fit the included caddy. I asked the purpose of the smaller SSD form factor and was told so that the smaller drives fit flush within the unit rather than sticking out sightly.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 21:13 UTC
In reply to:

kelstertx: Looks like the media isn't standard SSDs like (most of the) previous models. It's some "AtomX SSDmini", which uses the SATA3 connector according to the site, but it's physically smaller. For it to fit the Ninja V caddy, you'll probably have to buy expensive new small format non-standard drives. Last time they did this, they tried to use CFast with the Ninja Star, but the media was ghastly expensive -- on the order of 10X the cost of SSD. Since I can't find a single seller offering the "AtomX SSDmini" yet, I'm guessing it will be atrociously expensive too. (It's possible they are just using M.2 SSD drives, and that would be cool/clever/inexpensive.)

Might not matter though. I typically enclose the Ninja with a SATA drawer to make the SSD swap simpler. SATA3 is SATA3 when it's connected to a SSD drawer with a 6" SATA extension cable.

"Ninja V also works with Master Caddy II."

One of which is included with V according to Atomos's spec sheet at: https://www.atomos.com/ninjav

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 13:07 UTC

This sounds like Apple's response to Sony's X-OCN, which was introduced just before last year's NAB. Sony gave a detailed presentation on X-OCN at last year's NAB, which I found useful. I don't think Apple goes to NAB so not sure if this will be presented there next week.

Here's some info on X-OCN:
http://zsyst.com/2016/12/sony-x-ocn-sample-footage/

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2018 at 20:17 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies

8K can't work in the USA because the recommended viewing distance will be too short to fit a TV dinner tray in between our La-Z-Boy and TV screen :)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 20:31 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Horshack: "With a mean time between failures (MTBF) of 2.5 million hours, or over 285 years"

That's an impressive stat but relates to the failure of the entire drive. A more important stat would be the mean time between uncorrectable data errors, ie bit error rate.

@Gmon750, I wasn't singling out SSDs in my comment. HDDs have the same marketing-speak disparity between MTBF and UBER.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2018 at 00:17 UTC

"With a mean time between failures (MTBF) of 2.5 million hours, or over 285 years"

That's an impressive stat but relates to the failure of the entire drive. A more important stat would be the mean time between uncorrectable data errors, ie bit error rate.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 22:28 UTC as 30th comment | 10 replies

Order now for delivery in March 2020.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 17:32 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Horshack: Something isn't making sense to me. When Ron flips between both his and Eric's photos at 1:34 into the video, you can see the tower spray is at almost the identical position yet the location of the whitecaps in the waves below is shifted by a significant amount.

If you then watch the video at 2:45, where Ron shows the same scene at a different moment in time captured with a 7fps burst, the relative speed/movement of the spray off the tower and the whitecaps below is about the same, which would imply that if his and Eric's photos were taken at nearly the same instant then both the whitecaps and the tower spray should match, but only the tower spray matches.

At 5:30 Ron explains why the location of the whitecaps is so different, thinking it might be due to Eric shooting from a position to the left of his. But if that were true then the perspective we see of the tower and spray would be different as well.

Either this is a weird manifestation of parallax or they're the same photo.

@W5JCK, I think you're misunderstanding what it is I am misunderstanding.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2018 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: Something isn't making sense to me. When Ron flips between both his and Eric's photos at 1:34 into the video, you can see the tower spray is at almost the identical position yet the location of the whitecaps in the waves below is shifted by a significant amount.

If you then watch the video at 2:45, where Ron shows the same scene at a different moment in time captured with a 7fps burst, the relative speed/movement of the spray off the tower and the whitecaps below is about the same, which would imply that if his and Eric's photos were taken at nearly the same instant then both the whitecaps and the tower spray should match, but only the tower spray matches.

At 5:30 Ron explains why the location of the whitecaps is so different, thinking it might be due to Eric shooting from a position to the left of his. But if that were true then the perspective we see of the tower and spray would be different as well.

Either this is a weird manifestation of parallax or they're the same photo.

@WastingTime, Considering the photographers themselves initially considered the other may have copied their photo I'd hardly call these comments the birthplace of a conspiracy theory.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 20:33 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: Something isn't making sense to me. When Ron flips between both his and Eric's photos at 1:34 into the video, you can see the tower spray is at almost the identical position yet the location of the whitecaps in the waves below is shifted by a significant amount.

If you then watch the video at 2:45, where Ron shows the same scene at a different moment in time captured with a 7fps burst, the relative speed/movement of the spray off the tower and the whitecaps below is about the same, which would imply that if his and Eric's photos were taken at nearly the same instant then both the whitecaps and the tower spray should match, but only the tower spray matches.

At 5:30 Ron explains why the location of the whitecaps is so different, thinking it might be due to Eric shooting from a position to the left of his. But if that were true then the perspective we see of the tower and spray would be different as well.

Either this is a weird manifestation of parallax or they're the same photo.

@falconeyes, That makes sense. It just strikes me as weird how the parallax plane just happened to perfectly line up on the tower between the two photos considering the photographers were at different distances to it (in both axes).

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: Something isn't making sense to me. When Ron flips between both his and Eric's photos at 1:34 into the video, you can see the tower spray is at almost the identical position yet the location of the whitecaps in the waves below is shifted by a significant amount.

If you then watch the video at 2:45, where Ron shows the same scene at a different moment in time captured with a 7fps burst, the relative speed/movement of the spray off the tower and the whitecaps below is about the same, which would imply that if his and Eric's photos were taken at nearly the same instant then both the whitecaps and the tower spray should match, but only the tower spray matches.

At 5:30 Ron explains why the location of the whitecaps is so different, thinking it might be due to Eric shooting from a position to the left of his. But if that were true then the perspective we see of the tower and spray would be different as well.

Either this is a weird manifestation of parallax or they're the same photo.

@DLCade - If you watch at 5:30 you can see that both the whitecaps in front of the tower and those far behind it are shifted by the same degree.

I wonder how much of the shift is due to the PS Auto Align he did of the two images, which he describes at 1:32 in the video.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 17:22 UTC

Something isn't making sense to me. When Ron flips between both his and Eric's photos at 1:34 into the video, you can see the tower spray is at almost the identical position yet the location of the whitecaps in the waves below is shifted by a significant amount.

If you then watch the video at 2:45, where Ron shows the same scene at a different moment in time captured with a 7fps burst, the relative speed/movement of the spray off the tower and the whitecaps below is about the same, which would imply that if his and Eric's photos were taken at nearly the same instant then both the whitecaps and the tower spray should match, but only the tower spray matches.

At 5:30 Ron explains why the location of the whitecaps is so different, thinking it might be due to Eric shooting from a position to the left of his. But if that were true then the perspective we see of the tower and spray would be different as well.

Either this is a weird manifestation of parallax or they're the same photo.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 17:10 UTC as 58th comment | 10 replies
Total: 671, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »