ProfHankD

ProfHankD

Lives in United States Lexington, United States
Works as a Professor
Has a website at http://aggregate.org/hankd/
Joined on Mar 27, 2008
About me:

Plan: to change the way people think about and use cameras by taking advantage of cameras as computing systems; engineering camera systems to provide new abilities and improved quality.

Comments

Total: 1043, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Mosh pits and sunsets: Shooting with the Panasonic GX85 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: It's not cheap, but it is a really nice camera with lots of features... and an older, too-small, sensor. It is a real pitty that micro4/3 wasn't designed to accommodate a range of sensor sizes up to FF....

RedDog: read that long ago; it's not relevant. It doesn't matters if individuals take that upgrade path or not... the market has and probably will for a while.

The traditional way that semiconductor chip fab gets better is that density gets higher -- as opposed to chip area increasing. The 4/3 sensor size was a sweet spot and it was reasonable to expect density increases would make it continue to be a cost-effective choice near the leading edge. Instead, the market split into smaller and bigger sensors, and 1" and 4/3 are in the awkward in-between. It has a lot to do with optics too; 4/3 is way too big for the exotic optical approaches used in cell phones, but more conventional optics can do better with a somewhat larger sensor. Despite 4:3 vs. 16:9 aspect ratio, micro4/3 has been prospering mostly for video, which is currently less demanding of lens resolution... but I think those days are numbered too.

In sum, wouldn't Olympus and Panasonic bodies with FF sensors be cool?

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 02:58 UTC
On article Mosh pits and sunsets: Shooting with the Panasonic GX85 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: It's not cheap, but it is a really nice camera with lots of features... and an older, too-small, sensor. It is a real pitty that micro4/3 wasn't designed to accommodate a range of sensor sizes up to FF....

Naveed: micro4/3 is a recent (2008), multi-manufacturer, standard mount... which unfortunately wasn't designed to accommodate anything much bigger than a 4/3 sensor (to be precise, 4/3 with multi-format crop within the same image circle). I'm saying that's a pitty because the standard bet on the wrong horse. Smaller sensors have not blown-away larger ones, instead, larger ones have become more economically feasible and the better-than-cell-phones market has shifted toward bigger sensors... but use of a micro4/3 mount blocks that upgrade path.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 00:20 UTC
On article Mosh pits and sunsets: Shooting with the Panasonic GX85 (146 comments in total)

It's not cheap, but it is a really nice camera with lots of features... and an older, too-small, sensor. It is a real pitty that micro4/3 wasn't designed to accommodate a range of sensor sizes up to FF....

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 14:34 UTC as 31st comment | 13 replies

Hmm. Most of the images were NOT taken with lenses in his kit. I get it -- his "real kit" contains a couple of monster lenses that are expensive and don't travel easily -- but still a little odd.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 12:24 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

EthanP99: Theres no FE mount, only E mount. Just like theres no EF-s mount and no DX mount

Actually, you're wrong at least about EF-s. Lenses designated as EF-s can have mirror collisions on regular EF bodies, so EF-s is mechanically specified differently from EF. Of course, Canon does not make their mount specification public, so you can argue all you want about what it might contain.... ;-)

Similar story with Sony, but more ambiguous -- FE is Sony's designation for FF coverage on E-mount, but the mount is mechanically identical... well, except for that whole all-metal upgrade which did actually change mechanical tolerances, but never got a new name because actual Sony lenses work fine of either variant. Despite their initial comments about making the E-mount specifications available, Sony hasn't released a specification, so one can fruitlessly argue about what the non-existent document contains.... ;-)

I personally think of EF and E as referring to mounting flanges, and EF-s and FE identify important secondary characteristics of lenses using those flanges.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2016 at 22:52 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 Pixel Shift: An update (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: Wait. Dpreview not relying on Adobe anymore because it may not represent the best raw conversion for a particular camera??!!

Kudos! About time. and if you finally stop saying "Fuji xtrans lacks detail" because you always use ACR for it, and try the latest Iridient digital for it or even the very latest silky pix pro 7 for it which supports out of the box all Fuji film simulations directly (as well as a more trimmed version being what Fuji uses for its customers) you will get a double kudos bonus!

Adobe's software is mostly quite good, but they do plenty of things wrong (as I found out while building KARWY), and I agree that it is praiseworthy that DPReview openly states they've run into a problem. For many folks, the rule is "You don't tug on superman's cape / You don't spit into the wind / You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger / And you don't say bad about ACR." ;-)

Pixel shift is promising enough that I expect lots of toolchains will quickly mature to handle it fairly well, but for now even dcraw, which is the raw converter most often used as a reference for adding raw support to other software, had to be hacked for pixel shift ( http://www.v7f.eu/public/pentax/dcrawps.c )....

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

AcerAntec: I'm longing for an image splitter for DSLR lenses, a la Pentax a few decades ago.
Anybody could tell how big it could be to accomodate say, Canon's 40mm pancake?
Or, using an adaptor ring (52 to 67mm), for a 28-70mm...
I'm aware stereo pictures should be taken within a 35-70 mm focal range to avoid painstaking eye adaptation.

Cha-cha shots are only nice for still scenes...
Stereo enthusiasts please let me know.

You can always use my single-lens single-shot anaglyph trick:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-Your-Camera-To-Capture-3D-Anaglyphs/ or 3D-printed http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1574072
It's a little touchy about the lens and aperture design, but works for both stills and video.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

TomasT: I never understood why wide angle distortion is "by design" with this kind of camera's.
Really do not like this "feature". Camera and features looks great btw

It can be much simpler to produce an otherwise high-quality lens if you allow such distortion... the catch is, you're supposed to correct it in software, which this camera doesn't. Why not? Well, they obviously don't feel compelled to do it, but I think at least part of the argument has to be that it doesn't really have the pixels for 4K, so "wasting" pixels on the rectilinear transform isn't such a great deal.

I think Olympus has been doing really great things, but IQ isn't up there. I still like my TG860 (another Tough which gives a non-distorting 21mm view and has a flip-up LCD), but IQ is its weak point too. I think IQ is becoming a serious problem for Olympus: you know, my Samsung S5 smartphone is waterproof and can do disturbingly much of the same stuff this action camera can do, especially with a $5 add-on fisheye lens.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: The "Intelligent Zoom" feature could make this a useful tool.

However, I don't buy their claim that their algorithm is AI. The threshold for any algorithm to classify AI is rather high and I doubt they come even close. IMHO, it is a classical image processing app (like optical character recognition which once was considered artificial intelligence -- but not anymore).

I was expecting to see the standard new buzzword: "deep learning." Don't see it, but it's probably in there. Basically, big neural nets with HUGE training sets (and training is probably just getting started). I think it is legitimately AI, not that being AI adds any value per se.

Some cameras already have modes where they'll crop artistically for you, etc. Others automatically recognize "registered faces" in a group you're about to photograph and tweak focus and aperture settings to get them all in focus. The problem for this tool is that, especially for raws, humans really rate raws on how they might be postprocessed rather than how they look as shot. The software really needs to know the photographer's intent to usefully rank raws, and it wouldn't be hard to have that input -- e.g., specifying intent of monochrome silhouette vs. color environmental portrait. The weighting of sharpness is the same problem -- consider sharpness with the intent of WEB avatar vs. wall mural.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 02:02 UTC
On article Back to the action: Nikon D500 Review (1090 comments in total)

Good to see that Nikon has made so many improvements. I'm even OK with cutting Nikon some slack on shipping cameras with known bugs (as listed in the Loose Ends page). However, $2K for body-only 21MP APS-C seems a bit much to be rating this a better value than pretty much all competitors, and the review ends with praise of the "dependability" of this currently-buggy camera? To me, this is a very positive sign of Nikon things to come, but where they are right now isn't score of 91 impressive.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 01:43 UTC as 119th comment
In reply to:

photogeek: Whoever is the first to make a rectilinear action cam will own the market.

straylightrun: Obviously, I should stop using it as an action cam immediately! ;-)

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

photogeek: Whoever is the first to make a rectilinear action cam will own the market.

> Whoever is the first to make a rectilinear action cam will own the market.

First off, it's easy to de-fish in camera... does nobody do that yet? (I've done it using CHDK with add-on lenses on PowerShots.) Second, what about the Olympus TG860? It's 21mm equiv. rectilinear... and that's why I own one. :-)

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: Basic specs look a lot like the Ricoh WG-M2 which is cheaper.
204 degree fov 8mp sensor 4k 30p....
http://www.dpreview.com/news/5160452334/ricoh-introduces-lightweight-wg-m2-rugged-action-cam-with-4k-capture

Yup, minor improvements here. That said, Olympus has done well with their "Tough" branding (I own two such models) and this looks like a fine addition to the line.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

ELLIOTPAULSTERN: I am not sure I get this. Digital cameras on drones have been doing this for quite some time with some very high quality images.

