Sunday, October 02, 2016
Friday, September 30, 2016
PC, virus, anti-virus
I proclaim I enjoy living dangerously devoid of any anti virus program. The truth is even I don't make mistakes clicking and installing crap, somebody else will. And sometimes I do have the honor to take care of this nasty business. Nobody would admit he makes any mistakes and in the end it's all a mystery. How it happened nobody knows.
When it comes to PC, there is Windows defense, firewall and a whole boat load of third party software that are supposed to protect you from yourself and all the nasties from others. In general I have a deep mistrust of those software, it's like you have the potential of actually installing some crap claiming to protect you from other crap. I really don't know what or who to trust. I am just happy whatever security measures that come with Windows and have them turned on.
But in the end, some how, someone is going to install, to click Ok despite repeated warnings because he just needs to play that game.
Then the whole wireless network comes crashing down.
When it comes to PC, there is Windows defense, firewall and a whole boat load of third party software that are supposed to protect you from yourself and all the nasties from others. In general I have a deep mistrust of those software, it's like you have the potential of actually installing some crap claiming to protect you from other crap. I really don't know what or who to trust. I am just happy whatever security measures that come with Windows and have them turned on.
But in the end, some how, someone is going to install, to click Ok despite repeated warnings because he just needs to play that game.
Then the whole wireless network comes crashing down.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Auto Glass Claim Experience
I use Gekko as my auto insurance. I am just too lazy to find out what's out there from others. I don't need all the hassles just so I can save perhaps a few dollars or a few thousand dollars. I am too lazy to do that.
Even Gekko lists a 1-800 number for glass claim but when I called it just directs me to download the mobile app. From there you just do your claim on your mobile. I don't think you can even do it on their website. If you are inept with apps, mobile phone or in general techno averse, good luck with that. I don't think you can even file a glass claim over the phone. It seems to me Gekko even does away the call center at least for glass claims. I remember I used to call them.
The world just keeps moving on.
Even Gekko lists a 1-800 number for glass claim but when I called it just directs me to download the mobile app. From there you just do your claim on your mobile. I don't think you can even do it on their website. If you are inept with apps, mobile phone or in general techno averse, good luck with that. I don't think you can even file a glass claim over the phone. It seems to me Gekko even does away the call center at least for glass claims. I remember I used to call them.
The world just keeps moving on.
Friday, September 09, 2016
Cinema Mount Mark II audio cable extension
I asked support about the audio cable extension.
Specifically, I asked does it serve the purpose of the RODE SC7 or SC4 cable. Their answer is an unequivocal yes. I can use the supplied cable for that.
So I bought the RODE VideoMicro without buying the TRS to TRRS cable.
And you know what it does NOT work. Apparently the male of the cable is TRRS but the female is not a TRS to TRRS receptacle. Or that's just a faulty cable or they don't know what they are talking about. A disappointment for sure. I was hoping to use the iPhone and the Rode VideoMicro to shoot something tomorrow now I just can't even the eBay seller promptly shipped the order so I can receive it on time. Alas, I'd have to shoot the Rode with my D810 for still and video now.
PS: Now I suspect the audio extension cable is really just an extension for TRRS to TRRS only. Why? Because the mount is kind of blocked it needs a rather slim jack without the bulk so as to plug the jack in, if the TRRS is any bigger it won't be able to properly plugged in.
UPDATE:
9/15/2016
I ordered the RODE SC7 TRS to TRRS patch cable. And it works with the iPhone with or without the extension cable supplied with the Cinema Mount Mark II audio extension cable. Like I expected you really need to use the extension cable as the opening is kind of small and even if you don't run the SC7 through the hold you can't mount the iPhone flat on the mount as like I said it's more like an enclosure and there is just no front room to accommodate the budge of the SC7 plug. So again, the provided audio extension cable is just like what its name says it is an extension cable of TRRS to TRRS. If you were to plug in a TRS it simply won't work even you can plug in everything.
After using the setup for a few weeks. My initial assessment still holds true. It's quite tiring to mount the iPhone. It's difficult to access the mic/headphone jack, lightning jack, the volume control because it's more of an enclosure. It's troublesome when one recorded a clip and wants to listen the audio using a headphone, you simply have to remove the iPhone from the mount to unplug and plug back the jack. The tripod mount hole is on the wrong side, it should really be underneath the lens.
All in all, even without using the Beastgrip Pro, I think it's a better design, I would like the option of tightening the grip like the cinema mount mark ii and a lower price. I guess I can keep dreaming.
Specifically, I asked does it serve the purpose of the RODE SC7 or SC4 cable. Their answer is an unequivocal yes. I can use the supplied cable for that.
So I bought the RODE VideoMicro without buying the TRS to TRRS cable.
And you know what it does NOT work. Apparently the male of the cable is TRRS but the female is not a TRS to TRRS receptacle. Or that's just a faulty cable or they don't know what they are talking about. A disappointment for sure. I was hoping to use the iPhone and the Rode VideoMicro to shoot something tomorrow now I just can't even the eBay seller promptly shipped the order so I can receive it on time. Alas, I'd have to shoot the Rode with my D810 for still and video now.
PS: Now I suspect the audio extension cable is really just an extension for TRRS to TRRS only. Why? Because the mount is kind of blocked it needs a rather slim jack without the bulk so as to plug the jack in, if the TRRS is any bigger it won't be able to properly plugged in.
UPDATE:
9/15/2016
I ordered the RODE SC7 TRS to TRRS patch cable. And it works with the iPhone with or without the extension cable supplied with the Cinema Mount Mark II audio extension cable. Like I expected you really need to use the extension cable as the opening is kind of small and even if you don't run the SC7 through the hold you can't mount the iPhone flat on the mount as like I said it's more like an enclosure and there is just no front room to accommodate the budge of the SC7 plug. So again, the provided audio extension cable is just like what its name says it is an extension cable of TRRS to TRRS. If you were to plug in a TRS it simply won't work even you can plug in everything.
After using the setup for a few weeks. My initial assessment still holds true. It's quite tiring to mount the iPhone. It's difficult to access the mic/headphone jack, lightning jack, the volume control because it's more of an enclosure. It's troublesome when one recorded a clip and wants to listen the audio using a headphone, you simply have to remove the iPhone from the mount to unplug and plug back the jack. The tripod mount hole is on the wrong side, it should really be underneath the lens.
All in all, even without using the Beastgrip Pro, I think it's a better design, I would like the option of tightening the grip like the cinema mount mark ii and a lower price. I guess I can keep dreaming.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Cinema Mount Mark II, a first look
The thing with iPhone photography and videography is it is different things to different people. Filmmaker, Sean Baker did it because of budget constraint and yet you can do it for a myriad of reasons, like you got nothing better to do with your life.
I have to say the CMM2 is pretty well built. My point of reference is Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad kind of cameras and also the mini ball head sold on eBay shipped directly from China. The CMM2 is definitely not as well built as the aforementioned cameras but it's head and shoulder above the almost disposable mini ball head.
That being said is the CMM2 well designed? Well it depends. I like certain aspects of it and I think some are just inherent to what it is, a cage, a grip, an add-on.
Part of the appeals to shoot with an iPhone is it's supposed to be convenient. Not so much when you add a cage even the CMM2 is not gigantic.
Is it easy to mount the phone into that thing? Not really. I definitely need to fiddle with the vertical mount as the thing is screw-on tight with springs for tension, not just spring grab mount the phone. Plus the clamps or jaws are on the right side not so centered. I am a bit bothered by it. The fact that it's screw tight gives you more confident to how unmovable and secure the phone is when mounted. But at the same time the moves aren't exactly buttery smooth when you need to adjust the mount vertically and horizontally. The horizontal movement is mostly for aligning the phone camera to the hole of the mounting plate.
There is a cutout on the right side of the cage to let you pass the mic cable, but it's not like fully open access. I have the iPhone SE and it's not too easy to attach the lightning cable should you want to sit the phone flushed to the right of the cage while attaching the phone to portable power, I mean you don't really want to anyway. The phone is just easier to operate if it doesn't sit flushed to the right of the cage. Because I can't and I shouldn't flush-right mount the phone to the cage, then it's quite iffy and fiddly to mount the phone correctly so it's easy to access and the lens is dead on center to the opening of the lens opening of the mounting plate.
The cold shoe is not exactly easy to mount, A quarter would be a bit too big or even a nickel to turn the screw down. Maybe a dime would be ideal (yes, just confirmed).
The cage comes with a wide angle/macro lens attachment. It mounts on a 37mm mounting plate which can be adjusted horizontally and vertically freely to line up with the phone's lens. And hence the curse of too much freedom. If you are anal about a perfect alignment you may be a bit concerned as you can only eye ball the alignment. For the most part it works and works well enough. The mounting plate has some play to it but then again it is not bad enough to worry about. I mean even a Nikon mount and a mounted Nikkor can have some play to it, at least some. If the attachment is mounted off center the image suffers that I am pretty sure as I witnessed some myself: it's off center to be bad when you watch the video but not off center to render total blackout or visible vignette to notice right away.
Even I keep referring it as a cage but it's actually quite an enclosure. Access to the phone is sufficient but not like an cage you almost have open access to the phone mounted inside. You can't remove the lens side of the enclosure at all meaning you can't use the grip with your own lens attachments.
The filter holder works and the blue and gray graduated filters are nice additions to the setup. If you shoot open sky landscape it helps to bring the sky closer to the exposure of the earth or the foreground.
The mic extension is not a TRS to TRRS cord. It's really just an extension ... I think. It looks and feels like a quality cord.
