|
Dread Head posted:Sony manufactures the Nikon sensors but they are designed by Nikon. Nope, they are pretty much the same sensors, designed and fabricated by Sony. The D700/D3/D3s sensor is fabbed by Samsung, though. What's different about Nikon is their ADCs (if not using on-chip) and the options used such as CFAs or low pass filters. These are well later in the pipeline than the actual sensor. Since Sony Semiconductor is one of the world's largest semiconductor manufacturers, they tend to work with their customers (which consist of Nikon, Pentax, Canon, and yes Sony's own digital camera division) to tweak what they do for what a customer wants. Ultimately the design and R&D comes down to the semiconductor manufacturer and the compromises they make in production. Ultimately, the Nikon/Sony relationship will probably continue for the time being as currently Sony is the only fab that can stand toe-to-toe with Canon. Nikon tried semiconductors once already and crashed and burned. While Not Invented here is big in Japanese circles, these types of risk sharing businesses are not unusual. Look to their participation in aerospace and automotive engineering to see similar shenanigans. quote:I cannot wait till Sony´s back illuminated sensors make it into DSLRs. They have so much more R&D money than Nikon/canon it's not even funny. Back-illuminated technology only gives gains on very, very dense sensors (e.g. small pocket camera sensors). The marginal gains on a larger sensor with bigger photosites is much less pronounced.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Even if this is true (like evil_bunny I want to see a source on this), so were gapless microlenses, 12 bit < 14 bit < 16 bit, etc. Every one of these improvements gives us a leg up, and for people like me that upgrade bodies on a 5+ year timeline, that amounts to quite a significant upgrade when you finally do bump. The word is from Sony's mouths. The main reason is because on the smaller sensor the electronics take up proportionally more space on the smaller sensors relative to the photosites than the larger ones. The idea of back-illuminated CMOS is to get the electronics behind the photosites to allow more light through. This brings massive gains on the small sensors where SNR is already impacted due to density. However, on bigger pixels, the support electronics take up a lot less space compared to the photosites and you're already getting the most light in there. The gains would be marginal or perhaps even nonexistent. The law of diminishing returns be a cruel mistress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
For all intents and purposes, PPI/DPI are the same thing in raster image programs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Anybody else going to/at photo plus expo? My coworker picked up our press bags and I'm excited to know what's in it, but I cant make it there until Friday night. I cant wait to play with all the expensive equipment I can never afford to own I'll be there on Saturday,.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Samsung to 'out-sell' Canon and Nikon by 2015 It's easy to outsell Canon and Nikon in the mirrorless market when they haven't even entered it yet. They need to worry about beating Sony or Panasonic first.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2010 13:54
|
|
|
spf3million posted:http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches This one is also illuminating. http://www.kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:^^^ Photographer's Handbook spotted. Hedgecoe's a real smart guy, though. A lot of the concepts/ideas still apply in the digital age. I liked reading it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Far as photo books go, how do people like The Hotshoe Diaries? It's great and you should buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Buy a Sony NEX and you can use those things on a modern digital with extremely little fuss.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
Or you can buy one of these, which is more useful and legitimate than any of the gun/camera combos posted here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Whoa, poo poo just got real. Pringles lid also works.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Reminds me of a professor I had, Zig Jackson: I love how the first line on the sign is "No picture taking."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Some Nikon concept cameras. I remember that camera when it was called the Minolta Electro-Zoom X.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Using a properly colour calibrated drum scanner with known and tweaked color targets will yield an image that is extremely close to the original slide, the minor adjustments to contrast to mimic the slide hardly constitute manipulation, as it is simply seeking to duplicate the existing media in another presentation format. There's still some USM and probably IR dust/scratch removal going on too. And let's not forget what the guys in the lab did to make that slide in the first place! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:Develop b&w film using coffee and vitamin C! I'm pretty sure MacGyver did this once.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I just got hired to make some American Apparel parody ads, and I'm really looking forward to If you're gonna do it, do it right and buy Helvetica. The question is why don't you have it already?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:He's probably running a PC, Arial was invented by windows as a way of getting around the licensing for helvetica and still to this day helvetica doesn't come stock on PC's, to my knowledge at least. although using arial for an AA spoof would be pretty funny (although probably only a few people would actually get it) Yes, i know Helvetica doesn't come standard on Windows, it's more that it should be in every designer's toolkit regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
I remember reading about that in a John Hedgecoe book, I thought it was only something of legend; that didn't actually exist anymore. Sure hope that's worth the $160,000 USD that it'll take to buy it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
It's one of the less-good 70-210 variants. http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-70-210-F4.5-5.6-II_lens51.html $130 is a terrible price for it, they go for routinely less on eBay.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
How about old camera commercials? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEid8P1Rvrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ekABlcqiIY Only the human eye focuses faster. 
kefkafloyd fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jul 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
They went through this thing earlier this year where they were only going to allow print pricing on their brand new $300/year plan, but after a lot of complaining by people they re-introduced their $150/y portfolio level that doesn't have features like packages or coupons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Yeah, don't look at those for any period of time if height freaks you out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 20:18
|
|