Death knell for prosumers?

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

  1. Rich

    ronviers Guest

    Hi David,
    Not that it matters but I just want to add that this is where I would
    like to see the industry stratify.
    Second I want a remote view finder that fits over my right eye - based
    on SED technology.
     
    ronviers, Dec 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Skip Guest

    I didn't know they still did that...
     
    Skip, Dec 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich wrote:
    Apart from live LCD and video, why use a
    pardon, the Oly E-500 has a 150mm lens, the Lumix FZ-50 420mm,
    Kodak p712 432mm. Canon IS S3 and the Fuji S9000 are much bigger as
    well.
    They all have super jpg, as well as RAW and TIFF. flip LCD, movie
    mode.
    The P712 goes for $400, half of the E-500.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Dec 10, 2006
  4. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Last I heard. Remember, for most of us poster size is a big enlargement,
    for those guys big screen TV size is small potatoes. Any defect in the
    shot is going to show up on that big screen. Can't afford to hunt the
    focus either.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 10, 2006
  5. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    If you're going to call the FZ-50's lens "420mm" then you have to call the
    150mm Zuiko a "300mm". There is a 300mm lens in that system as well,
    which is 600mm when measured the same way that the FZ's "420mm" is
    measured.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 10, 2006
  6. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    If you're shooting beyond the amateur class, manual focus is used a
    lot; very often, the focus needs to change without moving he camera.
    For example, to shoot dialog between two people, the focus will be on
    one actor or the other, depending on who's speaking. Manual focus is
    needed, unless you want to move the camera.
    Just one example.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 10, 2006
  7. I doubt that this true. The highest quality digital projection is 4K
    which is about 9 Mpixels. Analog projection is 24x18mm, which
    (assuming that film is sharp upto 2000 dpi) is 2.7 Mpixels.

    Poster sized prints are often examined at close distance and have to be
    really sharp.

    I'd say that a poster sized print of a 1Ds mk II image demands much higher
    focusing accuracy than analog projection of a 35mm movie.
     
    Philip Homburg, Dec 10, 2006
  8. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Go down to the multiplex on a Tuesday night (seems to be the slow night
    for movies--you usually have an empty theater so you can sit wherever you
    want) and ask them which theater has the largest non-IMAX screen (IMAX has
    the front row farther back than a regular theater) in the place, get a
    ticket to whatever is playing, sit front row center, and then tell me that.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 10, 2006
  9. Rich

    Toby Guest

    Every professional I know uses manual focus. We don't even have autofocus.
    With "real" video lenses MF is *much* quicker than any AF, and allows you to
    choose the focus point no matter what is happening in the frame. And there
    is no searching. AF is a non-starter in professional video.

    Toby
     
    Toby, Dec 10, 2006
  10. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Probably for some, but some don't ever find the need.
    Or they didn't want to stick a $4000 5lb zoom lens on a $1000 prosumer?
    How much would a 24-110mm equivalent with say an f2 aperture cost?
    Also, how many consumers now buying DSLRs are buying f2 or faster
    primes?
    Almost none. So, not only does Sony not care about (with it's
    prosumer, their DSLR has some fast lens options) shallow DOF portraits,
    neither do most consumers, which is why
    kit lenses are slow and cheap.
     
    Rich, Dec 10, 2006
  11. Rich

    acl Guest

    So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that a) if I do that, I
    will be able to see more detail on the screen than if I sit in front of
    my computer and zoom in to my 10mp photographs on the screen (ignore
    resolution issues for the moment, assume infinite resolution of the
    medium), and b) this is the reason manual focus is used there?
     
    acl, Dec 10, 2006
  12. Rich

    Scott W Guest

    No the F828 has a real shutter, if you look at the lens you can see it
    closing when the photo is taken. This is true of any good camera, I
    would think including the F707.

    What is true is that they will add to the noise with a sound from the
    speaker, but this does not mean there is no sound without it.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 10, 2006
  13. Rich

    J. Clarke Guest

    Who said anything about zooming in on the screen?

