August 28, 2014, 09:29:20 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 - Lawliet

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 29, 2014, 04:08:08 PM »

And chances are, they would.  I'm amazed at how big Canon's CR2 files are.  My 6D's RAW files are somewhere on the order of 25-30 megs for an 18 MP photo, which comes out to (on average) about 12 bits per sample, or only about a 5–10% reduction over raw, uncompressed 14-bit data. 

Step 1: throw the jpg preview that has to be of high enough resolution to check for details&focus out.
Just convert the actual crop from the raw for high magnifications.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 01:17:49 PM »
the blue pixels would register the blue photons and the red pixels would register the red photons just like our eyes do.

No, sensels seperate wavelengths relatively sharp via filters, while L- cone cells are still somewhat sensitve to short wavelengths; akin to the spectral response of a Foveon sensor.
Take a sample of cobalt violet for example, light reflected of it as no spike in the red band, it absorbs red light about as good as black.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 12:21:12 PM »

"Red/blue blend" and "shorter wavelength than blue" doesn't quite jive... can you explain further what you mean?

You can get violet hues either directly from the pigment or by mixing red and blue(additive color mixing is the key word, or two flashlights with gels for experimenting) - your screen does the latter. Nature has a bit of both.
Now look at a picture, preferable a drawing, not a photo, of a rainbow; the colors go red(long wavelength) orange yellow green blue (and now the violet hues the camera mistakes for blue, because the red you'd require to mix the color is so far away it doesn't register on the corresponding sensor cells).

Now you can have two problems: really bad reproduction of some colors, think flowers, minerals and such. And the other occurs if two things have the same color, but use the different ways to get it as described at the start. half the stuff will be properly pink, magenta, violet - but the other renders in blue. Now you can't even explain that this is the way its supposed to be...

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 27, 2014, 11:50:15 AM »
This is likely to mean very near IR and very near UV, and thus existing lenses would be okay.  Far UV would be removed by the glass, as would far IR. 

Very near would be enough to solve for example the purple/violett problem, i.e. colors that would be represented as a red/blue blend in RGB, but due to being of shorter wavelength then blue only register on those blue sensor cells and shift colors.


What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?
That question is about as smart as DXO or and lens review site boiling their whole results down into a single number...
But complacent reliance on market inertia has historical precedence, lets seewhat has been learned from those examples.

Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better.  You can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not.  There's your 'why' right there.

Thats a very simplified view of "market".  For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.

We just got back a damaged pelican case at work.... Air Canada ran a forklift through it.
We once had a case fall overboard - and promptly having an argument with the boats propeller. Ended not that pretty for either, but the gear inside the case was fine.

Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.2L II Gets a Mention by Canon
« on: May 20, 2014, 05:10:55 AM »
Why has the video & link disappeared?  :o
Either because having a (confusing) typo around leaves a bad impression, or they've got the attention they wanted.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: May 05, 2014, 11:15:07 PM »

The 6D has 11 AF points. 

Alas...9 points and that 8way+center controller actually made it had to be changed.


Cropping does not change anything I've stated. A cropped photo is still a conglomerate of millions of pixels. Maybe not the tens of millions your sensor has, but still millions. If you are cropping so much that your final image can only be printed at native size on a 4x6, or cannot be downsampled, then your cropping way too much, and you seriously need a better camera. :P

As for detail to draw viewers in, sure, but are either downsampling to some acceptable "web size", or printing, and in both cases, the amount of detail that can be effectively displayed at a comfortable viewing distance is generally going to be significantly less than what your photo started out with at 100%.

Thats unless you do, for example, commercials - first the final crop will depend on the layout, framing tight might make the image unuseable. Second the file is expected to hold up when zoomed in, because you have details from the overall image enlarged in dead spaces. The whole image to set the mood, the and enlargements to sell the actual product or draw attention to specific details. Enough resolution is approximatly when you can go from a full length shot with some scenery to a closeup of a piece of jewellery...


I didn't know Tamron and Sigma make lenses for the Sony E-mount. Now, if you are talking about an adapter (read: bulk), then what is the point of getting an A7?
Well, the battery grip is mandatory anyway, just to make it big enough to hold for exended times, or that the additional bulk compared to some Moves plus their heads/LSTs is nonexistent...
The point is obviously to get more sellable images, preferable for the same or less production costs, partially because of the sensor, partially because of things Canon just could throw into a firmware update, plus a bit of this and that.


I don't know if designing one camera after another thinking third party manufacturers will cover the lens end (pun unintended) is a sound business strategy.
They're actually releasing native lenses quite rapidly. About as fast as the overhead of changing production lines for different models would likely permit.
From the users perspective - what gives me the most sellable image? ATM files from the A7r net me the most money...

The A7/r can be someone's second or third body, and definitely is (e.g., Dylan). But I doubt any high-end photographer will invest entirely in the A7/r. That is losing a big market share, right there.
Considering that(aside from brand ambassadors) I don't know a single high end photographer who is invested entirely in a single brand...

a body is not a system.  What about lenses, flashes, migration path

Factor in 3rd party devices - eg. Tamrons 24-70/70-200, an Odin and a A7(7/r) are about as much as a 5D3 kit. Or go for Sigmas new primes, perhaps an adapter for lenses you already own.
Basically you can get the equipment to do almost any job for the price of just the Canon body. This makes migration, even system stability a rather moot point as you don't loose money even in the case of a complete change. Anything less is your gain. Just from a utility maximizing perspective.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 26, 2014, 05:45:51 PM »
The surprise might be that there is no surprise, Canon keeps being Canon, juggling features and trickling down tech and they simply cannot find a position for a 7d2 in their lineup between 70d and 5d3 and in comparison to the crop competition.
How about avoiding the "between" by making a step to the side?
I.E. take the dual photodiodes concept to its logical conclusion by pairing it with state of the art readout rates and enough processing power. For the next small frame body two foveon-like sensels. perhaps each cell read at an setting that yields the best data. Lets say half at the set/base ISO, half at the amplfication that based on metered light flux would just avoid clipping. As a bonus one could do painfree compositing off footage recorded with such a sensor.
And while we're at it - how about making the flashfrozen- and moving picture fractions equally happy at the same time? 8)

Its not that there is no room for improvement, more a matter of willingness to try the road not taken. Ask the Roxolani. :-X

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 23, 2014, 02:00:04 AM »
This would have been a shut up and take my money moment until I saw that sync speed. :P
Why?  Light it with HMI's or LED's and roll with it. 

For HMI - That Arrimax isn't exactly portable, esp. not if you figure in its power supply. Or cheap, they cost much more then the leaf shutter capable alternatives. And thats if you need just one.
And LED? How exactly do you want to put ~200klx on your subject with those? Preferable from a reasonable distance. A superdino suddenly seems tame, and the few dollars for the LS turn out to be a bargain.

Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 10:15:08 AM »
maybe they've worked out how to get AF to work with tilt-shifts

While PDAF has so many things that can, and will, go wrong: Contrast AF should be trite, from a technical standpoint. And your average subject won't run very fast, no need to hurry.
But fokus peaking from a fully read out sensor would be actually valuable - add some colors, say make 100%-view sharp blink green and within AF tolerance-sharp flash in red. That would be handy. Bonus: Throw in adjustable thresholds.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 25