Deorum

Lives in Greece Athens, Greece
Works as a Sports Photographer
Has a website at www.georgespyros.com
Joined on May 4, 2003
About me:

Sports Photography 4_the_win!

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Father Bouvier: Should you stick with sRGB? Here how the same picture looks in 6 different browsers: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2012/06/ugPTu.jpg

Does your browser support ICC profiles? Check yourself: http://cameratico.com/tools/web-browser-color-management-test/

According to the The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), all untagged images and page elements should be considered sRGB by the web browser.

All images (even sent out to be printed i would dare say, unless you really know what you are doing) should be treated as sRGB.
that said, AdobeRGB or other spaces, are still valuable for our own satisfaction when viewing our images.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:05 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (1281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Due to much less materials cost (most of the cost here is R&D i guess) this camera has the potential to be much cheaper in a few years, than a big - pro DSLR has, that carries much more complex mechanical parts.

Sooner or later i guess, this sensor technology will be implemented to most SONY based sensor cameras. I am still hoping this gonna be the same as mobile phones, i hope that this will be mass produced to achieve much better economies of scale. (as in mobile phones).
On the contrary I 100% accept what you say for lenses. (that's why lenses prices have been steadily increasing).
Time will tell i guess...

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 09:54 UTC
On article Sony a9 shooting experience (1281 comments in total)

Due to much less materials cost (most of the cost here is R&D i guess) this camera has the potential to be much cheaper in a few years, than a big - pro DSLR has, that carries much more complex mechanical parts.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2017 at 06:37 UTC as 117th comment | 8 replies
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

HB1969: I couldn't see the moonbow in this video, could anyone else?
Another thing: I was curious about the 250mp sensor... I wonder if it's worth combining the output of 4 colour pixels to gain a "single" true colour pixel. You would still end up with 62.5mp resolution but I wonder if the effect would be similar to the foveon sensor (different tech, I know)

Its not that simple. Bayer combines 4pixel to get 1pixel worth of color. But luminosity information still exists in 4pixels, and luminosity channel is still valuable information.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 09:29 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)

Checking this along with 50/ART difference doesnt seem to be so dramatic.
the closest comparison with 50/ART is canon 7D (18mp) - vs 85/ART Nikon D7000 (16mp) and they are equal. Unfortunately FF comparison is pretty unfair, because they only have 85/ART with nikon D800 vs 50/ART canon 5d3, where the megapixel difference is huge.

Of course the focal range is more impressive, but sharpness wise it seems pretty close with 50mm ART.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 08:24 UTC as 25th comment
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1638 comments in total)

What is the shutter rating? (It does have a shutter right?)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 19:49 UTC as 151st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Maybe nick woodman, the CEO, can stop construction of his est $40 million dollar yacht to pay for these employees to stay until the new year?

But no way, he needs his yacht. This is the 2nd wave of job cutting since he ordered his yacht and their stock tanked.

I'd never support a company run this poorly.

@Tonkotsu Ramen
you didnt overhire in the first place. times are changing, what you needed 5 years ago is not the same as now.
you, as a citizen (i suppose), you are hiring services and goods that are different from what 5 years ago.
you, in a sense, are hiring people to do that, and you are letting them off,

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 07:48 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: Maybe nick woodman, the CEO, can stop construction of his est $40 million dollar yacht to pay for these employees to stay until the new year?

But no way, he needs his yacht. This is the 2nd wave of job cutting since he ordered his yacht and their stock tanked.

I'd never support a company run this poorly.

If this is true (about the watch) then he still gives job but to different people. The point is to achieve the best possible with minimum cost. Then all of society/world will benefit in the long term. It sounds counterintuitive, but it is

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 07:56 UTC
On article Nikon reportedly eliminating 1000 jobs in Japan (518 comments in total)

It never got to the news each time a new job opening was created...

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 06:42 UTC as 109th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Deorum: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/features/#features03

These 500mm MTF charts, are insane !

Its not insane, it is about 1 stop. I can leave with that for sure

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2016 at 11:33 UTC

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/sports/s_500_4/features/#features03

These 500mm MTF charts, are insane !

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:54 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Michael Ma: This or Canon 85mm f1.2? Thoughts?

So far when Sigma has done this with similar lenses, the Canon has 1/3 stop faster but Sigma is sharper. How about autofocus? I hear the Sigma has trouble with working with the 1DX II? Does Sigma Art lenses work well for video? How is the focusing noise?

canon 1.2 85mm, is very old, and its AF is pretty slow.
Im almost sure, that this 10years newer lens beats canon in every aspect.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:51 UTC
In reply to:

Deorum: I really wonder who can justify the cost of these machines, even hi-end pros...
Ok i know there are people that buy lamborghinies or Ferraris, but...

