advertisement


"Light Field Technology".

vuk said:
if you can't even focus your picture correctly, you should be allowed to own a camera.

+ you have been had.


vuk.
Click to expand...

TBH I agree with you vuk but I got mail from my sister yesterday infering this is the new thing, what do I think.

Her and her husband are educated [and educate] to phD level so they are not stupid people. + Ron keeps his ear to the ground with his astronomy hobby.....so I felt the subject needed some digging.

I'll put off the D70S if its all going to change :D
 
David F said:
TBH I agree with you vuk but I got mail from my sister yesterday infering this is the new thing, what do I think.

Her and her husband are educated [and educate] to phD level so they are not stupid people. + Ron keeps his ear to the ground with his astronomy hobby.....so I felt the subject needed some digging.

I'll put off the D70S if its all going to change :D
Click to expand...


have you been drinking?

i happen to have a PhD, as well. on top of that, i know how to shoot a picture. the problem here seems to be the absence of mick to confirm my point of view.


vuk.
 
vuk said:
have you been drinking?

i happen to have a PhD, as well. on top of that, i know how to shoot a picture. the problem here seems to be the absence of mick to confirm my point of view.


vuk.
Click to expand...

Vuk

You're right

regards
Cliff [pp Mick]
 
It's nothing new, there were Z-depth channel compatible broadcast cameras over a decade ago. They allowed you to shoot green screen elements separately to a back drop and to be able to composite in whatever you shot with the correct amount of depth of field aberration based on the z-depth channel which gave you distance from lens. This info was used to calculate the circle of confusion to generate the DOF blur effect along with other useful depth based compositing effects.
 
sq225917 said:
It's nothing new, there were Z-depth channel compatible broadcast cameras over a decade ago. They allowed you to shoot green screen elements separately to a back drop and to be able to composite in whatever you shot with the correct amount of depth of field aberration based on the z-depth channel which gave you distance from lens. This info was used to calculate the circle of confusion to generate the DOF blur effect along with other useful depth based compositing effects.
Click to expand...

That isn't the same thing though. Leaving aside the accuracy of the lens blur, you could do that in PS by overlaying images and using the effects. This is about (or not) having an image and (more or less) changing the way the image was captured, post capturing.
 
David,

I'll put off the D70S if its all going to change :D
Click to expand...
You can safely buy a D70s. The only issues to consider are cost and condition.

The D70 was Nikon's first affordable D-SLR, and the market has changed a lot since it was introduced, so don't spend more than 100 UKP even if the camera is mint.

(However, a D200 would be a better choice if you have some older manual-focus Nikon lenses .)

Joe
 
Joe P said:
David,


You can safely buy a D70s. The only issues to consider are cost and condition.

The D70 was Nikon's first affordable D-SLR, and the market has changed a lot since it was introduced, so don't spend more than 100 UKP even if the camera is mint.

(However, a D200 would be a better choice if you have some older manual-focus Nikon lenses .)

Joe
Click to expand...


I don't.

I don't know how much a D200 is but there is always the tempation to go that one step higher.....

I'll look at dpreview later.....the d70 has still got some question marks for me.

How much would I pay for a D200?
 
David,

I don't know how similar UK prices are to Canadian prices, but I would expect a clean D200 to get about $500 to $600 here, so perhaps 300 UKP.

The D200 is a better camera than the D70, but if money is tight a D70 for around 100 squid would be a good choice.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
David,

I don't know how similar UK prices are to Canadian prices, but I would expect a clean D200 to get about $500 to $600 here, so perhaps 300 UKP.

The D200 is a better camera than the D70, but if money is tight a D70 for around 100 squid would be a good choice.

Joe
Click to expand...


Yes as always.

I see there is some interesting stuff in the classifieds here....might just be a more reliable option.

When I come to move on it (prob xmas first now) I might see what there is there, first, rather then e bay.

OTOH I'd like a decent full length keyboard too, which is probably more of a priority.

:cool:
 
Joe P said:
David,

I don't know how similar UK prices are to Canadian prices, but I would expect a clean D200 to get about $500 to $600 here, so perhaps 300 UKP.

The D200 is a better camera than the D70, but if money is tight a D70 for around 100 squid would be a good choice.

Joe
Click to expand...



Just been having a peak; it looks a good call actually Joe.

That's food for thought.


:cool:
 
Anex said:
That isn't the same thing though. Leaving aside the accuracy of the lens blur, you could do that in PS by overlaying images and using the effects. This is about (or not) having an image and (more or less) changing the way the image was captured, post capturing.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned photoshop? Yes you could apply a crappy DOF effect to any image, you could even use a z-depth capture as the basis for that filter. But to do that accurately in photoshop you'd have to write a very clever filter than calculated circle of confusion values for every pixel based on the combination of z-depth and a chosen sets of values for focal length and f-stop. As far as I'm aware no one offers that filter. I should know a little about the topic, after all I did work for the first company to offer a physically accurate DOF rendering interface for popular 3D rendering and CAD apps of the day.

What the z-depth camera does is exactly the same thing as this camera, it takes one image with no focal depth blur and simultaneously stores a value for each pixel that tells you how far away it is from the camera. Just like this camera you can adjust what you get after the fact.

Where both of those will fall down is with respect to objects who's apparent depth is not their physical depth, ie objects seen through or reflected in glass. Neither a z-depth camera or this gadget will allow you to correctly focus on an object 2m behind the camera reflected in a mirror 2m in front of the camera as at the same time perfectly focusing on an object 6m in front of you. Our 3d rendering camera plug-in of course managed this trick perfectly.
 
cliffpatte said:
... and the Fuji S5 Pro is better than the D200
Click to expand...


In what way(s)?




■Huge step up in body quality and performance thanks to Nikon D200 platform
■Class-leading dynamic range with up to 12 EV in a single exposure
■Superb out-of-camera JPEG with subtle color, tone, DR (though poor sharpness)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top