mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com
SantaFeBill

SantaFeBill

Lives in United States Santa Fe, USA, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Apr 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: Pour one out for Samsung cameras (323 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Fridge with an inside video camera? Stove that you can talk to with a smartphone? (I have always wanted to carry on a conversation with my stove, and so much exiting goes on inside my fridge - might have to start assigning ratings to the videos.)
They think they'll sell more of these than an excellent camera? They'd make more money selling what they're smoking. :-)

@Revenant: They'll certainly sell more fridges than they would have cameras, but pay extra for a fridge with a video camera? Guess it will depend on how many people want to verify that the light goes out when you close the door ... .

Direct link | Posted on Jan 9, 2016 at 02:24 UTC
On article Opinion: Pour one out for Samsung cameras (323 comments in total)

Fridge with an inside video camera? Stove that you can talk to with a smartphone? (I have always wanted to carry on a conversation with my stove, and so much exiting goes on inside my fridge - might have to start assigning ratings to the videos.)
They think they'll sell more of these than an excellent camera? They'd make more money selling what they're smoking. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 22:57 UTC as 15th comment | 5 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Still a lot of disinformed comments here. What I seem to see here is a lot of people who are scared of the.medium because they would actually have to know what they are doing because the scattergun approach they are used with digital is not there.
And no, digitally applying a Super8 effect doesn't cut it. There are a variety of films with different characteristics and developing processes will add even more to these variables.
Most of you are also not aware of the popularity of the medium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film

"Amateur usage of Super 8 has been largely replaced by video, but the format is often used by professionals in music videos, TV commercials, and special sequences for television and feature film projects, as well as by many visual artists. For a professional cinematographer, Super 8 is another tool to use alongside larger formats. Some seek to imitate the look of old home movies, or create a stylishly grainy look. Many independent filmmakers such as Derek Jarman, Dave Markey, Sean Pecknold, Jem Cohen, Damon Packard, Sam Raimi, Jesse Richards, Harmony Korine, Teod Richter, Jörg Buttgereit, Nathan Schiff and Guy Maddin have made extensive use of 8 mm film. Oliver Stone, for example, has used it several times in his more recent films, such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, U Turn, and JFK where his director of photography Robert Richardson employed it to evoke a period or to give a different look to scenes. The PBS series Globe Trekker uses approximately five minutes of Super 8 footage per episode. [15] In the UK, broadcasters such as the BBC still occasionally make use of Super 8 in both drama and documentary contexts, usually for creative effect. A recent example of particular note was the 2005 BBC2 documentary series, Define Normal, which was shot largely on Super 8, with only interviews and special timelapse photography utilising more conventional digital formats.[16] Most recently, John Mellencamp's 2011 documentary film, It's About You, was shot entirely in Super-8."

Bring it on Kodak!

@MeganV: "(3) Kodak themselves say that this new camera is mostly intended for education, film school / institutional, and professional use. (http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/corp/press_center/Kodak_Launches_Super_8_Filmmaking_Revival_Initiative_at_CES_2016/default.htm)"
Thanks for the clarification. I wish DPR had made this clear in its article - would have saved a good bit of posting space. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 14:57 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Still a lot of disinformed comments here. What I seem to see here is a lot of people who are scared of the.medium because they would actually have to know what they are doing because the scattergun approach they are used with digital is not there.
And no, digitally applying a Super8 effect doesn't cut it. There are a variety of films with different characteristics and developing processes will add even more to these variables.
Most of you are also not aware of the popularity of the medium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film