It seems that at some point there is no place for being second. Yes the differences after a point are miniscule, but the thing is that you get the edge, of your "opponent" professional. And you get the job. So it makes sense, if you count for the other expenses a business might have.
(of course NYC rent rates, are orders of magnitude different than the rest of the world)

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 20:37 UTC

I really wonder who can justify the cost of these machines, even hi-end pros...
Ok i know there are people that buy lamborghinies or Ferraris, but...

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2016 at 09:25 UTC as 6th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Deorum: 500mm f4 price is pretty steep if you ask me. why not stick to canons that is similarly priced?
Im sure the newer sigma gonna be a bit sharper, but canons is already sharp enough and reliability of AF (even just for the peace of mind) is critical

Ebay prices, put it around 4500euros (4000pounds).
It is for used but in v.good condition lenses.
Considering this one new is at 6000$ (that for some weird reason alwas translate in similar euro figures, even if euro is a bit stronger) i thought it had not so much difference.
Does the canon 500mm f4, new, cost 9000$ ?
then i was wrong!

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:23 UTC

500mm f4 price is pretty steep if you ask me. why not stick to canons that is similarly priced?
Im sure the newer sigma gonna be a bit sharper, but canons is already sharp enough and reliability of AF (even just for the peace of mind) is critical

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:49 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

dwill23: Imagine face detection with dual pixel AF on the canon 5d IV with 85mm mounted, and the awesome quality of the 50mm ART. Done deal for me. I'm going to but one.

Some thing goes for the 50mm 1.4 art.
Bye bye AF errors...

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 20:44 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

I was crosschecking all the time. That is why me found the quote from Ca. state parks. how could i find it if not crosschecking? Just before that quote of CA laws, i posted 3-4 other links. why? because I was already searching, in good faith, for the truth.
However yes i was very curious how this is legally punishable, and i doubted, since i didnt know it was a designated area. I was not trolling however. Since my first-first post, before all this dispute began, i started by "how can you punish them IF this is not beforehand a recognized area" You can look it up.
Then srados said. Of course it is a designated area. This is a national park.
Well, what more natural for me than google. "US national Parks!" and guess what, it wasnt part of it. So i thought, "this is just a nice scenery, no special laws about it so it cannot be punishable". Then that i found out myself about state parks, and rules that apply to them, and I, before any of my disputers did, corrected myself.
goodnight

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Dilworth: Is there a clear definition of what constitutes vandalism?

For example, if I pick up a flat pebble and skim it over a body of water for my own amusement, will someone call me a vandal?

What if I repeat the trick a hundred times?

I can see that toppling a large and famous rock formation may be widely considered vandalism (though it’s plausible the perpetrators didn’t see it as wanton destruction but play). But there must be a line below which most people view damage or change to inanimate objects as an acceptable cost of enjoying nature.

My young childhood was spent in the countryside, and there are a lot of things you can playfully and educationally ‘break’ in such an environment. No-one thought of it as vandalism. Vandalism was something you did to someone’s car window, and it didn’t exist in the countryside.

srados before starting all your ad hominem racist spit, learn first to differate national from state parks, and then leave me be. because what you said is also an public insult, and thus absolutly illegal.
i asked for something clear and i got answers like "its a fact, its a fact". Why? because we tell you so. well its not a fact because you say. Even if 100 people say so. you are an anonimous profile in the internet.
Fact will be when it can be linked to reputable sites and organizations, (and not in lowish blogs of course)
That is how i deal with things i read of the internet, i crosscheck them, and dont make conclusions based on readers comments.
Till then, you can ask sorry from other readers, for saying this is a nationa park. it is not. and i was never contradictory to anything i said nor personally attacked people for not agreeing with me.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:56 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deorum: Ok dont get me wrong, but technically this is not Vandalism. (damage of public of private property)
and i dont know how legally you can say that this is damaging public property
First you have to identify all the places that have potential artistic/photographic value. This is arbitrary & chaotic. Then you can conclude, that you dmged something (it has to be Specific!) that had some value.
Otherwise, (even if it's obvious to us photographers) it is just people having fun in the nature. Like cutting some flowers, or throwing some stones in the see, or digging for a camp-fire.
If this was recognised as a specific monument, sure then it's vandalism. But since it is not a recognised monument (excuse if it is, and has signs etc around) it is not technically or legally anything. It is not even cutting down a tree (there are rules that require permit to cut down trees, but no rules concerning small masses of rocks)

Needless to mention that this is something awful, nevertheless

propably i am wrong in my claim, but it was a really educational conversation.
All i wanted is a specific written law, because reading that this is a national park (it is not) made be wonder... (what you posted doesnt count as reference doesnt really count,, i cannot go through countless pages since you posted the whole oregon legal system) but i guess i found it in the end. more or less

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 02:35 UTC
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »