Martin Datzinger

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

Comments

Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (42 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
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

I wonder how long people will still take to understand that text is not harder to read when HiDPI is properly implemented. Probably as long as it will take Microsoft to do it properly in Windows.

I am working on >200dpi screens under OS X for 5 years now (rMBP, 27" 5K Dell) and text and icons have ideal size and are super clear _because_ there are no pixels visible. Everything is super sharp and smooth. The usual 100-120 dpi screens are pretty much unbearable for me in the meantime.

As I said, implentation is key and MS gets it wrong. I can't find my mouse cursor on my Dell at native resolution under Windows with the according 200% text scaling setting because it's border is so thin. User interfaces are rendered wonky as well since hardly anyone cares.

I've also recently taken a look at a 13" Full HD screen with no scaling enabled and yes, that is an eye sore because wäeverything is so tiny.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2017 at 07:29 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: It will be fun to see a shootout between this lens and the new Nikon-two completely different approaches to the same type of lens. DPR should post a bunch of identical portraits shot with the two lenses and let readers vote on their faves.

Sony 135 STF, Zeiss 135 APO, Fuji 56 APD, Nikon 105 DC, Canon 135/2, Laowa 105/2

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 19:59 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: I had the E-20P as my first digicam. Best body shape of any camera I've ever held, up until now. Very deep grip while the lens/OVF was placed far to the left. Current SLR makers should take note how nice it is when the VF pupil sticks out that far. Pentax 645D/Z follows those principles. It would probably also have fenced off a rhino attack. Lens was very nice as well, the range was limited.

However: All your €2000 went into the build quality and the lens. And so you got absolutely nothing in return regarding technical sensor IQ, AF and AE performance. In essence - you had to be extremely lucky to get a well exposed, in-focus image of anything alive. Colours where very nice - but it was already very noisy at base ISO 80 and intolerable above. Flash exposure metering was probably linked to a random generator. The menu, even with nothing in it, was unfathomable. The whole thing just was too large for a 2/3" sensor - even back then. Working with it drove me into buying an SLR.

Maybe the Oly AE had its own quirky way of working or maybe my copy was a lemon, but for me it really was all over the place. Bought a Nikon D70 afterwards and while it was comparatively build like a plastic flowerpot, Matrix Metering, iTTL and PDAF were rock solid. ISO 1600 was better than 160 on the E-20P. I had an intense love-hate relationship with the Olympus.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Olympus E-10 (162 comments in total)

I had the E-20P as my first digicam. Best body shape of any camera I've ever held, up until now. Very deep grip while the lens/OVF was placed far to the left. Current SLR makers should take note how nice it is when the VF pupil sticks out that far. Pentax 645D/Z follows those principles. It would probably also have fenced off a rhino attack. Lens was very nice as well, the range was limited.

However: All your €2000 went into the build quality and the lens. And so you got absolutely nothing in return regarding technical sensor IQ, AF and AE performance. In essence - you had to be extremely lucky to get a well exposed, in-focus image of anything alive. Colours where very nice - but it was already very noisy at base ISO 80 and intolerable above. Flash exposure metering was probably linked to a random generator. The menu, even with nothing in it, was unfathomable. The whole thing just was too large for a 2/3" sensor - even back then. Working with it drove me into buying an SLR.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 08:48 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.

Yes, comparison is not fair, the Nikkor has a 1/3 larger maximum entrance pupil.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 10:53 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.

It is what it is: Significantly heavier and probably larger than a D750+24-120/4VR (at ~4 times the price). Mirrorless cameras were once promised to be lighter and cheaper than SLRs!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 07:43 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.

Sorry, didn't see it was stabilised. And I don't question its optical superiority. But sorry, look at image #2. That just looks like a cartoon.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 07:12 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)

Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 05:46 UTC as 289th comment | 6 replies

Virtual Reality immersion depends heavily on 3D and being able to move around. Unless you have live and exclusive access to a stereoscopic camera on a robotic arm following your motion tracking data or have the whole scene available as a massive volumetric point cloud, vast transfer speed and enormous computational power - or visualised by other means, true VR is not going to happen.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:23 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Just an FYI for those who may not know. The reason that this lens needs BR Optic technology, as well as being so big and expensive, is because it is an SLR lens, which puts it at a disadvantage for anything less than 50mm.