Is this all students at Rochester have to do?

> Is this all students at Rochester have to do?

Apparently, this hipster more-budget-than-sense thing got them a huge amount of mostly positive PR. Amazing. The volume of media coverage that is, not the project.... ;-)

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 02:19 UTC

Very nice to give them to museums... but no details of what's inside, and I would have expected open details. Is this Google's polite way of announcing they want to enter Gigapan's market?

Link | Posted on May 18, 2016 at 21:32 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, at least it has LEDs built in and goes to 1.2X instead of Sony's 30mm f/3.5 1X macro. Well, that certainly justifies 5 extra years of development and 20% higher price. Really? Come on, Canon. You can do better than this....

arbux: What? The first autofocus camera was the Konica C35 AF point-and-shoot and the first AF SLR was the Polaroid SX-70. The first autofocus 35mm SLR in production was the Pentax ME F. The first with "modern" integrated AF was the Minolta Maxxum 7000, with what is now known as Sony A-mount. Canon's EOS system came two years after Minolta. About that time, Honeywell famously sued Minolta for infringing on their AF tech, and said they would sue others... but the case against Minolta dragged, and I don't think they did sue others; eventually, Honeywell got a big settlement despite 2/4 patents not being infringed and the remaining infringement being judged to not be "willful infringement." Any way you look at it, Canon was a later entry and the motor-in-lens (vs. in body) is actually the older approach -- that's what the Pentax ME F did.

Well I guess there's still hope for Canon given the level of blind loyalty I'm seeing here!

Link | Posted on May 14, 2016 at 00:54 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, at least it has LEDs built in and goes to 1.2X instead of Sony's 30mm f/3.5 1X macro. Well, that certainly justifies 5 extra years of development and 20% higher price. Really? Come on, Canon. You can do better than this....

I own both Sony E and Canon EF-M bodies. I had high hopes for EOS-M because it can run Magic Lantern (and I also use fleets of Canons running CHDK).

I knew IQ would be down because of Canon's aging sensor tech (and it is), but there continues to be nothing compelling about EOS-M. Canon is supposed to be so great at making lenses, but for EOS-M it has been s-l-o-w-l-y duplicating the functionality of a SMALL SUBSET of the lenses that Sony was/is continually bashed for not having enough of. And yes, a 28mm on a 1.6X crop "Canon APS-C" sensor is precisely equivalent to 30mm on Sony's 1.5X APS-C. I also would hope you know that having more elements in a lens is not a benefit. The hacked 1:1.2 "super macro" mode (both lenses are really max 1:1) and the built-in lighting are real benefits for the Canon, but I don't think they justify a 20% price premium, and they certainly don't justify taking so long to come out with EF-M lenses.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2016 at 04:46 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Well, at least it has LEDs built in and goes to 1.2X instead of Sony's 30mm f/3.5 1X macro. Well, that certainly justifies 5 extra years of development and 20% higher price. Really? Come on, Canon. You can do better than this....

Canon's M 28mm is an obvious functional-clone of Sony's E 30mm, which is from 2011 (see http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_e_30_3p5_macro). 2016-2011=5 years later.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 23:23 UTC

Well, at least it has LEDs built in and goes to 1.2X instead of Sony's 30mm f/3.5 1X macro. Well, that certainly justifies 5 extra years of development and 20% higher price. Really? Come on, Canon. You can do better than this....

Link | Posted on May 11, 2016 at 10:06 UTC as 59th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

djemail: This multi mount is not (yet?) officially supported but sure would be a very interesting option:
http://adaptist.weebly.com/pentax-k-multi-mount-wr-version.html

Pentax, Contax/Yashica, Nikon, Olympus 4/3s etc... on one mout!
(Of course only Pentax Lenses with full automatic features)

bluevellet: Sony is a sensor maker; they should be doing everything they can to show-off their sensors, and pixel shift would help. It also is purely firmware and not very hard to do compared to all the other things you list. It should be an app... but I'm not sure that they give the app interface access to the sensor shift at the necessary level....

Link | Posted on May 10, 2016 at 10:05 UTC
Total: 1043, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »