Death knell for prosumers?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Dec 2, 2006.

  1. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    What I am saying is that the big screen is terribly unforgiving, and when
    you blow your macro shot you haven't wasted a thousand feet of film,
    processing on same, salaries for crew and cast, rental on the soundstage,
    and all the myriad other costs associated with shooting a scene in a
    motion picture. In the movie industry, they don't just call it "focus",
    they have different named procedures for focusing and the director may call
    out a specific one of them to get the effect that he wants.

    Bit banging isn't the same--while the magnification may be the same, your
    visual field is not--at that magnification in a theater with a large
    screen your entire visual field can be filled with the image. I'm not
    sure I know _why_ this makes a difference, but it does, perhaps because
    there is so much real estate that you are more likely to see something to
    which you can relate psychologically. Further, at 24 frames a second film
    grain tends to get averaged out of the process.

    There's also the little matter with a still camera that you focus once,
    taking however long you need about it, and then take the shot. You don't
    have to follow Fred and Ginger across the stage keeping the frame filled
    with their in-focus faces, with both them and the camera moving the whole
    time. And you don't have the luxury of chimping afterwards and shooting
    again if something went wrong.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Yep, it's pretty funky even with everybody's best efforts. Any defect in
    the shot shows. EVERY defect shows. That's the point.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Unfortunately, been there done that, didn't like looking up for the entire
    movie.

    In my opinion it isn't all that great. HD video (when done properly) looks
    much better than analog movie film (when it comes to sharpness).
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 11, 2006
  4. Rich

    Aaron Guest

    So, Toby, let me ask you a question that has been vexing me recently.
    Perhaps you have the experience to answer this; I don't know anyone
    else in production video whom I could ask. Sometimes during a show or
    commercial, the focus will shift before the subject is there, or shift
    between subjects. Is all production video focus achieved manually? Do
    you set pre-determined focus points or something to aid in the former
    situation?

    I only have experience in still photography where autofocus is the
    norm.
     
    Aaron, Dec 11, 2006
  5. Rich

    Bryan Olson Guest

    After further research, i.e. Googling around, I see I may be
    mistaken on that. The F717 reportedly had an aperture diaphragm
    that also served as a mechanical shutter.
    After I turned off the speaker sound, I couldn't hear my F707's
    shutter, though I never specifically went to silent environment
    to check. R1 users and F828 users report silent shutters, though
    Scott W reports hearing his. The camera must in most cases at
    least stop down the aperture, so I expect true zero sound is
    unattainable.
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 12, 2006
  6. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    Unlike a SLR or DSLR the F828 closes down the aperature as you set the
    f/number not just when the photo is taken. Whereas the F828 makes much
    less noise then an SLR you can clearly hear it.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 12, 2006
  7. Rich

    Mike Russell Guest

    For the vast majority of subjects, Bayer does not suffer unduly from color
    aliasing, or sacrifice any resolution. The broader point, though, was the
    benefit of random pixels.

    Either technology, Foveon or Bayer, could be implemented with randomized
    pixel layout. Rectangular layout affects nearly every image we capture, by
    causing saw-toothed aliasing of diagonal edges. We are so used to it that
    we no longer notice it as a defect. It will go away when we start to build
    capture and display devices that use random pixel arrays.
     
    Mike Russell, Dec 13, 2006
  8. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Well no, with Bayer you have colour aliasing which lowers the effective
    resolution below the nominal pixel count. Colour changes can happen
    between adjacent pixels, and Bayer produces inaccurate results in that
    case. At least with a Foveon design you don't have these aliasing
    issues.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 13, 2006
  9. Rich

    Prometheus Guest

    I do not know about film, but there were some early cameras which used a
    circular plate.
     
    Prometheus, Dec 13, 2006
  10. Rich

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Prometheus:

    That may be true, yet Kodak's archetypal "box camera" (of the late
    19th century) was notable for popularizing the use of roll film. It
    sparked the beginning of the modern photography industry, and within
    a couple of decades or so, glass plates became reduced to niche status.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Dec 15, 2006
  11. you may measure anything any which way you like.
    the fact is that prosumers cost less, have bigger but smaller
    lenses(420mm), and produce
    high quality pics(super jpg) close enough to DSLR.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Dec 26, 2006
  12. I hate rejuvenating a Rich thread, but...

    Prosumers dying off? Try:

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012507olympusp550uz.asp

    for a bit of an injection of life... 28-504??!! If that lens lives up
    to the quality of (the more serious) Olympus lenses, that could be a
    killer camera. Sadly it is only a 1/2.5" sensor - but it has listed
    ISO's up to 5000, so maybe it might be ok to 400! (O; Note that most
    of Oly's larger aperture big zooms have been of very high quality and
    their (Sony?) sensors are generally *fairly* quiet... but we all know
    the dangers of interpolating... (O;

    Yes, Rich, I have an 8080 (along with a new Fuji s9500), so I know what
    Oly is capable of - and, clearly, I *like* prosumers..
     
    mark.thomas.7, Jan 25, 2007
  13. Oh my gosh - all that zoom - but only 7.1 MP? It should be at
    least 10mp, I would think. Still, not bad at all.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 25, 2007
  14. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Good luck getting usable ISO5000 out of a 10 MP sensor that size.
    (Good luck getting it out of a 7.1 for that matter).

    Personally I'd rather have seen them go wider than longer though if
    they were going to extend the zoom range.
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 25, 2007
  15. Personally, I would rather have more zoom than wide angle. If I want wide I
    can shoot two pictures and stitch them together. There is little you can do
    to get increased zoom and still have enough left of the image to do a decent
    print at a size larger than 4x6.

    ljc


    --
    Do not assume that because I didn't reply to your comments that you are
    correct or that I am wrong or that I am correct and your are wrong. You
    can assume that you bore me!
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Jan 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.