"Amateur usage of Super 8 has been largely replaced by video, but the format is often used by professionals in music videos, TV commercials, and special sequences for television and feature film projects, as well as by many visual artists. For a professional cinematographer, Super 8 is another tool to use alongside larger formats. Some seek to imitate the look of old home movies, or create a stylishly grainy look. Many independent filmmakers such as Derek Jarman, Dave Markey, Sean Pecknold, Jem Cohen, Damon Packard, Sam Raimi, Jesse Richards, Harmony Korine, Teod Richter, Jörg Buttgereit, Nathan Schiff and Guy Maddin have made extensive use of 8 mm film. Oliver Stone, for example, has used it several times in his more recent films, such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, U Turn, and JFK where his director of photography Robert Richardson employed it to evoke a period or to give a different look to scenes. The PBS series Globe Trekker uses approximately five minutes of Super 8 footage per episode. [15] In the UK, broadcasters such as the BBC still occasionally make use of Super 8 in both drama and documentary contexts, usually for creative effect. A recent example of particular note was the 2005 BBC2 documentary series, Define Normal, which was shot largely on Super 8, with only interviews and special timelapse photography utilising more conventional digital formats.[16] Most recently, John Mellencamp's 2011 documentary film, It's About You, was shot entirely in Super-8."

Bring it on Kodak!

@Provia_fan: If I understand the implication of what you said, then this new Kodak Super 8 is _not_ intended for the amateur home movie market, as Super 8 originally was, but for those professionals using it in creative and professional ways.
The pricing of the cartridges would seem to indicate that focus.
But a question: Given the wide usage you cite, do not these professionals already have Super 8 equipment - and, I'd guess, equipment a good bit more capable than the Kodak offering?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2016 at 00:32 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: If Kodak wants to revive film, bring back Kodachrome and its processing. _That_ would cause me to dig out my Nikon F (yes, 'F') and associated lenses from the closet.

@Joe: It would be interesting to know where they thought they'd get it processed, assuming they actually use it to shoot. AFAIK, the last K chrome processing lab has shut down. That's why I said " ... and its processing". One w.o. the other doesn't get you much.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 21:55 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)
In reply to:

landscaper1: No, Dzacco, it isn't just you.

Why would any semi-intelligent person think that tens of millions of consumers, having been exposed for a decade or longer to the convenience of "digital film" would now be convinced to want to return to celluloid to make their family movies?

This smells like a desperate attempt at Kodak to revive a section of their business (making consumer-grade celluloid image recording materials) that technology has clearly left in the dust.

If I were a Kodak stockholder, I'd be howling for someone's hide to be nailed to the big yellow barnyard wall.

@Stu 8: Granted that a good number of commercial movies are still shot on film. But Super 8?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 16:19 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

If Kodak wants to revive film, bring back Kodachrome and its processing. _That_ would cause me to dig out my Nikon F (yes, 'F') and associated lenses from the closet.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 15:55 UTC as 81st comment | 2 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (367 comments in total)

I must have looked at the date wrong. I thought it was still January, but it must be April 1st.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 14:57 UTC as 84th comment
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Do we really need another photo editor? ACDSee Pro and Ultimate will do non-destructive edits, as will Photo Ninja and DxO (using virtual copies). I believe Capture One can also do non-destructive edits. For Nikon users, the old NX2 and now NX-D will do non-destructive editing. (Although NX-D, well ... .)
I suspect there are others out there also.
So unless the Alien Skin program has some notable advantages and/or features, it seems to me that it is playing in an already crowded field. The film filters seem nice, but the same kind of effects are available from 3rd-party add-ons, so I don't know that someone would buy the program for those alone.
(Note: I realize that the AS program will be available for both Windows and Macs. I don't remember how many of the programs I cite are available for both. Mac availability might give it a leg up.)

@One Moment: But as I've tried to point out, there is already a good bit of competition for LR. In an crowded field, you have to do something unique to succeed. So we will need to see if the AS program does that.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 12, 2015 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: Do we really need another photo editor? ACDSee Pro and Ultimate will do non-destructive edits, as will Photo Ninja and DxO (using virtual copies). I believe Capture One can also do non-destructive edits. For Nikon users, the old NX2 and now NX-D will do non-destructive editing. (Although NX-D, well ... .)
I suspect there are others out there also.
So unless the Alien Skin program has some notable advantages and/or features, it seems to me that it is playing in an already crowded field. The film filters seem nice, but the same kind of effects are available from 3rd-party add-ons, so I don't know that someone would buy the program for those alone.
(Note: I realize that the AS program will be available for both Windows and Macs. I don't remember how many of the programs I cite are available for both. Mac availability might give it a leg up.)

