April 16, 2014, 01:32:39 PM

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 - Quasimodo

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 54
16
Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot G1 X Mark II
« on: February 12, 2014, 07:39:47 AM »
I like the feature that you can shoot it using an iiPad or phone.

Olympus had that, what, two years ago already.


I could really care less what an imho inferior system like Olympus has or have had. If one were to jump systems every time anyone of the manufacturers innovates a cool feature..... I love my Canon system, not saying that it the best or anything, but it works best for me. The possibility to shoot wirelessly with a tablet was (btw) already featured with the 6D.

I have been looking for a light pocket camera to have with me all times, when I do not want to drag the 1Ds III or 5D II around. I had my eyes on the Fuji x100s for a long time, but now the G1X II looks like a good candidate.

17
Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot G1 X Mark II
« on: February 12, 2014, 07:01:40 AM »
I think this actually looks like a decent alternative for a pocket size camera when you don*t want to lug around with a huge DSLR and accessories. I like the feature that you can shoot it using an iiPad or phone.

I could not find anything about focus peaking... Is this a thing that can be installed later by later software versions?

18
Lenses / Getty Images back-up gear for the Sochi olympics
« on: February 07, 2014, 06:36:55 PM »
Only one non-L, and a bit surprised that they have two 200/1.8 (not that they are not great!)

http://petapixel.com/2014/02/06/getty-images-sports-photographer-robert-cianflone-reporting-sochi/

19
Lenses / Re: Should I go for the 85mm F1.2L II USM ?
« on: January 26, 2014, 01:54:13 PM »
BTW: I do love the 1.2, and I am unhappy to say that I do not have it, and only have the Siggy 1.4. The latter is a great bang for buck, but they are in two different classes imho.

I went to your flickr page and you have many great shots. Love the ones with the women on the chairs, and the couple in front of the dorian pillars :)

On the other hand, I am so lucky that I own the 135L, and I am borrowing the 200L/2, which is a killer apart from the need of space and its weight :)

20
Dear Surapon.

I enjoy your pictures here :) I would have thought that one needed 1/8000 to freeze them.

Now that you have this great set up (and the birds... We have no hummingbirds in Norway), it would have been great to see if you had a backdrop or could alter the direction of the shot to make a less busy background...?:)




21
It's still a converted, processed, finished (not necessarily to the photographers liking) version of what came off the sensor. As much as it's an improvement over existing jpegs, it's still just more of the same thing. If you want to have the ultimate flexibitly in post, what can possibly beat recording exactly what the sensor captured?

I see it as another compelling reason why raw is superior. Not only have we seen raw conversion, NR and lens distortion algorithms etc improve, but now we potentiomally have a new, improved format to output to. By shooting raw we ensure that the one off moment can be revisited using these new systems (and any others coming up) at a later date, should we not be happy with how we've already processed them.

I might be getting this wrong, and it would not be the first time :)

There was a lenghty debate in this forum (among which a member from Sweden was banned) about sensors and RAW files. At least to me it seemed appearant that RAW is not raw, as in untampered, but rather a conversion of the light that hits the sensor into meaningful elements as light, shaddows, colors ect. In this discussion someone posted a link to a site where someone had used a lot of time trying to dechipher the different ways Canon had programmed sensorinformation, thus resulting in different RAW files based on camera/sensor. Hence, if this is correct, RAW is not raw..

While RAW is far superior to jpg in the relative? uncompressed data made available to postprocessing, the point of my question was that will these new type of jpg. files not make postprocessing easier or being able to stretch the boundaries of the existing jpg. system that we have today?

OK, so there is a debate about whether raw is truly raw or not. But regardless of what the reality of that is, raw is the closest manufacturers will come to recording the light captured by the sensor. They're not going to sneak in a new version of jpeg with less processing than their raw files on that same camera.

Jpegs are by their very nature an end product - much like getting a handful of 6x4's from your roll of film, and not getting the negatives back. It has NR and sharpening baked in, plus a whole host of other post processing tricks.

While it could provide quality improvements and be very welcome for users who already shoot in jpeg, those who output to jpeg from raw converters, and sharing images online etc, it won't replace raw. It'll also need a lot of buy in to be able to become the supported on all output devices (phones, tablets, computers, tv's etc) before any camera manufacturer dares to use it as the default format. For instance, many corporations still use Windows XP, and so do some end users. What would happen if you got an iPhone 6 and the images can't be viewed on anything even slightly old without codecs being installed all over the place?

These new standards take time to gain traction, and sometimes never make it, such as JPEG 2000.

This makes sense.