Maybe, just maybe, the Beastgrip Pro is actually a bit better if you absolutely don't consider the price.
I have to say the CMM2 is pretty well built. My point of reference is Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad kind of cameras and also the mini ball head sold on eBay shipped directly from China. The CMM2 is definitely not as well built as the aforementioned cameras but it's head and shoulder above the almost disposable mini ball head.
That being said is the CMM2 well designed? Well it depends. I like certain aspects of it and I think some are just inherent to what it is, a cage, a grip, an add-on.
Part of the appeals to shoot with an iPhone is it's supposed to be convenient. Not so much when you add a cage even the CMM2 is not gigantic.
Is it easy to mount the phone into that thing? Not really. I definitely need to fiddle with the vertical mount as the thing is screw-on tight with springs for tension, not just spring grab mount the phone. Plus the clamps or jaws are on the right side not so centered. I am a bit bothered by it. The fact that it's screw tight gives you more confident to how unmovable and secure the phone is when mounted. But at the same time the moves aren't exactly buttery smooth when you need to adjust the mount vertically and horizontally. The horizontal movement is mostly for aligning the phone camera to the hole of the mounting plate.
There is a cutout on the right side of the cage to let you pass the mic cable, but it's not like fully open access. I have the iPhone SE and it's not too easy to attach the lightning cable should you want to sit the phone flushed to the right of the cage while attaching the phone to portable power, I mean you don't really want to anyway. The phone is just easier to operate if it doesn't sit flushed to the right of the cage. Because I can't and I shouldn't flush-right mount the phone to the cage, then it's quite iffy and fiddly to mount the phone correctly so it's easy to access and the lens is dead on center to the opening of the lens opening of the mounting plate.
The cold shoe is not exactly easy to mount, A quarter would be a bit too big or even a nickel to turn the screw down. Maybe a dime would be ideal (yes, just confirmed).
The cage comes with a wide angle/macro lens attachment. It mounts on a 37mm mounting plate which can be adjusted horizontally and vertically freely to line up with the phone's lens. And hence the curse of too much freedom. If you are anal about a perfect alignment you may be a bit concerned as you can only eye ball the alignment. For the most part it works and works well enough. The mounting plate has some play to it but then again it is not bad enough to worry about. I mean even a Nikon mount and a mounted Nikkor can have some play to it, at least some. If the attachment is mounted off center the image suffers that I am pretty sure as I witnessed some myself: it's off center to be bad when you watch the video but not off center to render total blackout or visible vignette to notice right away.
Even I keep referring it as a cage but it's actually quite an enclosure. Access to the phone is sufficient but not like an cage you almost have open access to the phone mounted inside. You can't remove the lens side of the enclosure at all meaning you can't use the grip with your own lens attachments.
The filter holder works and the blue and gray graduated filters are nice additions to the setup. If you shoot open sky landscape it helps to bring the sky closer to the exposure of the earth or the foreground.
The mic extension is not a TRS to TRRS cord. It's really just an extension ... I think. It looks and feels like a quality cord.
Maybe, just maybe, the Beastgrip Pro is actually a bit better if you absolutely don't consider the price.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Cinema Mount Mark II and Beastgrip Pro
I don't know why or the etymology of "Mark II" in general. Since when "Mark II" means version 2 or something? The first time I saw this usage was from Canon's first most popular full frame EOS 5D, its subsequent versions are all called Mark something. And I take it it means version. Nikon has its own somewhat confusing naming scheme, for its flagship models like Nikon D3 or Nikon D4, their minor upgrade or refinement naming is by appending the letter "s" at the end. So the model looks like plural but it is not. Any major upgrade actually merits a jump in the number, like the latest Nikon D5 is the successor of the Nikon D4.
What the heck am I talking about?
I have never used the Cinema Mount or the Beastgrip Pro. But I am somewhat fascinated by them, enough to open this post that is and enough to place an order on the former. It is almost an impulse buy, or not, considering I have been eyeing them for a long long time. The actual buy is I think always impulsive.
I am quite sure Beastgrip Pro is a "better" product in the sense that it got a cooler website, better PR ... but there is always a but, the pricing is just a bit off for my taste and wallet. I actually saw the Cinema Mount in the wild some time ago and its owner seemed quite happy with it. Currently the Beastgrip Pro is asking for close to $170 for the cage and a wide angle lens while the Cinema Mount Mark II is fetching for less than $90 with a wide angle lens, a filter holder and 2 graduated ND filters which I am a sucker of I think, and some other goodies like an mic extension cord (I think it's more than just an extension, it probably allows regular mic jack to be plugged to the headphone jack of an iPhone but I can't be sure) and lens mount unscrew thingy ... YouTube reviews on the Cinema Mount Mark II are almost non-existent except for 3 or actually 2 because one is just a duplicate of another. You know one thing always leads to another. The holy grail of lens adapter for iPhone is the Moondog lab anamorphic lens adapter which sells for $175. Then you need to have some software to actually edit the footage like Final Cut Pro X which costs like $300 ...
The friendly web page with user friendly spelling just seals the deal for me.
UPDATE:
8/21/2017
A couple of weeks, I read from Beastgrip's website, they successfully barred Cinema Mount from selling in the US. I can confirm that I can find them on Amazon but it says not available. So Beastgrip is pulling in its weight enforcing its patent.
What the heck am I talking about?
I have never used the Cinema Mount or the Beastgrip Pro. But I am somewhat fascinated by them, enough to open this post that is and enough to place an order on the former. It is almost an impulse buy, or not, considering I have been eyeing them for a long long time. The actual buy is I think always impulsive.
I am quite sure Beastgrip Pro is a "better" product in the sense that it got a cooler website, better PR ... but there is always a but, the pricing is just a bit off for my taste and wallet. I actually saw the Cinema Mount in the wild some time ago and its owner seemed quite happy with it. Currently the Beastgrip Pro is asking for close to $170 for the cage and a wide angle lens while the Cinema Mount Mark II is fetching for less than $90 with a wide angle lens, a filter holder and 2 graduated ND filters which I am a sucker of I think, and some other goodies like an mic extension cord (I think it's more than just an extension, it probably allows regular mic jack to be plugged to the headphone jack of an iPhone but I can't be sure) and lens mount unscrew thingy ... YouTube reviews on the Cinema Mount Mark II are almost non-existent except for 3 or actually 2 because one is just a duplicate of another. You know one thing always leads to another. The holy grail of lens adapter for iPhone is the Moondog lab anamorphic lens adapter which sells for $175. Then you need to have some software to actually edit the footage like Final Cut Pro X which costs like $300 ...
UPDATE:
8/21/2017
A couple of weeks, I read from Beastgrip's website, they successfully barred Cinema Mount from selling in the US. I can confirm that I can find them on Amazon but it says not available. So Beastgrip is pulling in its weight enforcing its patent.
Tuesday, August 02, 2016
Nikon D700 and D810
Again if you look for scientific analysis this is not the place. The below is a matter of opinion from an amateur shooter.
AF-C is important to me, I want fast accurate focus tracking. On paper the D810 seems or actually states that it is using the same AF as the D4, which I assume is superb. I don't own a D4 or D4s, but being a flagship or the last flagship camera, I can just assume it's superb, right?
My experience with the D810 is that, the AF is accurate but AF tracking is not so hot. In comparison, the D700 seems track better at least when I am using the D9 or dynamic 9 points at shutter priority. I tried the Group Focus in D810 and it isn't that hot either. The D700 files just look sharper, cleaner and more in focus in most of the time than the D810. It's not that I don't have any good files from the D810 but there is something about the D700 that I like. The files are smaller, the processing time is shorter, images look sharper from NEF to JPEG ...
Again further shooting is needed to re judge the camera.
I got the D700 in early 2015 and the D810 in early 2016. The same AF-S 70-200 VR is mounted.
AF-C is important to me, I want fast accurate focus tracking. On paper the D810 seems or actually states that it is using the same AF as the D4, which I assume is superb. I don't own a D4 or D4s, but being a flagship or the last flagship camera, I can just assume it's superb, right?
My experience with the D810 is that, the AF is accurate but AF tracking is not so hot. In comparison, the D700 seems track better at least when I am using the D9 or dynamic 9 points at shutter priority. I tried the Group Focus in D810 and it isn't that hot either. The D700 files just look sharper, cleaner and more in focus in most of the time than the D810. It's not that I don't have any good files from the D810 but there is something about the D700 that I like. The files are smaller, the processing time is shorter, images look sharper from NEF to JPEG ...
Again further shooting is needed to re judge the camera.
I got the D700 in early 2015 and the D810 in early 2016. The same AF-S 70-200 VR is mounted.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
iPhone videography . . .
I found it quite strange and unusual that I could not find anywhere a comparison between the Cinema Mount and the Beastgrip Pro mount for mobile phones. I just couldn't find any comparison between the two.
The moondog labs seem to be the only company that manufactures an anamorphic lens or adapter for the iPhone. Yet I couldn't find a review or in depth review of the quality of the lens. Most would say it's a good lens but how about corner sharpness, close focusing, color fringing and the like? There seems to be quite a number of versions now, mainly for different models of iPhones, for different cases, or grips. Or the 37mm thread version which should fit most of the 37mm mounting plate out there. However it defeats its somewhat universal mounting purpose when one actually has to buy a 37mm mounting plate for the BeastGrip Pro mount. That's a bit strange to me. Again I could not find any review on that. Or why it couldn't use the generic lens mounting plate that comes with the BeastGrip Pro other than my obvious guess, it doesn't fit or fit as well as the specially made mounting plate for the Moondog Labs anamorphic lens adapter.
On top of that, I also wonder how does a 37mm thread anamorphic lens align? For the clip on or lock on version I can understand. It's so machined that the horizontal is aligned properly. But if you were to screw on an adapter chances are you do have to fine tune the horizontal alignment separate from the screw mount.
I just wish Moondog Labs would do a better job explaining all these. They do a pretty decent job explaining the de-squeezing part though.
I personally own an Optex 1.33 anamorphic adapter. It's impossible to focus in most cases and the edges are all fuzzy. For the most part if you are into arty stuff or don't care about sharpness, it could be perfectly fine.
The moondog labs seem to be the only company that manufactures an anamorphic lens or adapter for the iPhone. Yet I couldn't find a review or in depth review of the quality of the lens. Most would say it's a good lens but how about corner sharpness, close focusing, color fringing and the like? There seems to be quite a number of versions now, mainly for different models of iPhones, for different cases, or grips. Or the 37mm thread version which should fit most of the 37mm mounting plate out there. However it defeats its somewhat universal mounting purpose when one actually has to buy a 37mm mounting plate for the BeastGrip Pro mount. That's a bit strange to me. Again I could not find any review on that. Or why it couldn't use the generic lens mounting plate that comes with the BeastGrip Pro other than my obvious guess, it doesn't fit or fit as well as the specially made mounting plate for the Moondog Labs anamorphic lens adapter.
On top of that, I also wonder how does a 37mm thread anamorphic lens align? For the clip on or lock on version I can understand. It's so machined that the horizontal is aligned properly. But if you were to screw on an adapter chances are you do have to fine tune the horizontal alignment separate from the screw mount.
I just wish Moondog Labs would do a better job explaining all these. They do a pretty decent job explaining the de-squeezing part though.
I personally own an Optex 1.33 anamorphic adapter. It's impossible to focus in most cases and the edges are all fuzzy. For the most part if you are into arty stuff or don't care about sharpness, it could be perfectly fine.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Untitled
Sign of being a failure
You taking the same intro course over and over again. As you simply couldn't finish what you started. It's like a bad dream or an infinite loop you can't wake up from or get out. You need a hard reset but you are hesitant to do it.
If you don't make the choice, somebody will make it for you. It probably doesn't make any difference. Or it probably does. But in the end everybody dies so it doesn't really matter.
You taking the same intro course over and over again. As you simply couldn't finish what you started. It's like a bad dream or an infinite loop you can't wake up from or get out. You need a hard reset but you are hesitant to do it.
If you don't make the choice, somebody will make it for you. It probably doesn't make any difference. Or it probably does. But in the end everybody dies so it doesn't really matter.
Untitled
There is some advantage of being such a failure.
You don't get to wake up in the middle of the night thinking that you are such a fraud. That never happened to me.
You don't get to wake up in the middle of the night thinking that you are such a fraud. That never happened to me.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
AF and MF
Minolta may not be the first manufacturer that does auto focus but that's the company I remember them of in the late 80s.
As an amateur I shot color negative and had them developed in 3R, or 3x2" prints. For the longest time, that's how I judged my pictures.
You asked your subjects to remain still before you pressed the shutter release button. Rarely, if at all, did I shoot any moving subjects because you and your subjects should remain stationary when taking pictures, that's just a given. Auto focus was not even germane to what or how I shot. A focusing screen with split, micro prism, and the ground glass is all I need. The choice is just whether is a horizontal or a 45 degree split. Actually it wasn't much of a choice. My first Ricoh came with a 45 degree split while Nikon came with a horizontal split focusing screen.
My first auto focus camera was the Nikon F5, a camera imported from the future, as proclaimed by their marketing folks. F5 was supposed to have the latest and greatest AF, at least that's what I was led to believe. But through out almost its entire life I never put it to the test; I was using my old manual focus lenses and years later when I shot with my first AF lens, the 24-85 f/2.8~4, it was never ever for any action photographs anyway.
In short, I have never shot any action using a manual focus lens.
I am sure it can be done. Maybe just not by me?
I guess what I am trying to write is for the sake of "money saving" does it make sense to buy a MF lens to shoot action?
I have been using my 80-200 f/2.8 and beginning last year the 70-200 f/2.8 VR for the majority of my action shots. I almost use AF-C and 9 points exclusively.
My longest lens is the MF 300mm f/4.5 which I used a handful of times and maybe once on the velodrome. I like the color rendition. I did have one shot that I quite like, not the kind of fast action shot. But definitely not stationary, it's in focus and has the emotion pull of the moment. The 300mm on a DX sensor seems longish but on a FX sensor well not that long. It's subjective but if I am going to get a tele photo lens, it's going to be at least 400mm.
As an amateur I shot color negative and had them developed in 3R, or 3x2" prints. For the longest time, that's how I judged my pictures.
You asked your subjects to remain still before you pressed the shutter release button. Rarely, if at all, did I shoot any moving subjects because you and your subjects should remain stationary when taking pictures, that's just a given. Auto focus was not even germane to what or how I shot. A focusing screen with split, micro prism, and the ground glass is all I need. The choice is just whether is a horizontal or a 45 degree split. Actually it wasn't much of a choice. My first Ricoh came with a 45 degree split while Nikon came with a horizontal split focusing screen.
My first auto focus camera was the Nikon F5, a camera imported from the future, as proclaimed by their marketing folks. F5 was supposed to have the latest and greatest AF, at least that's what I was led to believe. But through out almost its entire life I never put it to the test; I was using my old manual focus lenses and years later when I shot with my first AF lens, the 24-85 f/2.8~4, it was never ever for any action photographs anyway.
In short, I have never shot any action using a manual focus lens.
I am sure it can be done. Maybe just not by me?
I guess what I am trying to write is for the sake of "money saving" does it make sense to buy a MF lens to shoot action?
I have been using my 80-200 f/2.8 and beginning last year the 70-200 f/2.8 VR for the majority of my action shots. I almost use AF-C and 9 points exclusively.
My longest lens is the MF 300mm f/4.5 which I used a handful of times and maybe once on the velodrome. I like the color rendition. I did have one shot that I quite like, not the kind of fast action shot. But definitely not stationary, it's in focus and has the emotion pull of the moment. The 300mm on a DX sensor seems longish but on a FX sensor well not that long. It's subjective but if I am going to get a tele photo lens, it's going to be at least 400mm.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Ethics in Photojournalism
http://web.mit.edu/drb/Public/PhotoThesis/
Last year, I was at Red Hook. There was an accident. A rider crashed. I took a few pictures of it. A bystander said "Come on man!" to express his disapproval, I guess.
There were designated volunteers and EMS on scene for incidents like that.
Last year, I was at Red Hook. There was an accident. A rider crashed. I took a few pictures of it. A bystander said "Come on man!" to express his disapproval, I guess.
There were designated volunteers and EMS on scene for incidents like that.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
iMovie and File Format
I use iMovie because predictably it's "free" if you own or have access to a Mac. Arguably it's an easier to use video editing software and relatively stable. I used a bunch of Linux video editing software and they just crashed and burnt every few minutes.
Here is the biggest discovery ever for me.
I notice iMovie actually lags when editing, that's it stutters as I try to edit the footage or video clips. That prompted me to try out Final Cut Pro X and the problem went away, seemingly. After my FCPX expired after the one-month trial period, I was hard pressed to pay $300 to own a working copy. I mean if you make money out of it, it seems like a bargain. I am going to spare my thoughts on this.
After some Google searches, I think I found out why the stuttering. I think it has to do with the source file format.
In FCPX, I edit the MOV files directly from my Nikon D7000, as I can de-squeeze my anamorphic footage in FCPX without changing the file format first. I don't remember if I ever used HandBrake to un-squeeze and then edit in FCPX and if so did it show any lagging at all.
iMovie doesn't allow me to un-squeeze the footage while editing. So I used HandBrake to un-squeeze the footage to 2.35:1 and along the way I think I compressed the file quite a lot. And I think hence the difficulty of iMovie when editing. I am assuming iMovie has trouble editing "highly" ompressed mp4 files. The file was changed to mpeg4 in mp4.
I now de-squeeze files in H.264 (default mpeg4) in mp4 and retain a higher bit rate at 8000kb/s (default is 1000). When I edit them in iMovie, it doesn't lag anymore.
A word of caution: I really don't know for sure, just want to share my experience. When it becomes technical stuff which video editing is, I just test it out to see what works or works better without spending tons of money or time reading up.
Also, I use a Nikon hack to increase the recording bit rate at I think 65mbps in 1080p at 24fps. I am sure along the way when I use HandBrake to de-squeeze a lot of data are lost. Still when editing the stutter goes away.
Here is the biggest discovery ever for me.
I notice iMovie actually lags when editing, that's it stutters as I try to edit the footage or video clips. That prompted me to try out Final Cut Pro X and the problem went away, seemingly. After my FCPX expired after the one-month trial period, I was hard pressed to pay $300 to own a working copy. I mean if you make money out of it, it seems like a bargain. I am going to spare my thoughts on this.
After some Google searches, I think I found out why the stuttering. I think it has to do with the source file format.
In FCPX, I edit the MOV files directly from my Nikon D7000, as I can de-squeeze my anamorphic footage in FCPX without changing the file format first. I don't remember if I ever used HandBrake to un-squeeze and then edit in FCPX and if so did it show any lagging at all.
iMovie doesn't allow me to un-squeeze the footage while editing. So I used HandBrake to un-squeeze the footage to 2.35:1 and along the way I think I compressed the file quite a lot. And I think hence the difficulty of iMovie when editing. I am assuming iMovie has trouble editing "highly" ompressed mp4 files. The file was changed to mpeg4 in mp4.
I now de-squeeze files in H.264 (default mpeg4) in mp4 and retain a higher bit rate at 8000kb/s (default is 1000). When I edit them in iMovie, it doesn't lag anymore.
A word of caution: I really don't know for sure, just want to share my experience. When it becomes technical stuff which video editing is, I just test it out to see what works or works better without spending tons of money or time reading up.
Also, I use a Nikon hack to increase the recording bit rate at I think 65mbps in 1080p at 24fps. I am sure along the way when I use HandBrake to de-squeeze a lot of data are lost. Still when editing the stutter goes away.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Flash Sync, Again
The thing with flash sync is you know about it and sometimes you just have to ignore it.
I was shooting the velodrome again this past Sunday and I would just like to shoot some back light fill flash using my Nikkor 16-35 f/4 to mix things up a bit.
exif tells me the above were shot at f/9, 1/500 and f/8, 1/640. I probably used 1/8 of the power of the Sunpak 120J. The max sync of the D700 is at 1/250s but since the ambient was so bright there were no noticeable black half frame to speak of. The riders were riding fast and close, 1/640 can barely stop the action. The subject was about 10 feet away so the motion blur was not too obvious unless viewed at 100%. Maybe I have to shoot at 1/800 of a second? I routinely shoot at 1/1000 of a second just so I am sure I got clean shots.
I was shooting the velodrome again this past Sunday and I would just like to shoot some back light fill flash using my Nikkor 16-35 f/4 to mix things up a bit.
exif tells me the above were shot at f/9, 1/500 and f/8, 1/640. I probably used 1/8 of the power of the Sunpak 120J. The max sync of the D700 is at 1/250s but since the ambient was so bright there were no noticeable black half frame to speak of. The riders were riding fast and close, 1/640 can barely stop the action. The subject was about 10 feet away so the motion blur was not too obvious unless viewed at 100%. Maybe I have to shoot at 1/800 of a second? I routinely shoot at 1/1000 of a second just so I am sure I got clean shots.
Friday, April 01, 2016
Flash Sync
Just when I thought I have it down like long time ago, I got confused again, none other than from Nikon USA, or in this case Dave Black or the editor or both of them. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/article/huceaq1c/using-auto-fp-high-speed-sync-to-illuminate-fast-sports-action.html
My understanding (mind you, I always got things wrong) is Auto FP doesn't stop fast action. Auto FP provides pulses of light continuously for the duration of the shutter staying open. Essentially FP sync is like sunlight or continuous lighting.
Apparently Dave Black's article kind of implies or states that FP high speed sync stops action or has to do with shooting actions. I know it says illuminate fast sports action. FP high speed, in my mind, has to do with using a bigger aperture, the fact that it uses a high speed is just incidental and not an end as to stop action. Because it can't. Of course, Dave Black proves otherwise or so it seems.
So once again, I am confused.
Since I am pretty much a desktop photographer, I can't be or won't be testing what I read.
Here is another article on the topic, the guy is apparently a genius.
Monday, February 29, 2016
The Mermaid (2016)
I am surprised and delighted that The Mermaid is played in theaters in New York City. I have been a Chow's fan since I discovered his brand of comedy many years ago. Back then as there was only video tape and I wasn't especially well off or well connected so I only saw his works haphazardly. On the occasions I saw his movies or some snippets or episodes of his TV series, I thoroughly enjoyed them. Chow always plays this beloved underdog who despite or because of his non sensical non sequitur acts and his utter disregard to the absurd and seemingly insurmountable reality, always overcomes.
Then one day Chow appeared on the cover of the Sunday New York Times magazine. If I remember correctly it was a fashion issue. He was doing a mid air split or something next to a lamp post, a silly pose, I think. That should be around the time of Shaolin Soccer or Kung Fu Hustle, two of my favorites that kind of established him somewhat in the consciousness of Hollywood. More importantly and reassuringly, Chow proves that he can make great dramatic comedy with Hong Kong production in his rear view mirror with much of his comedic integrity intact though I can see that Chow is shedding most of his witty nonsensical Cantonese dialogues that define and catapult his career early on, in favor of more action and better production which translate better in cinema worldwide.
The Mermaid or Mei Ren Yu (2016) is a Chow's film without Chow in front of the camera. Things certainly won't be the same without Chow being front and center on everything. With Mei, Chow has crossed the line of being stupendously silly to being incoherently stupid. It used to be that the audience does the laughing, may that be something Chow or his crew says or does while he and his crew appear totally oblivious to the plight and absurdity of their situation. Mei is just the opposite, often times, the comedy is heavy-handed and the only persons laughing are the self-aware actors themselves, it feels so forced. I can see Chow tries to add production value so as to appear Hollywood or something (there is indeed a 3D version) but both the production and special effects just fall flat. Nobody goes to see a Chow's movie for its special effects or production value so what if they are sub-par compared to Hollywood's? It wouldn't matter one iota if the comedy holds up. Alas, this isn't the case.
Perhaps the opening scene in which a group of tourists visit a museum best encapsulates the entire movie as envisioned by the director and experienced by me--the tourists, surrogate for the audience, visit a so-called museum only to discover that the exhibits are mere props and scams so the unscrupulous curator can turn a dime on the gullible and the unsuspected. Chow's tourists laugh and jeer at the exhibits with gusto as while me in the real audience find the material hardly amusing.
I heard the movie is doing well in China and in Asia in general. So what do I know?
Then one day Chow appeared on the cover of the Sunday New York Times magazine. If I remember correctly it was a fashion issue. He was doing a mid air split or something next to a lamp post, a silly pose, I think. That should be around the time of Shaolin Soccer or Kung Fu Hustle, two of my favorites that kind of established him somewhat in the consciousness of Hollywood. More importantly and reassuringly, Chow proves that he can make great dramatic comedy with Hong Kong production in his rear view mirror with much of his comedic integrity intact though I can see that Chow is shedding most of his witty nonsensical Cantonese dialogues that define and catapult his career early on, in favor of more action and better production which translate better in cinema worldwide.
The Mermaid or Mei Ren Yu (2016) is a Chow's film without Chow in front of the camera. Things certainly won't be the same without Chow being front and center on everything. With Mei, Chow has crossed the line of being stupendously silly to being incoherently stupid. It used to be that the audience does the laughing, may that be something Chow or his crew says or does while he and his crew appear totally oblivious to the plight and absurdity of their situation. Mei is just the opposite, often times, the comedy is heavy-handed and the only persons laughing are the self-aware actors themselves, it feels so forced. I can see Chow tries to add production value so as to appear Hollywood or something (there is indeed a 3D version) but both the production and special effects just fall flat. Nobody goes to see a Chow's movie for its special effects or production value so what if they are sub-par compared to Hollywood's? It wouldn't matter one iota if the comedy holds up. Alas, this isn't the case.
Perhaps the opening scene in which a group of tourists visit a museum best encapsulates the entire movie as envisioned by the director and experienced by me--the tourists, surrogate for the audience, visit a so-called museum only to discover that the exhibits are mere props and scams so the unscrupulous curator can turn a dime on the gullible and the unsuspected. Chow's tourists laugh and jeer at the exhibits with gusto as while me in the real audience find the material hardly amusing.
I heard the movie is doing well in China and in Asia in general. So what do I know?
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Bellman CX-25P
I haven't mastered this gadget, maybe I never will. It's just a fun contraption to make some strong coffee. I've seen video on YouTube somewhat detailing what's the correct way to brew coffee out of this thingy but so far I am not able to replicate the result. Perhaps it's my desire to do it my own way or my pure death instinct or my disability to follow any instructions. The end result is the same. The coffee doesn't come out right, too dark too bitter, too much sputtering. For everyday coffee consumption I still use the no frill IKEA espresso pot which turns out to be very quick, very reliable despite the fact that the lid kind of falling apart from day one. The milk frothing wand on the Bellman is a newer design with two nozzles but I could never get the milk frothed right. On the other hand, again my IKEA battery frothing wand works pretty well as long as you got yourself a straight one. I have another one that's ever slightly bended and it simply doesn't work all that well at all.
Regarding after sales, this Bellman is manufactured in Taiwan, I guess based on some old Italian make some time ago. It's distributed by some Ng company in America. I once wrote to them about the little pressure gauge and they never bother to write me back. So I say lousy or questionable after sales service.
Cleaning is a bit involved with the Bellman as there are simply more parts to dissemble. And because of the gauge, the handle, the top, the frothing wand, all the protruding parts, it's a bit hard to put on any dish rack to let it hang or sit dry, plus even if you were to flip the body upside down you won't be able to drip the water down because the design of the top opening. But this doesn't bother me too much as I never ever bother to thoroughly clean the contraption, I just rinse it and all its parts with warm water. Sometimes I don't get why people tend to clean everything with detergent, I mean is it oily or greasy? No. Any oil is coffee oil so I wouldn't bother to scrub or clean it with detergent at all.
Time to revisit YouTube again.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Ruby on Rails
Problem installing Rails. Well what else is new? Right?
Thankfully, there is no new problem under the sun. At least not the kind of problems I encounter, definitely not the cutting edge type.
This website saves me.
http://www.ericluwj.com/2015/10/29/installing-ruby-on-rails-on-osx.html
The El Capitan section is what resolves my issue:- Rails is not installing because some libxml2 issues. My problem solving skill is pretty much cook book recipe approach. I don't know why it works but it works.
Thankfully, there is no new problem under the sun. At least not the kind of problems I encounter, definitely not the cutting edge type.
This website saves me.
http://www.ericluwj.com/2015/10/29/installing-ruby-on-rails-on-osx.html
gem install nokogiri -- --with-xml2-include=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.11.sdk/usr/include/libxml2 --use-system-libraries
The El Capitan section is what resolves my issue:- Rails is not installing because some libxml2 issues. My problem solving skill is pretty much cook book recipe approach. I don't know why it works but it works.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Sunday, February 14, 2016
The Return of the Bomber Jacket
Sometimes, things just happen. Like the "return" of the bomber jacket. I think this can count as the most ubiquitous item of this season. (The jacket has never ever left us, it's just that it has become a fad by the fashionistas since I don't know when).
I discovered the bomber jacket when I was in college. I remember seeing plenty of them in Canal Jeans in downtown Manhattan. The jacket is always reasonably priced in the mid $40s. Not many people can afford the fur lined Gucci slippers to be on trend but a $45 jacket, you bet.
You can't go out without seeing a bomber jacket these days. People tend to wear it oversized instead of fitted.
This is more of a bomber parka than a jacket.
I discovered the bomber jacket when I was in college. I remember seeing plenty of them in Canal Jeans in downtown Manhattan. The jacket is always reasonably priced in the mid $40s. Not many people can afford the fur lined Gucci slippers to be on trend but a $45 jacket, you bet.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Macports, ImageMagick, GIMP
None of them is working. So I am screwed. The problem or my problem is I don't know half of what I am doing so it's extremely hard to fix any problems should they arise and arise they always do. I have a feeling that because of the Xcodes update, something is broken. It's going to be tough to fix them, at least for me.
In case there are some wizards out there, please let me know.
UPDATE:
I first discovered this problem when I tried to use Imagemagick to run watermark on my pictures. Alas, it didn't work, so I thought it was the PATH variable. And I guess it was. Then I found out GIMP wasn't working. Then I thought maybe it's the macports that wasn't working.
Finally, it was the macports. And once I fixed the macports, everything works again, so far. I don't know why but it's true the PATH was screwed up.
Anyway, once I put back the PATH both ImageMagick and GIMP start working again.
UPDATE:
I probably changed the ~/.bash_profile inadvertently. So I need to add and save this line back to the file so it sticks.
back to business.
In case there are some wizards out there, please let me know.
UPDATE:
I first discovered this problem when I tried to use Imagemagick to run watermark on my pictures. Alas, it didn't work, so I thought it was the PATH variable. And I guess it was. Then I found out GIMP wasn't working. Then I thought maybe it's the macports that wasn't working.
Finally, it was the macports. And once I fixed the macports, everything works again, so far. I don't know why but it's true the PATH was screwed up.
Anyway, once I put back the PATH both ImageMagick and GIMP start working again.
export PATH=/opt/local/bin:/opt/local/sbin:$PATH
UPDATE:
I probably changed the ~/.bash_profile inadvertently. So I need to add and save this line back to the file so it sticks.
back to business.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Big Camera
I should have written it last year. Or maybe I have already? Last year was actually worse with stronger wind and all.
When I am shooting in the cold, finger numbing, frost biting cold, close to 0 F cold. I want to have a big freaking camera with big freaking controls.
Last year I thought I was going to lose my fingers when I was out shooting in the cold for hours.
Today I put on two layers of gloves. And I wish my D700 was bigger. I can barely feel my shutter release button.
Today I had a change of shooting MO, instead of going for my 80-200 or 70-200, I opted for the 16-35, went wide and wild. It definitely is different. I want to travel light so I brought the SB-600 instead of the relatively massive Sunpak 120J and power pack. Of course everything is a trade-off. With the powerpack, the Sunpak can shoot fast without any major lag in recycle time especially all I need is 1/8 of the power. Not so with the SB-600. The battery powered SB-600 can't quite keep up with the continuous shooting. To be fair I don't think the Sunpak can either if it's powered by AA batteries. I am glad I brought my Nikkor 16-35 f/4 instead of the 20-35 f/2.8 as the aperture blades of the latter would most likely to stick given the Antarctica like temperature.
When I am shooting in the cold, finger numbing, frost biting cold, close to 0 F cold. I want to have a big freaking camera with big freaking controls.
Last year I thought I was going to lose my fingers when I was out shooting in the cold for hours.
Today I put on two layers of gloves. And I wish my D700 was bigger. I can barely feel my shutter release button.
Today I had a change of shooting MO, instead of going for my 80-200 or 70-200, I opted for the 16-35, went wide and wild. It definitely is different. I want to travel light so I brought the SB-600 instead of the relatively massive Sunpak 120J and power pack. Of course everything is a trade-off. With the powerpack, the Sunpak can shoot fast without any major lag in recycle time especially all I need is 1/8 of the power. Not so with the SB-600. The battery powered SB-600 can't quite keep up with the continuous shooting. To be fair I don't think the Sunpak can either if it's powered by AA batteries. I am glad I brought my Nikkor 16-35 f/4 instead of the 20-35 f/2.8 as the aperture blades of the latter would most likely to stick given the Antarctica like temperature.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Highlight of the Day
I got off work a bit later than usual.
When I got on the subway platform, I think I saw Alexa Chung in her golden slip-ons walking in my direction. I don't know how I think I know it's her. But I am pretty sure it was her. I don't get to see fancy slip-ons like that every day. The loafers practically light up the whole dreary subway platform and the subway car. It was a week or so after the blizzard and the streets are pretty slushy but her shoes look practically new unmolested by the black snow, urban gravy or the likes.
I was too much of a chicken or got too much misplaced pride or too much self control to say Hello.
Then the other day I bumped into the quite possibly the most prodigious rock climber ever, Ashima Shirashi. She was very petite and quite easily disappeared in the car. I tried to look at her fingers and feet to see if they are extraordinary in any way. I guess they aren't or they are. I am no expert. She was accompanied by her dad. I read her profile on the New York Times quite some time ago and then now "all of a sudden" she is every where. The New Yorker did a profile on her just a month or so ago.
When I got on the subway platform, I think I saw Alexa Chung in her golden slip-ons walking in my direction. I don't know how I think I know it's her. But I am pretty sure it was her. I don't get to see fancy slip-ons like that every day. The loafers practically light up the whole dreary subway platform and the subway car. It was a week or so after the blizzard and the streets are pretty slushy but her shoes look practically new unmolested by the black snow, urban gravy or the likes.
I was too much of a chicken or got too much misplaced pride or too much self control to say Hello.
Then the other day I bumped into the quite possibly the most prodigious rock climber ever, Ashima Shirashi. She was very petite and quite easily disappeared in the car. I tried to look at her fingers and feet to see if they are extraordinary in any way. I guess they aren't or they are. I am no expert. She was accompanied by her dad. I read her profile on the New York Times quite some time ago and then now "all of a sudden" she is every where. The New Yorker did a profile on her just a month or so ago.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Airdrop and random thoughts
This is really a random update.
After some incremental updates on both the MBP OS X and iPhone iOS. I think I am on their latest. I find the once iffy Airdrop works remarkably well now. It simply drops and receives. And I am happy to report that.
My iPhone5s is always out of space. I hate to do housekeeping like that. I think my next iPhone will have the biggest capacity available, currently at 64GB. I will probably use it as for phoneography to realize my childhood dream of shooting moving images. Probably want to get a beast grip and the moondog anamorphic adapter. The Optex anamorphic adapter is too dreamy (read fuzzy and soft and out of focus) for some application. Maybe comes March or early April. I don't need another DSLR, do I?
After some incremental updates on both the MBP OS X and iPhone iOS. I think I am on their latest. I find the once iffy Airdrop works remarkably well now. It simply drops and receives. And I am happy to report that.
My iPhone5s is always out of space. I hate to do housekeeping like that. I think my next iPhone will have the biggest capacity available, currently at 64GB. I will probably use it as for phoneography to realize my childhood dream of shooting moving images. Probably want to get a beast grip and the moondog anamorphic adapter. The Optex anamorphic adapter is too dreamy (read fuzzy and soft and out of focus) for some application. Maybe comes March or early April. I don't need another DSLR, do I?
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Flash Bracket
I own a CB mini flash bracket, the original edition. It's reasonable good. It's handy and works pretty much flawlessly. I wish it comes with some anti-twisting mechanism but it is like an add-on which is as expensive as it's rare for a tiny piece of aluminum. I believe they have a newer version that has some integrated anti twist built-in.
I have some success mounting my biggie Sunpak 120J on it. Though the mini ball head that I bought with it isn't liking the stress and weight that much and it's losing its grip ...
I think for the quality of the light, a top mounted flash should be better but I am just happy the flash is mounted on the side. The bracket only allows flash mounted on the right of the camera with lens pointing out to subject; plus I use a motor drive for the D700 so mounting on the right is really the only right way. But I think there is a time when mounting on the left makes a little bit more sense photographically speaking, that's when the subject is moving from right to left.
Well maybe it doesn't make a huge difference if the scene is not too dark. Sunpak 120J hot wired synced with D700. No it didn't fire the camera at all.
I have some success mounting my biggie Sunpak 120J on it. Though the mini ball head that I bought with it isn't liking the stress and weight that much and it's losing its grip ...
