|
torgeaux posted:Reach versus width, the age old dilemma. The solution? 1D. Either that or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's roughly equivalent to 17mm on full-frame.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
I shoot with a 7D, I played with a 5DMkII for a few minutes a while back and it just felt right. Ever since I've been acutely aware of the crop factor 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:[...] but there are other sketchy rear end dudes out there that get just as much if not even more acclaim than him. How is Araki sketchy? Dude is absolutely awesome and seems to be super nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:On a D3s with a 50mm f/1.8 the depth of field range is between 5.77ft and 6.25ft (0.47 feet total) if the subject is 6 feet away from the shooter. On a D90 with the same lens and distance the focal range is between 5.85 ft and 6.16 ft (0.32 feet.) That's not really that big of a difference in DOF. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pretty hard to tell just from an image what kind of camera they were shot with especially after post processing. It's like people who claim they can tell if an image came from a Nikon or Canon. It's gear fetishization. Yeah, but doesn't the size of the sensor influence perception? Physical amount of depth might be very close, but the perceived amount of depth is smaller on a full frame (at widest apertures) because of the larger image size. It's the same reason shooting in medium or large format gives you less perceived depth than 35mm, even if you're shooting its equivalent. Example: 50mm f/1.4 on a 35mm camera vs. 100mm f/2.8 on a medium format. They are the equivalent to one another, but the larger format will show to have less depth of field at widest aperture because of the larger image size. That's at least how I understand it, someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
ZoCrowes posted:Even then you can get a pretty drat shallow DOF with a fast lens. There are also plenty of wide angle zooms too. In short, using the same lens eg. 50mm. You will need to back up to achieve the same framing/field-of-view with a cropped/APS-C sized sensor, thus increasing the dof. edit: IIRC someone calculated this before, an aps-c sized camera need to open up the aperture by 1 1/3 stop to achieve the same dof with the same framing using identical lens. So you need something like f/1.2 on the D90 to get the same dof as f/2 on the d3s Try getting shots like this from a (video)camera with a smaller sensor. DaNzA fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:How is Araki sketchy? Dude is absolutely awesome and seems to be super nice. I'm saying he's about as sketchy as Terry Richardson
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 05:15
|
|
|
girl who is acting on my behalf for printing purposes has called me up asking for a photo that could print to 1.5m in length (whatever height) at minimum 1470 dpi. I said "sure" and hung up and then sat there. And sat there. And if I was a TV show there would be numbers floating gently around my head, sliding past my face like a loving galactic cruiser past a pedestrian shuttle, big goddamn numbers. hrroooomm hrroooooommmm I've worked it out. 86811x43406 And I have to save it as PDF. And it's on material, not paper, like apparently cloth material. I don't get it, what the gently caress sort of material is this. It would have to have some sort of ridiculous stitching, right? So my computer is at full ball right now trying to fit together a panorama at this size. Holy crap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 05:42
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:girl who is acting on my behalf for printing purposes has called me up asking for a photo that could print to 1.5m in length (whatever height) at minimum 1470 dpi. On the plus side, you can enjoy a little laugh when you hear that your file crashes their computer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:1470 dpi. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:19
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Oh hey I think we had this talk about 50 pages ago. I never said that Full Frame and APS-C do not have different characteristics when it comes to shooting. Obviously increasing distance from the subject is going to increase the depth of field. My contention was that one could tell a difference between a Full Frame and APS-C from a photo posted on the interwebs. Using that shot from House as a starting point one can compare it to a shot that I took that has a pretty drat shallow DOF.  Is it as shallow as that particular House shot? Nope, but I would bet that in a blind test one would be hard pressed to tell if a photo was APS-C or Full Frame. There are definitely benefits to both sensor types and I will definitely be picking up a full frame camera sometime in the not too distant future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Yeah, but doesn't the size of the sensor influence perception? Physical amount of depth might be very close, but the perceived amount of depth is smaller on a full frame (at widest apertures) because of the larger image size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:minimum 1470 dpi. This can't be right? What would need this kind of detail?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:This can't be right? What would need this kind of detail? I'm just going to do it. What the hell. But yeah I'm sure there's been something missed in either translation or the printer is a fool. I need to put 8gb of ram in this macbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
That's some nice blur. And I guess you are right about how you can't really 'tell' the difference easily between ff/apsc if the camera was in capable hands. I think it has more to do with people who can afford FF are generally more serious. Helmacron posted:I'm just going to do it. What the hell. But yeah I'm sure there's been something missed in either translation or the printer is a fool. 8GB isn't going to do poo poo when you are processing 3768 MP, or 3.768 gigapickles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:8GB isn't going to do poo poo when you are processing 3768 MP, or 3.768 gigapickles. Why wouldn't it. Also I've decided just to process a panorama I have for it at 20000x10000. I refuse to believe he needs it better than whatever dpi that is. Also that alone is going to take forever to compute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Why wouldn't it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 10:14
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Why wouldn't it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 10:47
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Why wouldn't it. It might be a good idea to actually talk to the printer about this. What if it is supposed to be 147 dpi??
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
Panoramas, sort of surprisingly, really just need a lot of storing space as they're processing. I don't really know much about it, I admit, but from my experience, a good computer is great but a big harddrive and patience really do wonders for large panoramas. I was just meaning 8gb of ram (assuming the photo isn't over 8gb, as pointed out), could only ever help. You're saying going to 8gb can hinder in some ways, evil_bunnY? And whitezombi, we're just testing stuff right now. I said "durable cloth of some sort could make my photos a little more renegade" and she reported back this is what he said. I'll hedge my bets and give him a couple different files. The largest these photos I have can go are 30000x15000. my other panoramas can get much bigger but I don't want to exhibit those right now. I just want to get into a bachelor of photography with them. 147dpi would be totally lame and I would say a big ol' gently caress you to cloth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:Panoramas, sort of surprisingly, really just need a lot of storing space as they're processing. I don't really know much about it, I admit, but from my experience, a good computer is great but a big harddrive and patience really do wonders for large panoramas. I was just meaning 8gb of ram (assuming the photo isn't over 8gb, as pointed out), could only ever help. No, he is (rightly) pointing out that if you really try and process an image that big, 8Gb is not going to make a difference: As an analogy: you need to buy a new $2,000 MacBook Pro, but you only have $50 in your pocket. You get lucky and find $100 down the back of your sofa. No it won't hinder your purchase, but it isn't really going to help much either. $50 or $150 -you aren't going to be walking home with a new toy today. quote:And whitezombi, we're just testing stuff right now. I said "durable cloth of some sort could make my photos a little more renegade" and she reported back this is what he said. I'll hedge my bets and give him a couple different files. 147lpi is entirely possible as a resolution for a printed image on cloth. That's about 300dpi and will give good quality. You are utterly wasting your time with images this big. There is no way that they are 1,000 dpi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:You're saying going to 8gb can hinder in some ways, evil_bunnY? It's not like you can do anything about the code, so just be happy about your 8GB and have a ciggie while it builds your output. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Sep 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
spog posted:147lpi is entirely possible as a resolution for a printed image on cloth. That's about 300dpi and will give good quality. 147lpi is what I meant. I'm still half asleep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
What's the difference between lines per inch and dots per inch? If you're talking about digital isn't a line just a line of pixels anyway?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Lines per inch is what people tend to refer to for screen ruling on a press. This is because AM (traditional) screening comes in rulings, and those rulings have a certain number of lines of dots per inch. For instance, if you took a 1x1 inch tint of 1% dots and looked at it using a loupe, the frequency of the dots would be such that you would have 200 lines of dots approximating that 1% tint. Many modern sheetfed offset printers work at 175 or 200 LPI. This is considerably different from DPI, which is raw raster pixels (dots) per inch. Even though these may be plotted at 200 LPI, the text, linework, and images will be rasterized at, say, 2400 DPI. The old rule of thumb is image DPI at twice the LPI ruling. So for a 175 LPI screen you'd want a 350 DPI image. This starts falling apart for 175-200 LPI screens, where you can certainly print a 300 DPI image and nobody would really notice (except me).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
I've had Photoshop give me an out of memory error when I accidentally scanned a 6x4.5 photo at like 3200dpi when I had 8gb of RAM so ..
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
Upgrade from Windows 98, scrub.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
DPI = Dots per inch = units used to measure the resolution of a printer LPI = Lines per inch = The offset printing 'lines' or dots per inch in a halftone or line screen. PPI = Pixels per inch = the number of pixels per inch in screen/scanner file terms. kefkafloyd posted:. And me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:DPI = Dots per inch = units used to measure the resolution of a printer See, this kind of breaks down when even Scanning software can't get it right
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:See, this kind of breaks down when even Scanning software can't get it right Yeah. I don't remember hearing one single person use PPI in the last 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 19:48
|
|
|
For all intents and purposes, PPI/DPI are the same thing in raster image programs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
I just have to say I don't believe I'm wasting my time compiling the largest possible image I can get from a set of photos because even if they will not work right now, they will certainly work some time in the future and I will have them for perpetuity. Also I have no job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just have to say I don't believe I'm wasting my time compiling the largest possible image I can get from a set of photos because even if they will not work right now, they will certainly work some time in the future and I will have them for perpetuity. You are wasting your time, where do you think those extra dpi are coming from?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
HDR Video a reality? http://www.sovietmontage.com/2010/09/09/hdr-video-a-reality/ The dude looks weird, but the city shot actually looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
Just looks like more gimmickry to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
Oh god, I can't wait until we get 3D HDR  Imagine all the movie trailers, "now.. in 3D HDR!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Blech, now I can't unsee it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
How did they get the frames to line up with two different cameras? Is it just too small of a difference to notice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
The city looked like a 3D rendering with poor lighting effects, which I guess would make sense since it's not normal lighting. The guy just looked loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:The city looked like a 3D rendering with poor lighting effects, which I guess would make sense since it's not normal lighting. The guy just looked loving terrible. I thought it looked like lovely rendering as well. Man, when will this HDR poo poo just die out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Ugth, that looked awful. I wish I could do more still HDR, too, but I lack the experience and a good DSLR for it, but man I'd never want my video rig to shoot anything close to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2010 03:39
|
|
