November 27, 2014, 05:08:35 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 - Positron

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 4D reference in Wifi remote app video
« on: September 19, 2012, 10:55:11 PM »
But still, 4 in Chinese / Japanese is 四, 'sì' in Mandarin. Death is 死, 'sǐ'.

They've just proven that there will be no G13 or G14 (14, 十四, 'shī sì', sounds like 尸死, 'shī sǐ', 'dead corpse', 逝 shì means die, 弑 shì means 'murder a superior' (yes, I just went through my dictionary and found them)).

While I do doubt that they will use 4 because they want to protect sales from superstitious customers, it's worth mentioning a couple things. For one, while 4 is "shi", in Japanese it can also be read "yon", which lacks the same connotation. Two, even when read as "shi", 4D becomes シディー ("shidii"), which is incredibly close in pronunciation to シーディー ("CD"). Admittedly, naming a camera EOS CD might be even more confusing than 3D, but pick your poison.

As for the screenshot, to me it looks like an upside-down shime (〆), which by itself doesn't mean much.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing
« on: August 30, 2012, 04:33:25 PM »
What I want to know, if anyone cares to explain it, is what exactly "16-bit processing" actually means. If it means that the camera's internal memory has a 16-bit address space, then it's completely meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it means the ADC is 16 bits but the final image is stored as 14 bits, then they are throwing away 75% of the data captured (and a ton of wasted processing power) to save 12% of the space (4 MB, at best?), which seems like a Really Bad Idea for RAWs. So what's going on here?

internal processing, for applying gamma curves, etc., benefits from not having least significant bits truncated until the processing is finished.
Even PnS compacts, who only output 8b jpegs, often process 10 to 12 bits internally to reduce posterization and provide better tonal gradations than they would if they only processed 8 bits worth of data all the way from sensor to file.

I can understand keeping the data until you make the conversion to JPEG, but if you already have all that data why would you throw it out in the RAW at all? My understanding is that building ADCs good enough to get that kind of quantization resolution is much more difficult (and expensive) than moving the data around. Having the extra 2 bits per channel would allow a lot more manipulation with minimal destruction in post, and you could always throw them out when you're ready to export.

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing
« on: August 30, 2012, 02:39:18 PM »
The number of attainable stops of DR is theoretically independent of the resolution of the ADC, though, since using tricks like variable resistance or non-linear quantization you could compress any number of stops of real-world scene into any number of bits of data. The result wouldn't necessarily be useful, but then when did we care about that?  :P

What I want to know, if anyone cares to explain it, is what exactly "16-bit processing" actually means. If it means that the camera's internal memory has a 16-bit address space, then it's completely meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it means the ADC is 16 bits but the final image is stored as 14 bits, then they are throwing away 75% of the data captured (and a ton of wasted processing power) to save 12% of the space (4 MB, at best?), which seems like a Really Bad Idea for RAWs. So what's going on here?

19
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing
« on: August 30, 2012, 12:32:29 PM »
Daily specification updates of an imaginary camera doesn't make it any more real :)

As a person very interested in both a budget full-frame body and the pressure of competition on the market, I've been checking for updates every day. The last one of any substance was on August 4, and the last one that actually had theretofore unheard specifications was May 23 (!). So "daily" is wrong at best and malicious/trolling at worst.

20
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 09, 2012, 12:21:31 PM »
I may even buy these myself, I have several of the stills versions. I'm just one who says if you're gonna do something, why not do it right. I look forward to testing these in practice.

It's a nice sentiment, but when you're looking at a lens that's less than one-tenth the price of the first-party alternative, it sort of breaks down.

21
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35mm T 1.5 CINE LENS FOR CANON VDSLR
« on: August 08, 2012, 08:14:23 PM »
According to their Facebook page it's the same optics as their 35mm f/1.4. The aperture scale is adjusted for T-stops and (I'd assume) declicked. The 35mm f/1.4 is a very highly regarded lens, although I haven't had the chance to use it myself. There are lots of reviews online, including ones specifically concerned with video use.