I think for the quality of the light, a top mounted flash should be better but I am just happy the flash is mounted on the side. The bracket only allows flash mounted on the right of the camera with lens pointing out to subject; plus I use a motor drive for the D700 so mounting on the right is really the only right way. But I think there is a time when mounting on the left makes a little bit more sense photographically speaking, that's when the subject is moving from right to left.
Well maybe it doesn't make a huge difference if the scene is not too dark. Sunpak 120J hot wired synced with D700. No it didn't fire the camera at all.
Deer Park Trip 2016
Shot at 1080p with the Optex 1.33X anamorphic adapter. De-squeezed using HandBrakeCLI, Edited using iMovie.
The camera is the Nikon D7000 and the lens is the Nikkor 28mm f/2 AIS. I attached the Optex to the Nikkor via a 52-58 step up ring. The Nikkor has a 52mm filter thread while the Optex has a 58mm. The 28mm seems to be the "sharpest" when used with the Optex. Sharp is a relative term here. I don't think I will ever get a sharp image from the Optex. The minimum focusing distance is life at least 10 feet away. The Optex does not come with any front filter thread so to attach a diopter is not a straight forward thing.
If you think sharpness is grossly overrated and value a wider format then Optex anamorphic maybe just for you.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Video Mystery
Every few years or so I will circle back and try to understand video. Then I give up.
I still use my D7000 for video capture. It can shoot at 1080p at 24fps or 720p at 30fps. Now your experience maybe different from mine. If I were to shoot static scenes then I guess it doesn't make any difference. But if I were to shoot cycling on the velodrome, I find the footage has too much shudder or stutter. The stutter is subtle and has nothing to do the playing machine or software being not optimized or being inferior to play video full HD. I think the shudder has to do with the capture the way it's recorded in the D7000. I think at 1080p and 24fps the shudder is pretty insufferable for action shots. At 720p and 30fps, it seems like it's better, the motion is a bit smoother.
I set shutter at 1/50s for 24fps and 1/60s for 30fps.
Again this whole write up is not scientific or anything.
I think about bit rate and I read the D7000 captures at 20mbps and I guess it's not very good if you want to grade your video in post or when the scene is dark or when you are shooting moving subjects, that's the frame is quite different from each other.
Lucky me, D7000 can be hacked to increase the bit rate to some ~64mbps, I proceeded to downgrade the firmware to 1.03 and patch it from the Nikon hackers. The thing is I don't know what I lose by downgrading the firmware--probably lost the lens data from jpeg correction and I don't know what I gain on my video--other than the file would be bigger and I can't even play back the high bit rate video on the camera.
So I am able to shoot at 1080p at 24fps and at higher bit rate like 64mbps.
I am able to play the footage on my MBP but I don't think I see any noticeable improvement on how smooth the action become, like when a cyclist goes by. Perhaps there is some but I really can't tell for sure.
When the video is shot with the the Optex 1.33 anamorphic adapter, then I use Handbrake to de-squeeze it so it can play at 2554 x 1080. Then I notice when after the desqueeze the bit rate goes to 1 or 2 mbps no matter what my footage bit rate was. I read somewhat about it but I could not fully understand it, well that's expected. I think if the scenes or frames have a lot of changes then the bit rate would rise to capture the changes otherwise there is really no need to increase the bit rate. Again I don't see any significant degrading in the video in particular motion scenes.
Now the raw footage is desqueezed then I proceed to use iMovie to whip up some project and use share to create a new high quality video like with titles and sound track.
And surprise, even with the above 1 or 2 mbps footage the final video can have a bit rate more than that. So I am perplexed. I thought you can't have what you don't have to begin with. If the footage is only 1.2mbps how could the final video has a bit rate in the 10.
D7000 file.MOV at 1080p 24fps 64mbps -->Handbrake --> file.mp4 1080p 24fps 1.5mbps ---> iMovie file.mp4 1080p 24fps 10mbps
What I want is just smooth action video. Why so hard with D7000?
Again video is a major mystery to me.
I still use my D7000 for video capture. It can shoot at 1080p at 24fps or 720p at 30fps. Now your experience maybe different from mine. If I were to shoot static scenes then I guess it doesn't make any difference. But if I were to shoot cycling on the velodrome, I find the footage has too much shudder or stutter. The stutter is subtle and has nothing to do the playing machine or software being not optimized or being inferior to play video full HD. I think the shudder has to do with the capture the way it's recorded in the D7000. I think at 1080p and 24fps the shudder is pretty insufferable for action shots. At 720p and 30fps, it seems like it's better, the motion is a bit smoother.
I set shutter at 1/50s for 24fps and 1/60s for 30fps.
Again this whole write up is not scientific or anything.
I think about bit rate and I read the D7000 captures at 20mbps and I guess it's not very good if you want to grade your video in post or when the scene is dark or when you are shooting moving subjects, that's the frame is quite different from each other.
Lucky me, D7000 can be hacked to increase the bit rate to some ~64mbps, I proceeded to downgrade the firmware to 1.03 and patch it from the Nikon hackers. The thing is I don't know what I lose by downgrading the firmware--probably lost the lens data from jpeg correction and I don't know what I gain on my video--other than the file would be bigger and I can't even play back the high bit rate video on the camera.
So I am able to shoot at 1080p at 24fps and at higher bit rate like 64mbps.
I am able to play the footage on my MBP but I don't think I see any noticeable improvement on how smooth the action become, like when a cyclist goes by. Perhaps there is some but I really can't tell for sure.
When the video is shot with the the Optex 1.33 anamorphic adapter, then I use Handbrake to de-squeeze it so it can play at 2554 x 1080. Then I notice when after the desqueeze the bit rate goes to 1 or 2 mbps no matter what my footage bit rate was. I read somewhat about it but I could not fully understand it, well that's expected. I think if the scenes or frames have a lot of changes then the bit rate would rise to capture the changes otherwise there is really no need to increase the bit rate. Again I don't see any significant degrading in the video in particular motion scenes.
Now the raw footage is desqueezed then I proceed to use iMovie to whip up some project and use share to create a new high quality video like with titles and sound track.
And surprise, even with the above 1 or 2 mbps footage the final video can have a bit rate more than that. So I am perplexed. I thought you can't have what you don't have to begin with. If the footage is only 1.2mbps how could the final video has a bit rate in the 10.
D7000 file.MOV at 1080p 24fps 64mbps -->Handbrake --> file.mp4 1080p 24fps 1.5mbps ---> iMovie file.mp4 1080p 24fps 10mbps
What I want is just smooth action video. Why so hard with D7000?
Again video is a major mystery to me.
Monday, December 28, 2015
The Hateful Eight 70mm, Star Wars: The Force Awakens
The big news about The Hateful Eight is of course it was shot on 65mm film stock and transferred to 70mm print for projection. Just like The Sound of Music or the good old days. I believe the film was shot anamorphic meaning the image is actually squeezed vertically, and later un-squeezed (on to the 70mm print or during projection?) to make it even wider at 2.76:1 instead of the usual cinematic 2:39:1.
I went to see it in a movie theater by the Lincoln Square in Manhattan, which I think is one of the best. It also houses one of the best IMAX theaters in the nation, or so I experience, or read and led to believe.
The few things I notice is the film is really film and by that I mean it evokes my early memories of seeing film with warts and all. One thing I notice is that it isn't as wide or big as I thought it would be. It is supposed to be wider than what's out there but I don't feel it that way. The movie screen doesn't seem that gigantic or wide to begin with. The flicker is pretty obvious right in the Overture before the start of the actual movie; and when the audio is off or low I can hear the sound of the projection which I think is something buried deep in my childhood memory and suddenly resurrected. The outdoor blizzard scenes don't seem as sharp as it should be or I want it to be perhaps it's the nature of the medium or the scenes or a combination of them. But the indoor shots seem sharp or sharp enough just not digitally sharp. It has a rich quality to it. The audio is great and I never notice any out of sync with the picture even though I tried hard to look at the lips too see if the dialogues are out of sync or not, and they aren't. The film actually comes with intermission which I don't recall I ever experienced except for double features I saw eons ago.
So what is old is new again. Film seems to be the next frontier, to be discovered, tamed and enjoyed once again.
By the way, the film is typical Tarantino, that's just another way of saying it got plenty of dialogues and gores, actually not so much for the latter by my standard. Do I like it? I like it all right but off the top of my head I am still more blown away by Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill--I saw Reservoir Dog on VHS too long ago to remember anything.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Thank goodness I only paid 6.75 for the ticket. The movie is all right, very typical J.J.Abrams, very mediocre.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Year 2015
Books I actually finished reading, not in any particular order
* Dream of the Red Chamber, Cao Xueqin
The more things change, the more things stay the same. Why not read a classic? A Chinese classic. I bought this 2-book edition way back when I visited Taiwan many years ago. Then it took me still another few years to actually begin to read it from beginning to end. This epic of a novel is credited to Cao Xueqin, a Qing aristocrat who wrote it in the 18th century and is believed to be largely semi autobiographical with characters and events heavily drawn from his own family's decline. This edition comprises the usual 120 chapters. By some account, the last 40 chapters were written, allegedly by, someone other than Cao. Or some argue they were compiled and edited from lost and found Cao's manuscripts. I will leave the detective work to the Redologists to figure that out. This is an encyclopedia of sort of all things Chinese. You can find nuanced accounts on anything from feast to funeral, occult to opera, and everything in between. Not to mention the rich tapestry of characters, the achingly beautiful, the comically vulgar. the perennial scheming, and the incorrigibly licentious. Despite my shortcoming of the language, history and everything in general, I find the novel not as difficult as I imagined, at least on the surface. The writing, maybe except the poetry, is not too difficult to understand even for someone like myself. The premise of the story is laughably ridiculous and oddly fascinating as once upon a time there is a stone who got left out and left behind from mending the sky. The stone turns to some demigod and saves a withering plant in heaven by watering it. The plant survives, prospers and takes the form of a female body. To return the benevolent act of watering, the plant vows to pay back the stone with all her tears when they reincarnate as humans on earth. And reincarnate they do, and hence the beginning of the story of the stone. It's redundant and utterly under qualified--that's a truism and of itself being redundant, on my part to heap praise on the novel that is considered one of the the four best classics ever written yet it doesn't stop me from saying this: I found the novel emotionally engaging, utterly fascinating and ultimately a joy to read.
