July 31, 2014, 04:52:59 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Larry

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Macro / Re: first attempt at stacking macro shots :: )
« on: July 12, 2014, 12:55:20 PM »

I sort of noticed the funny side of Menace's comment, you know the bit where someone freezes the subject to the point they are slow to move, then shoots them ?? shoots them ?? see the funny side at all ?? No ? must be an Aussie Kiwi thing.

If I am to be shot, please omit the pre-freezing! I will hold still.

Aussies, Kiwis, and some US-ians at least  ::) (Spider breasts, anyone? ...see my previous post.)


These two were swinging about next to the TV so I grabbed a few shots (hand held with external flash) and combined 3 in Zerene Stacker.  Woodlouse was already very dead but the spider was nice enough to stay still.  I've never worked out how to shoot these spiders from a flattering angle - anyone managed it?

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a flattering angle for any spider!  :o  ;)

Maybe a shot a bit more from the side to emphasize the breasts?   ;D

Video & Movie / Re: Komodo Underwater
« on: June 29, 2014, 01:20:04 PM »

Hello Everyone,
I wanted to share the next installment of my Rolling in the Deep series.  This time it is in Komodo Indonesia.  This is a wide angle look.  With a Macro version coming soon.  Let me know what you think.

Komodo - Rolling in the Deep - Canon 5d Mark II

Terrific video, …thanks for posting it.

Never seen a black manta before.

Is this a sub-species, or only a melanistic individual?

Great find in any case!   :D

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 24, 2014, 11:47:58 AM »
Superpixel sounds like what you want. I actually wish that mainstream RAW editors like Lightroom would offer that as an option, honestly. Some people care more about color fidelity and tonal range than resolution, and having LOTS of pixels with superpixel debayering would be a huge bonus for those individuals.

Using it in post sounds nice, but what we're after is a way to save space on the memory card. Could a camera use superpixel debayering as a part of the image capture process and still save the file in RAW format?

Nope. Once you debayer, or do any kind of processing to the data, your no longer RAW. Canon does offer the sRAW and mRAW settings. Those are what, at best, you could call semi-RAW. They are closer to a JPEG in terms of actual storage format (YCbCr encoding, or luminance+Chrominance Blue+Chrominance Red), but everything is stored in 14-bit precision. It's also encoded such that you have full luminace data, basically a luminance value for every single OUTPUT pixel, but the Cb and Cr data is sparse, it's encoded from multiple pixels (I forget if it is a 1x2 short row, or a full 2x2 quad), and that encoded value is stored as a single pair of 14-bit Cb/Cr values for every 2 or 4 luminace pixels (I think exactly how many color pixels are encoded per luminance pixel depends on whether your sRAW or mRAW). Now the luminace is encoded per output pixel. If your mRAW, I think that's basically 1/2 the area of the full sensor, and for sRAW is basically 1/4 the area of the full sensor. So your luminance information is encoded from however many source pixels are necessary to produce the right output pixels. I think 2x2 for sRAW, something along the lines of 1.5x1.5 for mRAW. (There is a spec on the formats somewhere, it's been a long time since I've read it...my description above is not 100% accurate, but that's the general gist...basically, a 4:2:1 or 4:2:2 encoding of the image data.)

You definitely save space with these formats, but I have experimented with them on multiple occasions, and your editing latitude is nowhere remotely close to a full RAW. You can shift exposure around a moderate amount, but you have limits to how far down you can pull highlights, how far up you can push shadows, how far you can adjust white balance, etc.

I am guessing it is more than that. Let's say Canon's next move would be to 3.5µm pixels. With a 500nm process, the actual photodiode, assuming a non-shared pixel architecture, would then actually be barely 2.5µm in size at most (once you throw wiring and readout logic transistors around it.) With a shared pixel architecture you might be able to make it a little larger. On the other hand, if you drop from a 500nm process to a 180nm process, the photodiode area could be close to 3.14µm. (This assumes that wiring and transistors only require a single transistor's width border around the photodiode...it's usually not quite that simple, at least based on micrograph images of actual sensors and patent diagrams.) With a 90nm process, the photodiode could be up to 3.3µm.

I think the 500nm process is really limiting for Canon now. They COULD do it, there is nothing that prevents them from creating a 3.5µm pixel sensor with 2.5µm photodiodes...but I don't think it would be competitive. The smaller photodiode area wouldn't gather as much light as competitors sensors that are fabricated with 180nm or 90nm processes, and they would just be a lot noisier.

I am really, truly hoping Canon has moved to a significantly more modern fabrication process with the 7D II sensor. I think that alone would improve things considerably for Canon's IQ.

I'm guessing the only reason you mention 90nm and not 30nm is that in this application the cost/benefit ratio favours slightly larger circuits rather than smaller? (you'd only gain minimal surface area but potentially make production much more difficult)

Well, I mention 180nm and 90nm because I am pretty sure Canon has the fab capability to manufacture transistors that small. In the smallest sensors, transistor sizes are a lot smaller than that...I think they are down to 32nm for the latest stuff, with pixels around 1µm (1000nm) in size. I think that some of Canon's steppers and scanners can handle smaller transistors, 65nm using subwavelength etching, but I don't know if that stuff has been/can be used for sensor fabrication. I know for a fact that Canon already uses a 180nm Cu fab process for their smaller sensors, so I know for sure they are capable of that. Their highest resolution fabs are around 90nm natively, but again, most of what I've read about them indicates IC fabrication...I've never heard of them being used to manufacture sensors (but there honestly isn't that much info about Canon's fabs...nor who owns them...)

It's magic!

When a bunch of tech stuff flies by way above my head, if I try to watch for awhile, (with only my eyes, because my brain cant keep up) ...it turns into a sleeping pill!  :o

But I go to sleep thinking that it's good to know that SOMEBODY knows these things.  :)

Lenses / Re: Why do fast primes not have IS?
« on: June 24, 2014, 11:20:40 AM »

I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.

Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.

This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.

Superteles with IS have large elements.

Weight and energy consumption should therefore be even greater, per your explanation.

Does the larger housing of the superteles provide more space for the mechanism that moves the elements?


Who cares? It isn't your site, they can leave or delete anything they want.

Some of us care, who think that common courtesy would be nice, …private forum or not.

Assuming reasonable good will and intent on a poster's part, instead of the "mysterious disappearance" of a post, a simple "Post deleted- violation of rule 6" would help a bit with understanding, and need not be followed-up with any back and forth argument. :P

I don't care for posts magically disappearing our being redacted.  I think it is reasonable for a notation to be made that a past was removed and the rule that is being cited as having been broken.  Ditto with redactions.


silent moderation can be confusing.

+1 more.

(…and smart-a** comments from Loyalists(?) seem a less-than-respectful response to what sounds like a reasonable question. >:(  )

EOS Bodies / Mirror flip speed limit?
« on: June 14, 2014, 12:30:23 PM »
[...achieving a speed equal or even better than the 1Dx in an APS-C-sized DSLR represent a much smaller engeneering effort than that required for FF since the mass of moving parts (mirror and shutter) involved is approx 1/3 of a FF camera, so much less inertia and, consequently, less energy required.

Would anyone familiar with mirror flip physics care to speculate on what the maximum achievable (and durable)frame rate might be?  (Speaking APS-C size mechanics only, disregarding processing speed  ;) )

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment  available or expected to be available from  Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this:

[AAAK!  I don't know why the quote box is not properly placed, why the "re-read this" bracket/link is missing or why the text is red. I attempted to "modify" the color to black with no change, …any suggestions?]

Done! ( the re-read)

A quote from the re-read: "It's the artistic vision to actual art conversion process that takes so many years, decades, to ultimately master. Because that process is going to be largely unique to each individual, …"

If I may speak frankly, I get the feeling that I am witnessing the angst of an artist struggling with the same drive that fuels the effort of anyone with a true artist's heart - "How do I SAY what I am trying to say, …what I really WANT to say?"

 Because the saying is as "unique to each individual" as what is intended to be said, I question that a discussion among a group is going to offer real help to the individual, …his work is just that, his work (!), and no one else can really tell him how to do it.