22
I had also a lot of hope when Jpg2000 came..  and it was "lost" and everyone forgot..
And, the key is that major software will take it or not..
If no photoshop, lightroom, and, important, Browsers... forget it.
Jpg2000 would have been very very great for the web... but no browsers took it, so it became forgotten.
Now ? I would hope it will be different, but I'm not so confident..

Infrastructure would indeed be a requirement, given that this actually is an improvement.

23
It's still a converted, processed, finished (not necessarily to the photographers liking) version of what came off the sensor. As much as it's an improvement over existing jpegs, it's still just more of the same thing. If you want to have the ultimate flexibitly in post, what can possibly beat recording exactly what the sensor captured?

I see it as another compelling reason why raw is superior. Not only have we seen raw conversion, NR and lens distortion algorithms etc improve, but now we potentiomally have a new, improved format to output to. By shooting raw we ensure that the one off moment can be revisited using these new systems (and any others coming up) at a later date, should we not be happy with how we've already processed them.

I might be getting this wrong, and it would not be the first time :)

There was a lenghty debate in this forum (among which a member from Sweden was banned) about sensors and RAW files. At least to me it seemed appearant that RAW is not raw, as in untampered, but rather a conversion of the light that hits the sensor into meaningful elements as light, shaddows, colors ect. In this discussion someone posted a link to a site where someone had used a lot of time trying to dechipher the different ways Canon had programmed sensorinformation, thus resulting in different RAW files based on camera/sensor. Hence, if this is correct, RAW is not raw..

While RAW is far superior to jpg in the relative? uncompressed data made available to postprocessing, the point of my question was that will these new type of jpg. files not make postprocessing easier or being able to stretch the boundaries of the existing jpg. system that we have today?

24
Curious, but will it be backwardly compatible with existing versions of jpeg? As in, could older standard jpeg software open these new jpegs? If not, that's a big hurdle there.

Also I can't see it replacing raw directly. If you need/want raw, you still need/want raw even if this exists and was supported.

Where I can see possible benefit here is for viewing. More bit depth at the display could be beneficial, but it'll take some time for the whole computing chain to build up and support that. Think it would be nice to have higher bit depths in the mainstream.

But would not such an new jpg represent new and dramatically improved files to work with? I know that the cameramanufacturers have different signature on their jpg's, but would you not now be able to alter those presets in a much larger exent. Extracting information in highlights and shaddows would be easier too would it not?

I agree on the whole chain. Computer displays and print already struggle with showing the richness in the data as it is, but I assume that this new format would give heightened possibilities before the chosen medium of display.

25
There should be a thread for this in the Lens Galleries...


I agree! Nice shot and lighting.

I have only borrowed this lens for one weekend, and I found it quite hard to use. Besides... using my 100L macro is fairly easy, and I can lean on a wall for support. Going into the MP-E 65 requires a substantial investment in additional gear with quality macro rails and flashes, but most of all you need to have time :)

27
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 23, 2014, 12:41:17 AM »
Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo

So now we have descended to calling him a pedophile? ;)



Suzy is an adult and I expect you to act like one too!

Now I'm disappointed! I thought we had a good thing going there! Sorry if my sarcasm was turned up to 11. Also I forgot the winking emoticon that lets all facetious remarks off the hook.
If this is an actual ad (I think not) it would have been the worst in my life. The North Korean newreader is worse, but at least she has entertainment value :)

It was a joke, and I appologize. It was not my intention to be rude, just a lame attempt at humor in a more and more absurd thread.

Yeah, your right; I completely missed the sarcasm :) Life is too short to get tangled into squabbles over inane things such as Suzy mimicking emotions in her surreal video :)

28
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 22, 2014, 06:14:54 PM »
Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo

So now we have descended to calling him a pedophile? ;)

Suzy is an adult and I expect you to act like one too!

If this is an actual ad (I think not) it would have been the worst in my life. The North Korean newreader is worse, but at least she has entertainment value :)

It was a joke, and I appologize. It was not my intention to be rude, just a lame attempt at humor in a more and more absurd thread.

29
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 22, 2014, 05:10:36 PM »
Scott called and told me the real reason, They introduced him to Suzy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S7gpQvOrFo

So now we have descended to calling him a pedophile? ;)

If this is an actual ad (I think not) it would have been the worst in my life. The North Korean newreader is worse, but at least she has entertainment value :)

30
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: January 22, 2014, 01:43:41 PM »
It has been a while! Here's my vision on an old paper factory.

The rest of the pictures are available on my site: http://maximlinssen.com/paper-factory-2/








Cool industrial photos, and tasteful HDR

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 54