Nothing's 'wrong'. My point is just wondering how large a market there is for another.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 14:15 UTC

Do we really need another photo editor? ACDSee Pro and Ultimate will do non-destructive edits, as will Photo Ninja and DxO (using virtual copies). I believe Capture One can also do non-destructive edits. For Nikon users, the old NX2 and now NX-D will do non-destructive editing. (Although NX-D, well ... .)
I suspect there are others out there also.
So unless the Alien Skin program has some notable advantages and/or features, it seems to me that it is playing in an already crowded field. The film filters seem nice, but the same kind of effects are available from 3rd-party add-ons, so I don't know that someone would buy the program for those alone.
(Note: I realize that the AS program will be available for both Windows and Macs. I don't remember how many of the programs I cite are available for both. Mac availability might give it a leg up.)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 01:38 UTC as 20th comment | 4 replies
On article Graava action cam automatically edits POV footage (47 comments in total)

Suppose the camera and I don't agree on what is interesting? Who wins? :-)

And I guess I can just send my camera on vacation ... .

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 02:10 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Cane: Do you all just take outdoor pictures in good light? An f2.8 lens on a 1" sensor can't be good for much else? Taking the picture of a person not completely still indoors is probably near impossible without a flash at f2.8. It's hard even with a APS-C sensor.

@Mark9473: Read the articles here on noise and also Thom Hogan's one on the same topic. You'll see that sensor size has a great deal to do with it. Yes, for a given amount of light and the same ISO setting, every camera will (or should) use the same combination of shutter speed and aperture. But the amount of noise will vary with the sensor size, assuming of course, that other factors affecting noise are fairly equal.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 03:23 UTC

Sorry, but any camera I pay US$1300 for is going to have interchangeable lenses and ability to write GPS data to the files as they are captured, either built-in or via a clip-on unit. As always, YMMV.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 03:08 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies
On article Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom (229 comments in total)

"The announcement suggests Lightroom 6 will continue as a standalone application ... ."
Why? CC requires certain operating systems. The fact that LR 6 will also has no relevance as to whether it will be stand-alone or cloud-based. You still need an OS on your computer to access cloud-based applications.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 22:24 UTC as 30th comment | 6 replies
On article ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.
I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.
(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)
P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.

I tried again late yesterday (the 12th), and the trial button this time opened a dl directly from the ACDSee site.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 20:41 UTC
On article ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

thelooch: Hi, I'm a developer at ACD Systems and I think I should make it known that a RAW update is being worked on right now, and we should be releasing it very soon. I'm not making an official announcement for the company here, but I think the update should be out before Christmas.

I urge that the update be made available for ACDSee Pro 8 as well, for those of us who may prefer to work there when an image doesn't need the extra features of Ultimate.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:25 UTC
On article ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.

I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.

ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.

Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.

Whenever someone has asked me about ACDSee Pro, I've recommended they try the program _if_ (assuming they want o work in RAW) it already supports the camera or cameras they use, they don't have plans to buy a new one anytime soon, or they're willing to use other sw with the new purchase until if and when ACDSee supports it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:16 UTC
On article ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing (67 comments in total)

I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.
I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.
(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)
P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 16:29 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon announces long-awaited EOS 7D Mark II (115 comments in total)

What Nikon should have announced - said as a Nikon user since the original Nikon F. If I had the $$, I'd switch. (I don't shoot video, so no 4K is irrelevant to me.)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 14:35 UTC as 20th comment
Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
About us
Sitemap
Connect