22
Lenses / Re: Rokinon 35 f1.4 for video
« on: July 29, 2012, 11:39:14 PM »
If you to stick with the ~$400-600 range, the Samyang 35mm, Canon 50mm f/1.4 (or if you can stand the tiny focus ring 50mm f/1.8 for $100), 85mm f/1.8, 40mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 24mm f/2.8 would all be good lenses. They are also all EF mounts, so they'll work on a FF if you want to move up to that from a crop sensor later on.

As fantastic a value for money as the 50mm f/1.8 is, I can't recommend it for video. The focus is just too fiddly. Tension on the focus ring is nonexistent in MF and tiny movements have very large effects on focus. To be honest even in photography situations, with magnified live view, it takes a lot of very delicate tweaking to get the focus just right.

As for the Samyang 35mm I don't own it myself but the video I've seen from it looks great, and of course its primary drawback--the lack of autofocus--is a complete non-issue for video.

23
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX err80
« on: July 29, 2012, 11:33:03 PM »
Oh man, the pains of being an early adopter... good luck to all of you; hopefully this is resolved with as little fuss as possible.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: first pic of canon mirrorless?
« on: July 20, 2012, 01:29:34 PM »
Wow, that looks tiny! 43mm filter thread on that lens makes the body about the same size as the Lumix GF3. And the sensor looks bigger, too! If there are a few fast lenses and an EVF available, and the price isn't totally outrageous, I could see myself buying one.

Edit: Actually, on second look, the sensor appears about the same size. I guess we'll see on Monday, anyway.

25
Lenses / Re: Why is the 24-70 MK1 price so high.
« on: July 08, 2012, 05:35:38 PM »
I don't know about new, but it can still be found used for $1200-$1300 (sometimes less) on the likes of Fred Miranda. Far cry from $2000.

26
I too moved from the 50D and L lenses to the 5D mark III.  The image quality of the 50D was outstanding but horrible low light performance at iso higher than 800.  I believe the 50D at 800 iso is not as good as the 5D3 at 12,300 iso.  Full frame really helps as well.  I'm just flat out loving it.

Agreed. I love my 50D but applying NR at ISO 400 breaks my heart every time. :(

27
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.
« on: June 07, 2012, 02:23:33 PM »
But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious :), an article regarding this would be an interesting read)

Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent.  To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties.  Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.

Due to my poor eyesight I have very high index of refraction lenses in my glasses to avoid having to wear ridiculously thick lenses on my face, and there's a slight lateral shift at certain wavelengths; bright red and deep blue objects appear to be in a different physical location than they actually are when I look through my glasses at them. The worst part is, the index of refraction is only slightly higher than "traditional" high index lenses. The diminishing returns are pretty dramatic.

Physically there's nothing actually stopping you from almost perfectly correcting such an image, but as the index of refraction goes up it gets more and more complicated, and you'd have to have a large number of very, very thin lenses to make it work, and the cost involved would be crazy.

28
Is it me, or does that guy on the extreme left look a lot like Chuck Westfall?!?   :o

Based on the shadows and time of day from the EXIF data, he's clearly Falling to the East.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & 3D Prediction from Japan
« on: June 04, 2012, 07:50:36 AM »
Translation of 70D key points to the best of my ability from the posted article:

22 MP
Same 19 point AF system as 7D
6 FPS
Vari-angle display
Magnesium body
Photo/video live view modes
AFMA

30
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Patent: 24-1060mm Zoom Lens
« on: May 31, 2012, 02:48:15 AM »
Got some info on this.  Talked to the guy at my local camera shop and he said that his Canon rep told him that this lens was going to be for a new 100mp 3D (Mark II) full frame camera with 12 fps.  The lens is going to have eight stops of image stabilization and a "perfect picture" mode.  Not sure what that is...  It's due out in 2018.  I really need a zoom is this range now.  I wanted the 24-105, but this lens will probably noticeably make my photos more perfect.  Should I wait?

You know by the time it's out there will be something better in the pipe. I think you should just buy 3 copies of the 28-300L and connect them end-to-end with gaffer's tape.

* Two four-sided aspherical

Huh? Shouldn't that be four two-sided aspherical?

No, the lens elements are actually cuboids. Every surface is ASPH except for the front and rear.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9