To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for all that is good. :-)
Raist3d: How is the Panasonic FZ1000 a compact category camera????
halfwaythere- I am more than aware that it's their rules. That doesn't make it any more sensical :-)
BarNET- the FZ1000 for some reason does not quite strike me as meeting that definition either. Anyway, I think in digital we have been calling compacts, cameras that are .. well ... compact, single lens, etc. But the FZ1000 ain't it.
No, but it's certainly NOT compact. Just because you don't change lenses doesn't mean it's a compact camera.
Raist3d: Also no Ricoh GR here... what?
Ok- good call. However, it's easy to see with a headline that a voting for 2014 of best high end compact refers to what in this year is best high end compact, not just what was released.
But all right, you win on hour call. Thanks for calling me on it :-)
Also no Ricoh GR here... what?
How is the Panasonic FZ1000 a compact category camera????
This is really weird guys. You include the Nikon 1 V3 in consumer camera category but not the J4? Weird. (not that I am particularly defending the 1 system, just that it seems odd).
LaFonte: It is obvious what they are doing, isn't it? Basically trying to sell customers an inadequate proof of concept with hopes that someone big will buy them off. As we had seen wit foevon, this "catching up" can go on for perpetuity. The underlying tech is interesting, but at the end professionals still use tried and true and amateurs loose patience faster than you can say rip off.
I am afraid I can't agree with you on the color constancy issue. I shot using ETTR with Merrill and ran on occasion with the problem, though it's harder to see. I found it depends on the colors/subject you are capturing.
I really wish it had the same level of this of the DP2 (not merrill) sensor but it doesn't. It's too bad as it otherwise looks amazing. Then the shadows have almost no range. If you burn highlights for shadow, then you of course lose some highlight DR. etc.
Anyhow, I think in good controlled light at the lowest iso is where the Merrill shines.
If you shoot strobes, I can understand your like.. That's a good case for Foveon. But in normal day to day shots both Merrill and Quattro have false color problems of their own with magenta/green splotches. But in a studio with strobe situation that's unlikely to happen, so it's certainly an excellent match for your needs.
Just to keep in mind not everyone has that issue. AS for Pentax- Pentax doesn't have that issue with a good raw converter.
Everlast66: The biggest Lytro problem is that they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist!
A lot of the fun when taking photos is to decide what do you want in focus and how much separation (or no separation at all). It would be much less exciting to just snap photos around and then spend most time on the computer fiddling with sliders.
If it was giving you quality (resolution, DR and ISO) comparable to APSC or FF cameras and in addition give you some limited focus adjustment to correct slight back/front focus issues it would have much more success.
@Roland- not saying the Lytro stuff necessarily goes that way but you bring an excellent example of something "new that could have been misunderstood by the people lacking vision" yet it did not pass the test of time. Just because it seems cool doesn't mean it will stick.
Raist3d: No offense but it looks pretty bad (the effect) as they show it. Looks almost like a bad photoshop filter.
You are going by a logical fallacy here- it's what I was telling Barney and Rishi- not all technologies scale up.
My only observation is that the video for promotion of this feature makes it look bad.
And just to be clear- I am not talking artwise- I am only judging it on technical side of what I see the technical blur end result.
What I meant is- that I would expect them to show case their new effect well. What I am seeing looks like the results of a bad photoshop filter, at least within a wide range of settings.
That said, I can't fault you for playing with the software. I am only saying given they are going to try to present a good foot forward, I am not too inclined to put time into it, unless they really screwed up their marketing and what you can do yourself with their own tech is really notably better.
Well I am going by what Lytro is showing. I mean, it's the same company that makes the technology, and they made a video marketing it, I am not expecting it to change then.
NetMage: These are the kind of features I expected to see. Imagine being able to output video where focus moves smoothly from subject to subject - a lot of work now, but it could be automated.
Video resolution does not need to be very high? We are already running at 1080p and about to enter 4K.
Meuh- if you add the Foveon ISO and color constancy issues, I don't think it's as good as you say. I wish it could have kept up the same way like the previous to Merrill sensor in those areas.And the Quattro has its own issues.
Not buying the luddite argument here Rishi. You should ask of those top wedding photographers how many would love to play in post with the focus. Better yet- ask a reasonably good but not in that circle you mentioned wedding photographer if he can afford the extra post time.
Also if you mention the Nikon D750 gets around the issue you mentioned above, wouldn't that be a better solution than this then?
At what resolution?
Henrik Herranen: Look at the transition zones between the hands and the background trees in the "Shallow depth-of-focus" shot. Even at this small size, they look pixelated and quite fake.
I am still sceptical.
@Rishi- that's what I meant when I asked above on "does it scale?" As he mentioned it's not trivial. There are several technologies out there that hit a wall once you need to scale up. This could be one of them. But at least for web/monitor delivery it could work.
As for editing depth maps- AFAIK this has been done already in other fields (video games), so yes, no reason why it couldn't be done here. More work in the computer, less work in photography though.
A bigger question is does this scale up? We can talk all we want of this and that technology and how many times "it was said this and that" but that doesn't automatically proves the technology successful.
Barney- you are counting the hits :-)
Fuji SR was pretty interesting except that it didn't scale up in resolution. Scaling up a light field sensor has so many compromises. I guess if it reaches delivery of monitors it works though.
No offense but it looks pretty bad (the effect) as they show it. Looks almost like a bad photoshop filter.