* Native Speaker, Chang-Rae Lee
*World War Z, Max Brooks
* Little Failure: A Memoir, Gary Shteyngart
The more things change, the more things stay the same. Why not read a classic? A Chinese classic. I bought this 2-book edition way back when I visited Taiwan many years ago. Then it took me still another few years to actually begin to read it from beginning to end. This epic of a novel is credited to Cao Xueqin, a Qing aristocrat who wrote it in the 18th century and is believed to be largely semi autobiographical with characters and events heavily drawn from his own family's decline. This edition comprises the usual 120 chapters. By some account, the last 40 chapters were written, allegedly by, someone other than Cao. Or some argue they were compiled and edited from lost and found Cao's manuscripts. I will leave the detective work to the Redologists to figure that out. This is an encyclopedia of sort of all things Chinese. You can find nuanced accounts on anything from feast to funeral, occult to opera, and everything in between. Not to mention the rich tapestry of characters, the achingly beautiful, the comically vulgar. the perennial scheming, and the incorrigibly licentious. Despite my shortcoming of the language, history and everything in general, I find the novel not as difficult as I imagined, at least on the surface. The writing, maybe except the poetry, is not too difficult to understand even for someone like myself. The premise of the story is laughably ridiculous and oddly fascinating as once upon a time there is a stone who got left out and left behind from mending the sky. The stone turns to some demigod and saves a withering plant in heaven by watering it. The plant survives, prospers and takes the form of a female body. To return the benevolent act of watering, the plant vows to pay back the stone with all her tears when they reincarnate as humans on earth. And reincarnate they do, and hence the beginning of the story of the stone. It's redundant and utterly under qualified--that's a truism and of itself being redundant, on my part to heap praise on the novel that is considered one of the the four best classics ever written yet it doesn't stop me from saying this: I found the novel emotionally engaging, utterly fascinating and ultimately a joy to read.
* Native Speaker, Chang-Rae Lee
*World War Z, Max Brooks
* Little Failure: A Memoir, Gary Shteyngart
Monday, November 23, 2015
Supercross Cup 2015
I was hoping that it would rain and got nasty. Alas, that didn't happen. It was more like diffused sunlight. No hard shadow. It was actually quite ideal for photo taking especially if you are into soft skin tone and all. But it could also mean flat and lack of contrast lighting. It becomes a challenge when I want to shoot at 1/2000s and maintain an ISO of 800 or so as light fades in mid afternoon and under the shade.
My technique, I do have some, is
(1) to shoot high shutter speed at 1/1000 or above. Aperture f/2.8. Try to maintain low ISO.
(2) to shoot low shutter speed at 1/125 or slower and pan, Aperture can be as small as the camera thinks it should be. Lowest ISO possible.
(3) to shoot with a flash, rear sync, pan at 1/125s and f/8. I use my Sunpak 120J at 1/8 of manual power, ISO 400. Add or remove power for taste via settings, just like cooking.
My D7000 and Speedlight were basically destroyed by last year's cross because of water damage. I paid a hefty fee for Nikon to fix them.
The D7000 is more responsive to the D700. The shutter is definitely faster. But, there is always a but, the D7000 seems to have a smaller buffer so it's fast but after a burst of some shots, say four, I can't shoot any more as the camera struggles to clear the buffer for the next shot. The D700 is a bit slower and I haven't experienced similar episode with the D700 yet. I like the D700 tone and color better. The D7000 feels a bit flat. The D7000 probably can use some post processing. But.
The pictures could be found across the usual social media. I don't want to subject my readers to further eyesores.
....
Both of my D7000 and D700 are capable cameras, and they can shoot reasonably high frame rate, around 5 I think. I shot 1960 frames between 10:30 to 3:30. Imagine if I have a D4s, I can't imagine how many frames I have to go through when editing. It's just a nightmare. The D700 and the D7000 files are all that big even when shooting raw NEF files. The new Nikon prosumer models are now 24MB to 36MB, more pixels more storage and I guess more processing power.
My technique, I do have some, is
(1) to shoot high shutter speed at 1/1000 or above. Aperture f/2.8. Try to maintain low ISO.
(2) to shoot low shutter speed at 1/125 or slower and pan, Aperture can be as small as the camera thinks it should be. Lowest ISO possible.
(3) to shoot with a flash, rear sync, pan at 1/125s and f/8. I use my Sunpak 120J at 1/8 of manual power, ISO 400. Add or remove power for taste via settings, just like cooking.
My D7000 and Speedlight were basically destroyed by last year's cross because of water damage. I paid a hefty fee for Nikon to fix them.
The D7000 is more responsive to the D700. The shutter is definitely faster. But, there is always a but, the D7000 seems to have a smaller buffer so it's fast but after a burst of some shots, say four, I can't shoot any more as the camera struggles to clear the buffer for the next shot. The D700 is a bit slower and I haven't experienced similar episode with the D700 yet. I like the D700 tone and color better. The D7000 feels a bit flat. The D7000 probably can use some post processing. But.
The pictures could be found across the usual social media. I don't want to subject my readers to further eyesores.
....
Both of my D7000 and D700 are capable cameras, and they can shoot reasonably high frame rate, around 5 I think. I shot 1960 frames between 10:30 to 3:30. Imagine if I have a D4s, I can't imagine how many frames I have to go through when editing. It's just a nightmare. The D700 and the D7000 files are all that big even when shooting raw NEF files. The new Nikon prosumer models are now 24MB to 36MB, more pixels more storage and I guess more processing power.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
PSAM
Everybody takes photographs in his own way. There is really no right or wrong ways. Of course, I am just lying.
For most of my cycling shots, I prefer to shoot at 1/1000s or higher; if I can shoot at 1/2000s or 1/3000s, that's even merrier unless of course when I want to pan my shots then a 1/125s would be acceptable or even desirable.
Most of my shots are done with my 80-200 or 70-200 lens. In terms of f-stop I have no problem using f/2.8 so I can have higher shutter speed and shallow depth of field, not necessarily bokeh for bokeh's sake but to isolate the subject.
I used to shoot almost exclusively in aperture priority(A or Av, not adult video) whether action or non action. Now I shoot a mix of shutter priority(S or Tv, not television), aperture priority(A) and manual exposure(M). For the life of me, I could not figure out why someone shoots in program mode all the time. Unless of course you don't care much about shutter speed or aperture or ISO or their combination. There are situations when shooting program is kind of acceptable I guess. Shots you don't care, like shots of family members or friends. Or shots that shutter speed or aperture or depth of field don't matter. Or when I shoot fill flash. Anyway. Seriously, I can't fathom myself shooting in program mode most of the time. I can't give up controlling at least one parameter. I control the aperture and let the camera control the shutter. I control the shutter and I let the camera control the aperture. I can't let the camera control every possible parameter even with some idea of where those parameters would be. Shooting manual gives the most consistent result and sometimes it's really the preferred way assuming the lighting doesn't change the duration you use the same setting from shot to shot.
Of course, it's your camera, your pictures, you shoot however way you desire.
For most of my cycling shots, I prefer to shoot at 1/1000s or higher; if I can shoot at 1/2000s or 1/3000s, that's even merrier unless of course when I want to pan my shots then a 1/125s would be acceptable or even desirable.
Most of my shots are done with my 80-200 or 70-200 lens. In terms of f-stop I have no problem using f/2.8 so I can have higher shutter speed and shallow depth of field, not necessarily bokeh for bokeh's sake but to isolate the subject.
I used to shoot almost exclusively in aperture priority(A or Av, not adult video) whether action or non action. Now I shoot a mix of shutter priority(S or Tv, not television), aperture priority(A) and manual exposure(M). For the life of me, I could not figure out why someone shoots in program mode all the time. Unless of course you don't care much about shutter speed or aperture or ISO or their combination. There are situations when shooting program is kind of acceptable I guess. Shots you don't care, like shots of family members or friends. Or shots that shutter speed or aperture or depth of field don't matter. Or when I shoot fill flash. Anyway. Seriously, I can't fathom myself shooting in program mode most of the time. I can't give up controlling at least one parameter. I control the aperture and let the camera control the shutter. I control the shutter and I let the camera control the aperture. I can't let the camera control every possible parameter even with some idea of where those parameters would be. Shooting manual gives the most consistent result and sometimes it's really the preferred way assuming the lighting doesn't change the duration you use the same setting from shot to shot.
Of course, it's your camera, your pictures, you shoot however way you desire.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Hai-Tien Chorus Live at the Flushing Public Library on Main Street
This was shot with my D7000 at 24fps 1/50 and f/3.5. I suppose I should have or could have shot it at f/4. I thought people in general like their video bright. I put the camera on my trusty tripod and ball head. Not the best for video but hey what's the best anyway?