In the same way that Edison learned a thousand ways NOT-to-make an electric bulb filament, the wastebasket fills with the artist's ways NOT-to-say what he intends. Attempt follows attempt, with the drive unsatisfied, until with luck, there sometimes comes a "There!,…I've got it!" moment, and finally, a period of satisfaction. :D

If the gods are smiling, it won't be followed, after some time for further reflection and pondering,  by the nagging "Maybe it would be better if I had only done this one little thing differently". :-[

I think unfulfillment and frustration are the lot of the artistic temperament, with personal vision the inspiration, and passion providing the energy.

Since you define the "it", only you can recognize the "got it!" moment, and it is only your instinct that could have led you on the path leading to it.

I would appreciate seeing a sample of the type of discussion you have in mind re. "how to achieve your vision".

I find it difficult to imagine such which would actually assist one in his necessarily personal striving.

Here are a couple of probably meaningless-to-others examples of things I find in my own mind, that are perhaps very different from what is in yours :P:

I don't like Laurence Fishburne's stern "I'm the baddest ass, most threatening, faceless-behind-the-shades intimidator you've ever seen!" macho posturing(or anyone else's, though it seems the "cool" thing these days. I'm a retired firefighter, and know the difference between fake heroes and real ones.)

My personal vision, regarding , let's say, composition in images, is largely a matter of feeling for a vaguely defined "balance" (...not the same as symmetry), …with the "weight" coming from color, form, light/dark intensity, leading lines, etc., etc. How I judge this is by a sort of defocusing of my vision and an attempt to"feel" the effect of the image overall. I "know", somehow, when this feels right TO ME (!), and am confident that it is an honest portrayal of MY interpretation, my "artistic expression".

I realize this is an entirely subjective, and probably somewhat subconscious process, and do not expect others to feel/see the same, and I neither seek nor value their judgement.

How my saying this could be of help to others, in a discussion of "achieving personal vision" is unclear to me. The same procedure might as easily lead someone else with a totally blank feeling, because it is in fact my way, when they alone can discover their own.

The bottom line is that IF anyone finds something of value in something I have created in this manner, especially if they feel the same about other examples, it could be said that they "like my work", my "style", and find some sense of satisfaction or pleasure in viewing it. They might well consider it "art".

I think it is interesting to note that the "it" that I felt I had "got" might in fact be entirely different from the "something" that the viewer found pleasing. Yet somehow a chord was struck.

There will always be elements of mystery in art.

"To each his own", no?

[ I concede that nothing I've said here relates to "Canon Rumors"  ;D ]

PS - I know I use quotation marks often, …it is my method of voiceless emphasis, …air-quotes for the internet. ;)


(Lotsa comment)…

BTW, if you want some WOWs...try this guy out: Deep Sky Colors I think he may just be the best astrophotographer on the planet...he does huge mosaics with the deepest exposures, with the richest colors, taken under the darkest skies on earth, the guy will drive over 7000 miles just to produce one mosaic...and every single one of his images just blows my mind so much I'm not even able to utter the word "wow". It's just. Mind. Blown. No words.

^^ This is my goal. If I can become skilled enough to make just one image that compares to this guys work before I die....then I'll die a happy photographer. :P

Thanks jrista, for the DSC link. Spectacular images, no question. Being less of a space-image fan than yourself, I'll take a nice framed copy of the night shot "Untouchable Beauty". Assuming it to be as advertised, I am impressed by such capture of natural beauty (of the down-to-Earth sort)  :) ["...as advertised" meaning not a product of liberal "enhancement", instead, a reasonable facsimile of the real thing. The painted "visions" of the American West so often including waterfalls, rainbow, butterflies (unicorns?), etc., etc., are cloying examples of the opposite (What, no Disney castles?).

You make terrific well-reasoned pleas for emphasis other than technomania for the photo-artist.  But, …my question (art-as-subject appropriate here?)still lingers:

Everyone in a guitar building/evaluating discussion forum is well aware of the difference the skill of the player makes in the music produced. Talk of styles and technique abound elsewhere, with heavy subjectivity evident in those posts.

But, it seems to me, the forum where bracing styles, top thicknesses, types and characteristics of woods, effects of string gauges, string spacing for finger style vs. plectrum use, body size, etc. are the expected subjects, ..is not the place for disappointment when the "artistry" of playing the guitar is not emphasized.