    This is pointless, believe whatever the Hell you want to.
     
    J. Clarke, Dec 10, 2006
  14. Having actually sat in the front row at movie theaters, I can report that
    the image is pretty funky. (On the other hand, it's pretty impressive; one
    feels that one is right in there in the midst of the action. One has to let
    one's peripheral vision do a lot of work and scan around the frame a lot, so
    it can be tiring. Also, image quality goes all to hell in panned shots, and
    watching the smear go by is even more tiring. Not something to be done every
    day.)

    Another poster pointed out that MF is needed in film since the point of
    focus needs to be controlled according to the needs of the story, and AF
    just can't do that.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 10, 2006
  15. Rich

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Does it look like a 7-blade aperture diaphragm?
    In small-sensor digicams, electronic shutters now rule.
    Other F828 users get silent shutter-fire when they turn it off.
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 10, 2006
  16. Rich

    dj_nme Guest

    Unles you have very bad distance vision, sitting in the front row of
    the movie cinema will show you just how bad a half-frame image (18x24mm
    Vs 24x36mm of still 35mm cameras) can look, especialy if it is a single
    frame being shown like a slide (with the film paused in the projector
    and before the heat from the bulb melts it).
    That is despite the care in focusing, the image looks a tiny bit fuzzy
    and you might even see film grain at that sort of close distance.
    It is almost like expecting a digital image to look good when printed
    at (or less) than 200ppi and viewed at normal or closer, like an A4
    sized print viewed with your nose against the paper or through a loupe.
    The largest recommended print size for 35mm high-resolution B&W print
    film is usualy quoted as 8"x10" (slightly smaller than A4) when viewed
    at arm's length (about a 30 degree arc of vision), because at that size
    and distance the film grain isn't obvious and (if the camera lens was
    focussed carefuly) it will still look pin-sharp.
    Try looking at a movie, with the screen taking up more of your vision
    than an 8x10 at arm's length and any faults in the movie image should
    be apparrent.
    Movies also have the advantage that mulitple images (24 per second) are
    being projected per second, so the grain pattern of each frame is
    averaged together, you brain tends to fill in any expected detail
    because of movement and little variations between frames of the focus
    are also averaged out.
     
    dj_nme, Dec 10, 2006
  17. Rich

    acl Guest

    Yes, I'd have thought that that's the reason; but I know nothing about
    cinematography.
     
    acl, Dec 10, 2006
  18. Rich

    acl Guest

    No reason to get irritated, I am trying to understand. Now, you replied
    to Phillip Homburg's comment that a high resolution still photograph
    requires higher focusing precision than a projected movie by the above
    comment. I interpret it to mean that in fact focusing precision is more
    important in movies. Is my interpretation of what you say correct?

    The reason I mentioned zooming in etc is that AF certainly does work
    precisely enough for me to be able to zoom in to pixel level on images
    from my D200. In fact, if I use a COC equal to the pixel size in
    calculating DOF, the results do agree quite well with what I see (I do
    this in macro shots). So clearly the AF of my camera is accurate enough
    for this, thus I find it curious that you seem to be saying that it is
    not for motion pictures.

    On the other hand, it could be that the fact that 24 pictures are shown
    per second somehow makes focusing errors more noticeable or something
    (I can't see how, but that doesn't mean much). I don't know, hence my
    question.
     
    acl, Dec 11, 2006
  19. Rich

    Alan LeHun Guest

    The movie camera has to keep focus, and it only has 1/24th second to do
    it for each frame. Also, directors make much use of objects coming in or
    out of focus, or using focus on two objects in separate DoFs.

    I don't know either, these are my guesses.
     
    Alan LeHun, Dec 11, 2006
  20. Is this really true? My understanding was that getting max image quality
    from CCD sensors required using a mechanical shutter. This was true in the
    F707/G2 generation, and I doubt the technology has changed that much.
    The mechanical shutters in the P&S cameras that have them are amazingly
    quite. But they are there, at least in some.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 11, 2006
    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.