For stills, I use the D700. I brought my two Sunpak 120J with two light stands and radio transmitter and receivers--I tend to overdo things. In the end, I just used one 120J for a handful of shots in the end, powered by the power pack. It was a minor struggle as I had to juggle with the camera and flash settings. I guess one always has to struggle when shooting events and there is little time for preparation or prior experience.
The video is just straight out of the camera. The 20 minutes recording time is not too bad, it's an inconvenience but not a show stopper. Again, I accept that and work around it. I don't have one single song that lasts long than that hard limit. Even I didn't know the program details prior but it wasn't too bad.
The 20-35 is wide so I have no problem taking in the whole stage. On the other hand, the 70-200 is too long especially on a DX body for this purpose. The 70-200 was with my D700 for stills. I did use the 16-35 for the group shot in the end and some super wide shots close the stage shots. The only drawback of shooting the 20-35 is that there is no way I can zoom close to the performers if I want to. The 24-70 would help. Perhaps it's an advantage not to zoom so there is no distraction. You just put a camera in front of the even and let it unfold, my kind of video taking or story telling.
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Shotwell on Ubuntu 15.10
Something never changes.
Shotwell is still excruciatingly slow in importing photos. May as well give up being some sort of photo manager.
As bad as Nikon's software is, the Nikon import is lightning fast.
Shotwell is still excruciatingly slow in importing photos. May as well give up being some sort of photo manager.
As bad as Nikon's software is, the Nikon import is lightning fast.
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Ubuntu 15.10
Somehow I never learned.
I had the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS running for a few months, with warts and all, like the most dreaded random reboots. So again I forgot or ignored the pain I ran through and decided to upgrade to 15.10. There isn't any direct upgrade path from 14.04 to 15.10 so I had to upgrade to 15.04 first. And in the process something somehow wasn't done right, I got problems with stability and dependency and something was not installed in the course of the upgrade. So in the end, the computer won't restart properly or booting into Linux.
Learning, surprise, from my last experience, I figured it's more time effective just to re-install or install the OS from an USB thumb drive than trouble shooting it forever. So I downloaded the ISO image of 15.10 and made it into a bootable thumbdrive.
I was able to reboot into 15.10. I thought I had an absolute clean install but I guess not. I kept my partition as it was and thought I installed 15.10 over whatever I had. When installing 15.10 it did say I had 15.04 which I guess was actually "installed." I guess I had absolutely no luck with 15.04.
I experienced one random reboot after 15.10 in the few hours that I was using it. I almost think it's a hardware issue now. So it is pretty hopeless.
I had the Ubuntu 14.04 LTS running for a few months, with warts and all, like the most dreaded random reboots. So again I forgot or ignored the pain I ran through and decided to upgrade to 15.10. There isn't any direct upgrade path from 14.04 to 15.10 so I had to upgrade to 15.04 first. And in the process something somehow wasn't done right, I got problems with stability and dependency and something was not installed in the course of the upgrade. So in the end, the computer won't restart properly or booting into Linux.
Learning, surprise, from my last experience, I figured it's more time effective just to re-install or install the OS from an USB thumb drive than trouble shooting it forever. So I downloaded the ISO image of 15.10 and made it into a bootable thumbdrive.
I was able to reboot into 15.10. I thought I had an absolute clean install but I guess not. I kept my partition as it was and thought I installed 15.10 over whatever I had. When installing 15.10 it did say I had 15.04 which I guess was actually "installed." I guess I had absolutely no luck with 15.04.
I experienced one random reboot after 15.10 in the few hours that I was using it. I almost think it's a hardware issue now. So it is pretty hopeless.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
PDN PhotoPlus Expo 2015 Write-up
I don't remember since when the name became what it is today. I think it used to be shorter.
I wonder what would happen if one day Nikon or Canon decide not to be part of the expo. They are the tent poles of the event. Sony actually might be just having as big a presence as Nikon or Canon, especially in the last two years. Fuji sticks around. And I don't think Kodak bothers to show up anymore. Leica got a respectable show booth and gets a bit bigger every year. It is somewhat comparable to their brand allure. I am surprised to find Hasselblad but their presence seems a disservice to the brand. But it is what it is.
Nikon basically provides the most generous display of merchandize for users to play with.
I hand tested or played with the new 24-70 as well as the 200-500. The 200-500 is slightly outside my comfort zone. And I wonder how useful it would be for me practically speaking--I am not practical so it doesn't bother me even it's totally impractical. The thing is big but not too unwieldy to hand hold. And actually with VR, I think you can acquire pretty sharp images all and all even at 500mm. The price tag in relation to all things Nikkor is practically free--I know it sounds obscene but if you look at the pro lens price tag, they are sure around $2500. The 24-70 is a 24-70 and I am not particularly turned on by it. I guess everybody shoots differently. My lens combination has always been the 20-35 and 80-200 or 16-35 and 70-200 or some variations of them since last year. I find them most useful for my liking. Most of the time I carry one camera and if I feel a bit insecure then I carry two. I don't know how the 200-500 would fit into my shooting MO. If the lighting condition is sub optimal you may need a better camera body that can give you better ISO performance than what I have now. Talking about camera, I am again impressed with the D4s. I shot mostly between the D4s and the D810 at the expo. And I have to say I like the image on the D4s' LCD screen better. It is by no means scientific or objective at all as I hardly go through the settings of each camera. The exposure and the color seem better on the D4s: no blown highlight and color is vivid and saturated, again on the LCD. Silly as it sounds I am really sold on the D4s. I read somewhere the sensor on the D810 is actually better, so what do I know? My next camera upgrade hopefully is a D4s or a D810. Maybe my next single digit D camera is the D5 or D5s so it dovetails with my Nikon F5 from the film day. I can keep dreaming, eh? Camera choice for me is really a personal choice, it goes beyond specification and rationality.
I probably regret not having my D700 sensor cleaned at $40. Oh well. Just don't shoot at f/16.
I wonder what would happen if one day Nikon or Canon decide not to be part of the expo. They are the tent poles of the event. Sony actually might be just having as big a presence as Nikon or Canon, especially in the last two years. Fuji sticks around. And I don't think Kodak bothers to show up anymore. Leica got a respectable show booth and gets a bit bigger every year. It is somewhat comparable to their brand allure. I am surprised to find Hasselblad but their presence seems a disservice to the brand. But it is what it is.
Nikon basically provides the most generous display of merchandize for users to play with.
I hand tested or played with the new 24-70 as well as the 200-500. The 200-500 is slightly outside my comfort zone. And I wonder how useful it would be for me practically speaking--I am not practical so it doesn't bother me even it's totally impractical. The thing is big but not too unwieldy to hand hold. And actually with VR, I think you can acquire pretty sharp images all and all even at 500mm. The price tag in relation to all things Nikkor is practically free--I know it sounds obscene but if you look at the pro lens price tag, they are sure around $2500. The 24-70 is a 24-70 and I am not particularly turned on by it. I guess everybody shoots differently. My lens combination has always been the 20-35 and 80-200 or 16-35 and 70-200 or some variations of them since last year. I find them most useful for my liking. Most of the time I carry one camera and if I feel a bit insecure then I carry two. I don't know how the 200-500 would fit into my shooting MO. If the lighting condition is sub optimal you may need a better camera body that can give you better ISO performance than what I have now. Talking about camera, I am again impressed with the D4s. I shot mostly between the D4s and the D810 at the expo. And I have to say I like the image on the D4s' LCD screen better. It is by no means scientific or objective at all as I hardly go through the settings of each camera. The exposure and the color seem better on the D4s: no blown highlight and color is vivid and saturated, again on the LCD. Silly as it sounds I am really sold on the D4s. I read somewhere the sensor on the D810 is actually better, so what do I know? My next camera upgrade hopefully is a D4s or a D810. Maybe my next single digit D camera is the D5 or D5s so it dovetails with my Nikon F5 from the film day. I can keep dreaming, eh? Camera choice for me is really a personal choice, it goes beyond specification and rationality.
I probably regret not having my D700 sensor cleaned at $40. Oh well. Just don't shoot at f/16.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Viewfinders and other ramblings.
I am old and old school. I always prefer an optical view finder. And honestly I think some of it are just being old habit dies hard. I grew up with optical view finder. LCD live view in the back of a camera is good but only if on a tripod with enough time to fine tune, zoom in and adjust given that I am farsighted now it's just hard for me to see or read up close. So maybe an EVF isn't such a bad idea after all. Except maybe the battery as a whole sucks compared to most of my optical view finder cameras which can keep going and going like more than a 1,000 frames with chimping in between shots. Part of the full frame allure is in addition to having more sensor real estate and hence likely better quality the viewfinder is just better than those from a DX camera, again, all things being equal. I also find it oddly liberating and inherently cool to use an add-on optical viewfinder on a hot or cold shoe. Sometimes it's a leap of faith in composition and focusing but it certainly is fun to use, you just have to free your mind and ignore the fact that you're going to waste a lot of frames or worse film. I have one of those for my Canon P rangefinder and it certainly was fun to use. I don't remember the last time I used it, probably five years ago or so. And the camera still worked flawlessly even not in the best of conditions--I certainly am too cheap to give it any TLA or CLA after I plucked it from eBay. I was and am still surprised how the camera holds up all these years. The last time I shot with it I actually developed the negative hands-on myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The picture doesn't do justice to what's going on out there. I shall declare a snow emergency now. Everybody goes home. UPDATE:...