"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment  available or expected to be available from  Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

I of course, have my own reaction to any given image, but someone else's interpretation may, and probably will, be different. I do not care at all if this is so, and am really not seriously interested.
If he/she and I similarly appreciate the image, then that is something we may enjoy, i.e., a pleasurable shared experience. If not, neither of our opinions should be devalued for its holder.

The beauty that is in the eye of any beholder is to some degree a personal treasure. In that sense, arguing against his opinion is to deprive him his uniquely individual experience, …a form, I tend to think it could be said, of theft. :-[

It has taken me many years to arrive at what seems to be a fair balance between being fairly strongly opinionated, and yet mindful of the wisdom of the old saying "If you can't say anything nice, …".

I can truthfully say that I benefit much more than I contribute here at CR, I come here to learn more often than my participation might indicate. And your posts are usually the informative kind I come for, helping me understand Canon (and other) equipment.

The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.

I am here for the things that seem implicit in the forum title, and anyone's "best BIF"," best landscapes", "best macro", although popular with many, and worthy in their own right, with websites galore featuring them, are not what draws me here.

I don't expect any other members to be concerned with, or impressed by my preferences. I am simply commenting on the fact that I think tech-talk is perfectly appropriate here, and I don't at-all miss what I think can accurately be described as "off-topic" in this plainly labeled forum.

The fact that this forum claims to offer one thing I am interested in, and the fact that I am here often, does not make me expect or demand that other interests of mine will be covered here to my satisfaction.

If this forum discusses (broadly)"Canon Rumors", then the hosts have met their claim, and can not be accused of less. They have not "falsely advertised". ;)

My $.02.

Best wishes.

PS - The writings you have done here, in your efforts to contribute, are similar in kind to what may be offered in any book by its author. And the response will be similar, although in the case of inter-net exchanges, more obvious/emotionally affective.

Some will comprehend and may or may not express gratitude. Many will comprehend less, but still be glad to have been offered the chance. Some will (mistakenly)think they have understood, and comment further based upon that incomprehension, leaving you frustrated (if you focus on these persons). If you take upon yourself the continuing effort to assist the poorer students, and are not sufficiently encouraged by the quicker ones, the task can seem unrewarding.

I suggest that the readers you are able to reach and help, to whatever degree, are the ones to keep in mind. It is almost a  certainty that you are appreciated more than you will ever be made aware of. The author writes, the book goes out, readers read, and the effects of the readings can never be completely known.

When seeds are cast, the hope (and the faith) is that some will grow. The unseen reward is best assumed. :)

Maybe then these forums could finally ditch the persistent Nikon fanatics and actually have some more interesting conversations for once. Maybe about ART, rather than technology.

With all due respect (which is plenty, …for your many informative posts about technology  ;),  "Canon Rumors" is the place for art-rather-than-technology discussions because, …?  ???

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 30, 2014, 04:19:08 PM »

+√∞ :)

The square root of infinity has to be infinity, …(anything less)^2 must, by definition, fall short.  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:00:39 PM »
I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....

hopefully you do know what the word inconceivable means even if a certain someone in a certain movie did not
otherwise canon has lost the plot
not conceivable, unimaginable, incapable of being conceived, imagined, or considered....

I find it inconceivable that any thing(noun) or verb(action) could be correctly described as inconceivable, …it having been conceived already in order to be used as the subject of the description.  ;D

Anything truly inconceivable will never be a subject of discussion!

Edit-(Maybe the world should be retired as unusable and something like "…difficult to believe." substituted? ) ???

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:27:32 PM »
I'm afraid I have to question the ostrich as a "proxy" for the dodo ;)

Looking at pictures of both, the disparity in leg length seems too great for there to be much similarity in speed.

Still, i'm betting on the dodo over the unicorn, since there at least WAS a dodo,…and a unicorn is unlikely to have shown up for the contest.

Dodo by default! :D

I'm curious about just what the general reaction is to this white camera idea.

Maybe someone who knows how to do it can post a "poll" thread, with say, 3 choices to select from - "Wow",…"Ho Hum",…or Yuck!".

I admit that I am so far to one side of the scale that I can't relate to those with a strongly differing opinion. ???

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5