The reason is due to the space behind the lens, which is required for the mirror.

If you want to shoot this focal length and don't need a an SLR, you would probably be better off picking up the EOS M3 and the 22mm f/2, which will not suffer from any of these problems. Not trying to diss this lens or step on any toes. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Sony / Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 78.5 x 112.0 mm / 630 g / $1,598
Canon 35 1.4 L II 80x106 mm / 760 g / $1,799

So that mirrorless bulk and budget wonder is 18% lighter, 5% longer and 12% cheaper.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 18:51 UTC
In reply to:

WACONimages: 24-70mm $2399 In what world is Nikon living, on Mars maybe ;-)

Question is if the Nikkor is anywhere near as sharp and well built as the Canon

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 09:38 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Initial speed test with 15 D810 files, MacBook Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.3 GHz, 8GB RAM:

- Export 02:30 (LR5) -> 01:45 (LR6) with nearly optimum multicore utilization
- Exposure adjustments very fluid
- Graduated filter approximately ca 5-10 times as fast

And there is a very slight change in shadow rendition, LR6's is more natural IMO!

Hats off to Adobe, nice job!

Test on the desktop machine:

- Export is down to 1 minute straight
- Building 1:1 previews is down to 01:30
- 1:1 preview still useless in development module

Oddly enough, the Mac version is measurably faster in some aspects than the Windows version on the same hardware. Especially the setting changes (which I still applaud Adobe for) aren't as fluid under Windows as under Mac OS X. Which is odd, since the hardware I use isn't even from Apple and god knows why Nvidia even bothered to write a driver for a GPU that can't be ordered with or retrofitted into currently available Apple hardware.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 08:58 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Initial speed test with 15 D810 files, MacBook Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.3 GHz, 8GB RAM:

- Export 02:30 (LR5) -> 01:45 (LR6) with nearly optimum multicore utilization
- Exposure adjustments very fluid
- Graduated filter approximately ca 5-10 times as fast

And there is a very slight change in shadow rendition, LR6's is more natural IMO!

Hats off to Adobe, nice job!

I'm not impressed with this last test, most of all since pre-rendering 1:1 previews doesn't help image switching in development module as effectively anymore. However, one definite advantage remains: As soons as the initial calculations in LR6 are done after a switch between images, dialing in any sort of adjustment (apart from those on the "Detail" and "Effects" planes) happens in real time. LR cheats a little bit (at least noticably on retina displays) by doing it first in a lesser resolution (full resolution follows after about a second), but for getting an idea of the effect of, say, a shadow boosts or tone curve adjustment, this doesn't matter at all. In the end, LR6 feel a lot more fluid due to GPU support, even on my nearly 3 years old laptop!

I'm curious how this turns out on my new i7-5820K (6cores @ 4.4 GHz) desktop with nVidia GTX 980 (@1450 MHz) GPU!

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 06:18 UTC
In reply to:

Martin Datzinger: Initial speed test with 15 D810 files, MacBook Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.3 GHz, 8GB RAM:

- Export 02:30 (LR5) -> 01:45 (LR6) with nearly optimum multicore utilization
- Exposure adjustments very fluid
- Graduated filter approximately ca 5-10 times as fast

And there is a very slight change in shadow rendition, LR6's is more natural IMO!

Hats off to Adobe, nice job!

- Switch between images with no previews rendered in Library module 11sec -> 11sec
- Switch between images with no previews rendered in Development module 8sec -> 11sec (a decrease in performance)

- Build 1:1 Previews (Previews.lrdata files of both catalogs deleted first) 02:15 -> 02:00 (CPU utilization shows no substantial improvement)

- Switch between images with 1:1 previews rendered in Library module: both instant
- Switch between images with 1:1 previews rendered in Development module 1.5 sec -> 6sec, this actually got much worse!

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 06:06 UTC
Total: 130, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »