Martin Datzinger

Lives in Austria Vienna, Austria
Joined on Jun 7, 2005

Comments

Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (578 comments in total)
In reply to:

FantasticMrFox: Just for the record, would anyone mind configuring something like that for windows and tell us the rough price? Because there's always a gang of people coming in claiming how retarded one must be to buy a Mac if the same specifications can be had for half the price elsewhere, but this time I somehow doubt that an 18-core CPU, 128 GB of Ram and a 16 GB graphics card can be had significantly cheaper elsewhere.

It's a reasonable price, you're at €10k in Windows land as well. One thing that has to be seen though is wether Apple managed proper thermal management this time. Both the previous 4 core 4.5 GHz iMac and the Mac Pro had serious problems with thermal throttling and that exhaust on the iMac Pro is laughable.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

RED i: I'd be interested in this but the video quality looks worse than SD :(

Jump past the 0:25 mark.

Actually the stitching is really great and there are no issues with weird one-sided flare - lenses seem to have really great coating.

Highlight DR seems to be very limited though.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 07:54 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Their 32" 4K monitor is already best in class only the ridiculously expensive Eizo can match or better it. Benq are on a roll and my new 4K monitor will be their 32" version. 27" is too small IMO for 4K

I was just responding to the myth that has been perpetuated here that 4K needs absurd sizes like 32" to be worthwhile. No, what you need is proper hiDPI implementation like it is found on macOS.

BTW I have the Dell 2715K which I guess has the same panel as the iMac. Certainly can't expect professional colour accuracy, but good enough for perfectly matching colours between it and my calibrated Epson 4900. Watching the final images is just great. And for postprocessing, the combination of a 1440p equivalent workspace and that kind of clarity has yet to be beaten (32" 8k would be the ticket, ideally OLED).

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Their 32" 4K monitor is already best in class only the ridiculously expensive Eizo can match or better it. Benq are on a roll and my new 4K monitor will be their 32" version. 27" is too small IMO for 4K

5K is perfect for 27"

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

Prairie Pal: How many people filing for divorce from Adobe today, are the same people years ago who said they would never subscribe to Adobe?

Me neither.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Why is there no EI Mode in stills land? Why do we photographers have to guess around in the dark, when exposing for highlights? Yes I created custom tone curves for my D810 but it's totaly impractical, that stuff needs be both automated and assignable to a quickly accessible control dial. Why do things like ISO still exist, when we're actually talking about gain and on a hardware level most of the time not even that? Why is there no way to tag stills to be properly displayed on HDR10, except maybe on the new iPhone? Why do we still get no indicators for 16:9, or different crops in our viewfinders, not even on mirrorless, without actually cropping the file? How am I supposed to compose for that format without some leeway? Sometimes I feel like photography is an art for old and very slowly adapting guys, when I see video tech. As if we never happily left behind analog and printing.

Printing is not the usual way photos are consumed anymore. That said, when I do print, at home, I prefer the 16:9 or even 21:9 aspect ratio. Gives me bigger sizes for the 17" max width and suits landscapes nicely.

As for video I learned the hard way that if you do not have the time, patience and feel for rhythm and storytelling, that editing absolutely needs, don't even bother recording the raw material. There's a reason why filming is an expensive team effort most of the time.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: This is what I can not understand: when the image sensor has a aspect ratio of 16:9 why do they use circular lenses? Wouldn’t it be better to use oval lenses in order to safe weight and cost?

I wrote about ellipsoid elements and continued with cutouts from sphericals afterwards.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: This is what I can not understand: when the image sensor has a aspect ratio of 16:9 why do they use circular lenses? Wouldn’t it be better to use oval lenses in order to safe weight and cost?

I honestly don't know about the optical properties of ellipsoid lens elements, but I guess there would be some severe sort of stretching going on. Further implications:

- Per definition aspherical, therefor much more expensive to manufacture
- Much more difficult to manufacture precisely fitting lens element carriers
- Not symmetrical along the optical axis, making correct positioning within the lens much harder und ruling out certain mechanical ways to reposition for FL and focus
- Probably zero support in optical lens software and the designers would have no experience in this sort of design process whatsoever.

Now you could cut out elliptical shapes out of given spherical lens elements, but I suppose it would make more sense to just cut out 16:9 rectangles.

Another way would be to design anamorphic lenses that stretch the image across the horizontal axis. That'd imply a loss of resolution along that axis and introduce largely unwanted flare behaviour.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 08:50 UTC

Why is there no EI Mode in stills land? Why do we photographers have to guess around in the dark, when exposing for highlights? Yes I created custom tone curves for my D810 but it's totaly impractical, that stuff needs be both automated and assignable to a quickly accessible control dial. Why do things like ISO still exist, when we're actually talking about gain and on a hardware level most of the time not even that? Why is there no way to tag stills to be properly displayed on HDR10, except maybe on the new iPhone? Why do we still get no indicators for 16:9, or different crops in our viewfinders, not even on mirrorless, without actually cropping the file? How am I supposed to compose for that format without some leeway? Sometimes I feel like photography is an art for old and very slowly adapting guys, when I see video tech. As if we never happily left behind analog and printing.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 05:41 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Many of my personal boxes ticked, congratulations! However, no on-sensor PDAF is a dealbreaker for me. I don't care about video AF, but if LV AF stays as useless as it is on my D810 (and before that the D600 and D7000), I won't upgrade. The nice tilting screen makes this omission only harder to tolerate, as it is an incentive to shoot at other perspectives than eye-level. Undoubtedly a great camera, just not an upgrade option for me.

uhm, @lawny13, what's all this got to do with my LV AF gripe? ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 09:22 UTC
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Many of my personal boxes ticked, congratulations! However, no on-sensor PDAF is a dealbreaker for me. I don't care about video AF, but if LV AF stays as useless as it is on my D810 (and before that the D600 and D7000), I won't upgrade. The nice tilting screen makes this omission only harder to tolerate, as it is an incentive to shoot at other perspectives than eye-level. Undoubtedly a great camera, just not an upgrade option for me.

@Jack Jian - The new AF certainly is excellent an I'm sure I'd benefit from it in a few situations (mind you, the bigger selling point for me would be LV-automated multi-parameter AF finetuning).

However I tend to shoot away from my face more often than I'd like to admit (not video, but stills). My D810 is almost hopeless in those situations and there is nothing about this press release that gives me hope the D850 would be any better.

I also do not really understand this since AFAIK the tech is there in the CX models. Even just one central on-sensor PDAF point would make things a lot better :/

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 07:16 UTC
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peter62: What about shutter vibration?

Covered in the article

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 19:53 UTC
On article Hands on: Nikon D850 (372 comments in total)

Many of my personal boxes ticked, congratulations! However, no on-sensor PDAF is a dealbreaker for me. I don't care about video AF, but if LV AF stays as useless as it is on my D810 (and before that the D600 and D7000), I won't upgrade. The nice tilting screen makes this omission only harder to tolerate, as it is an incentive to shoot at other perspectives than eye-level. Undoubtedly a great camera, just not an upgrade option for me.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 17:43 UTC as 45th comment | 18 replies
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (482 comments in total)

Coming from a D810:

- lock lever against accidental wheel adjustments change
- illuminated buttons
- lighter body with a slimmer main shell and a deeper grip with pronounced thumb grip
- Eyepiece moved further out to the rear by at least a cm
- lens mount and OVF moved to the left like Oly E-1
- OVF interchangeable to (tiltable) EVF
- usable LV operation with tilting 1080p rear touch screen and on-chip PDAF
- LV-driven auto-AFMA
- customizable crop indicators in OVF and LV bound to orientation sensor (e.g. 16:9/21:9 for landscape, 4:3/5:4 for portrait)
- D5 AF
- ETTR mode with adaptive ADL and underexposure indication in VF
- Usable Snappidy bridgy thingy
- A 24-70/4 VR kit lens like the 70-200/4 VR (light weight, great resolution and microcontrast).

Nonthing except D5 AF, hopefully the grip and maybe the buttons will happen.

IMO no need to change anything about the sensor. But an improved 42MP Sony sensor with non-bayer 60fps 4K video output would be great.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 08:43 UTC as 147th comment
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (46 comments in total)

Black plexiglass -> perfect reflection.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 06:07 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Henrikw: most importantly for those who use their computers for editing; is there an option for a matt screen or only a mirror?

Fujica: Apple has (had?) a worldwide replacement program if that happens. I had it done on my 4 years old machine, no questions asked.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Henrikw: most importantly for those who use their computers for editing; is there an option for a matt screen or only a mirror?

Apple advocates P3 gamut for some time now. Factory hardware calibration done right goes a long way. And I prefer well done antireflective coating over matte finish.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 10:32 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: At 32 inches the best resolution (to me) is 2569 x 1440. Anything higher than that and text becomes too small from a normal viewing distance. If you want 4K you should go at least 40 inches. There are some very nice 40" 4K monitors on the market now for around $1k. For mobile devices it's a totally different scenario as you're viewing the screen from 15" away or less. For anyone to say that we'll all eventually be using 8k displays doesn't make any sense unless they also specific the type of device - TV, monitor, or mobile.

Pixel density is a different story. The higher the pixel density the better - as long as the resolution makes sense for the type of device being used. And yes, scaling would then need to be involved.

This 32" WQHD is a great monitor and it's now less than $400:
Samsung 32” WQHD LED Monitor (S32D850T) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hdqkzbCQA6B2T

@Terkwoiz Sorry, I'm a bit sloppy with this DPI/PPI nomenclature, much like everyone else. But AFAIK HiDPI is a widespread term.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

naththo: Problem is video card will be a big issue problem. HIgher end of 1080 Ti still has issue problem with 4K gaming resolution that still falling well below 60 fps on most newer game with Dx12. Even still have problem in older game with Dx11. Video movie and graphic in gaming use a lot of video processing. 8K would just make 1080 Ti video card fail so easy even SLI.

Lightroom suffers a lot as well.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: At 32 inches the best resolution (to me) is 2569 x 1440. Anything higher than that and text becomes too small from a normal viewing distance. If you want 4K you should go at least 40 inches. There are some very nice 40" 4K monitors on the market now for around $1k. For mobile devices it's a totally different scenario as you're viewing the screen from 15" away or less. For anyone to say that we'll all eventually be using 8k displays doesn't make any sense unless they also specific the type of device - TV, monitor, or mobile.

Pixel density is a different story. The higher the pixel density the better - as long as the resolution makes sense for the type of device being used. And yes, scaling would then need to be involved.

This 32" WQHD is a great monitor and it's now less than $400:
Samsung 32” WQHD LED Monitor (S32D850T) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_hdqkzbCQA6B2T

@Terkwoiz It _is_ a Mac vs Windows topic and one of the few examples where the tight integration of hardware and software is benefitial. Apple knew they wanted to have a USP with high resolution screens, they chose their panel vendors accordingly, created an API that is extremely easy to implement for the developers and completely transparent for the end user. And heaven forbid they gave it a sexy brand name. That has been done 5 years ago and everyone else still hasn't caught up in the meantime.

Yes, text can be too small. If there is too little resolution, the problem becomes worse. But the proplem is that people are still pixel-orientated in their screen UI design. Ever heard anyone complain text would become microscopic when printed on a 3600 dpi printer?

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 10:56 UTC
Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »