Photography Life

It’s a separate path, the sensor is under the camera (this allowed it to work with film). 2 sensors per autofocus point which it tries at align. It’s actually kind ofvv be amazing it works. Gordy details, but the image helps see: https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works/amp On camera sensor focusing was slightly different “contrast detection”. My understanding is modern cameras integrate those phase detection sensors on the image sensor itself. It might effect image quality but nobody notices and focus is fast and reliable. It’s tech that works well so generally nobody cares how it works. https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/training-articles…

Something worth adding here for those who want to complicate their lives even more, these equivalences get complicated when you need to compare across different sensor formats (full-frame vs crop vs micro-4/3rds). Something I learned recently is that f/5.6 on a 300mm lens on a crop sensor is more similar to something like an f/8 or f/11 on a 450mm on a full frame. Including ISO into this makes that comparison more complicated as well. More on that subject https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso

From https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw > DNG strips out most of the unrecognized meta data (such as Active D-Lighting, Picture Controls, Focus Point, etc) from RAW files, making it impossible to retrieve this data from DNG in the future. The last time I used a DSLR was when I was doing color research in 2012. At the time, raw format was the only thing that preserved all necessary information to make scientific observations. Most people don't need to care about such things. I just wanted to mention you're irretrievably throwing away metadata when you DNG-dong your pictures. It's probably a worthwhile trade in most cases though.

Wow, some really great entries and winners. The macro world is so interesting. The little I've dabbled has always resulted in some new discovery of a part of a flower or insect that you'd never notice otherwise. I've never gone all in and bought a macro lens, but with some cheap extension tubes (https://photographylife.com/what-is-an-extension-tube) and a manual focus lens you can do a really nice job for quite cheap!

Can anyone explain why this is downvoted? If you want confirmation/more in-depth info, here is a great post on how sensor size affects DoF, using real examples from a full-frame DSLR compared to an iPhone 6: https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field From that article, which has actually done the math: "This iPhone at 4.15mm and f/2.2 gives you a similar field of view and depth of field as a full-frame camera with a 30mm lens set to f/16 does."

Oh, and "image stacking" is the technique of combining multiple images within a single frame, allowing for greater clarity (as in here), removing noise (frequently applied in astrophotography), or depth-of-field / focal-plane stacking. This almost always implies digital image processing, and depending on the goal / intent, various filters or masks may be applied. De-noising typically relies on including only visual elements appearing in most (but not all) frames of the stack, eliminating glitches such as satellite flares, meteors, terrestrial-based light sources, aircraft, sensor noise, or even radiation spots. "Take Better Night Sky Photos with Image Stacking" <https://photographylife.com/night-sky-image-stacking> "Focus Stacking" (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking> Again, from TFA the source was motion-film footage from fixed-position cameras which could be used to generate images with much greater resolution than any individual frame. Note that 16mm film grain is typically fairly large, but with stacking and post-processing, smaller details can be inferred.

The big iPad Pro with keyboard case is very nice. My primary usage, since the iPad 1, which I still have, is to display music scores at the piano. Since I got it, I realized that just dropping the music stand lets me use a laptop, though having both the iPad and new laptop is not just expensive, but confusing. Further, ForScore runs on the new mini with very large display, which is just behind the Roland keyboard, which is down for the regular swapping of key levers (what a horrible design. They break so easily and repair parts are hell to find) Dead keys are at the top and bottom now. All that said, no regrets, and the iPad pro has the distinct advantage of also being able to show off my best photos to friends, and not being instantly stolen, as sharing on the internet implies. Someone agrees with this: https://photographylife.com/enjoying-photography-in-a-high-tech-world My word of warning: I got really tired (OK angry) with ios losing HTML textareas for any reason, because it's too easy to poke the wrong button with fat fingers and go to another page and sometimes lose all the text, or when the server balks and asks me to go back and "repost the form". Well, that doesn't work all the time. I resolved to make my mobile forum use (including this one) read-only and send URLs to the desktop, which is more stable and has no touchscreen (not even a trackpad at this time) AND I looked for external text editors for browsers and found one that works ... GhostText, and…

> Also, the wide lenses on most phones are actually very heavily distorted nearly to the point of being fisheye, and made rectilinear with processing. Not just phones. Most wide-angles for "serious cameras" have distortion and rely on digital correction. See [0] for an extreme example in the form of a 16mm Canon, which is much less wide than the iPhone lens. [0] https://photographylife.com/reviews/canon-rf-16mm-f-2-8/2

>I do not care if you take out redundant bits, you are still taking them out. Why does it matter? Why does that make Apple deceptive? Lossless compression is as good as no compression, the only difference is the decompression time. You could store the uncompressed RAW file on a filesystem with built in (lossless) compression, or you could store the losslessly compressed RAW file on a filesystem with no compression. Once you have opened the image in your editor or photo viewer, the bits in that application's memory that you are editing or viewing are identical. Moreover RAW does not mean 'uncompressed'. It doesn't even mean losslessly compressed. Often RAWs use lossy compression. Both Canon and Nikon RAWs can. https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-com…

> No photographer thinks images the they get on film are perfect reflections of reality. More importantly than that: framing, exposure, aperture choices by anyone not simply shooting with their camera in the Auto mode. * https://petapixel.com/digital-camera-modes-a-complete-guide/#Auto_Mode… * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_dial * https://photographylife.com/understanding-digital-camera-modes

Many amateur photographers who used to carry SLRs around have switched to smartphones and written blog posts about it https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-anymore/ https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i-havent-us… https://photographylife.com/dslr-has-no-future

f-numbers do not have the same meaning across different sized sensors. For example, f/1.5 on the iPhone is equivalent to f/8.2 on a 35mm camera. This is pretty slow by the standards of full frame lenses, and as you can see in my other post, it is not expensive to acquire much better lenses than this that will achieve much better results with less effort. See the chart on the first page of this article: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphone-13-and-1… For a detailed explanation of how to compare f-numbers across cameras have a look at this article: https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso…

ƒ stops need to be adjusted for sensor size [0]. The iPhone 13 Pro cameras all have and equivalent f stop > ƒ/8 [1] [0]https://photographylife.com/equivalence-also-includes-aperture-and-iso [1]https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphone-13-and-1…

Yeah a RAW image is like a 'digital negative' so it preserves all the data that the sensor in the camera captures. A JPEG or similar is processed and compressed so the camera makes some decisions and 'bakes in' stylistic choices which are much harder to fix in post. You can read a bit more about it here: https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

Or just buy a 5$ adapter and put on your existing lens backwards: https://photographylife.com/reverse-lens-technique-for-macro-photograp…

Images are often stacked too to achieve proper focus throughout the picture. A lot of photos you see aren't physically possible to get in 1 shot. https://photographylife.com/landscapes/focus-stacking-tutorial-for-lan…

> Samba is SO SLOW Are you using SMBv3? Here are some comparison stats [1] [1] https://photographylife.com/afp-vs-nfs-vs-smb-performance

A) I'm not sure what nit you are picking, RAW formats are typically not compressed, and if they are (I haven't encountered any personally) they would be losslessly compressed. They certainly aren't quantized. Edit: ok here's some lossless and lossy compression of RAW. IMHO, "lossy compressed raw" is an oxymoron. https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-com… B) the context is whether a raw photo can be "manipulated" in any way. The answer is a resounding yes. See: Darpa MediFor project. Search for work by Siwei Lyu (I'm on mobile and don't feel like digging through the links, there's tons of published work out there)

Pixelmator Pro[1] does a pretty good job with its "ML Super Resolution". Apparently Adobe have a similar "Super Resolution"[2]. One of the VQGAN-CLIP notebooks uses ISR[3] (but I haven't managed to get that working locally yet because of weird tensorflow version requirements.) [1] https://www.pixelmator.com/pro/ [2] https://photographylife.com/reviews/adobe-super-resolution [3] https://github.com/idealo/image-super-resolution

There was a post here on HN a few months ago where someone went into how the camera manufacturers are going to be challenged by phone manufacturers coming up with better and better algorithms to enhance the quality of pictures that are bumping up against physical limits such as lens size and pixel density. Edit: Here's [0] the link to the article. [0] https://photographylife.com/smartphone-vs-camera-industry

True but with the longer lens, the RX has also gotten a smaller maximum aperture size, f/2.8-4.5 vs f/1.8-2.8 (1). I'd go with a Mark V for that reason despite the shorter focal length. 1. https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison

Some examples: https://www.zdnet.com/article/cisco-partners-sell-fake-routers-to-us-m… https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/03/cisco_shipping_.html https://photographylife.com/fake-memory-cards

This test suggests that FF on Android doesn't properly work with color profiles: https://photographylife.com/is-your-browser-color-managed (the images are identical for me in FF on desktop, but not on the phone). Which would mean that the red logo is just a result of mismapped colors. I was pretty surprised to see the logo on a phone from 2011 with a rather meh screen…

MKBHD has a good explanation (starts at 2:43): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J83sZrz9XTc Basically this is the first(?) camera phone with adjustable aperture, albeit it only has 2 presets. PS: Might be useful(?) https://photographylife.com/what-is-aperture-in-photography

Only if you have a time resolution higher the shaking. How do active image stabilizers work? Edit: yes, that's how active systems work: gyro stuff and counteracting by moving the lens or the sensor¹. For astronomy rather a lens, because the sensor would have to move too far for the big shifts the tele causes². ¹ http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/804/how-does-image-stabilizat… ² https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilizat…

Somewhat OT: I don't know much about photography but had always known DSLRs as the gold standard for digital photography. I was surprised to learn that there's actually a bit of a shift going on away from DSLRs towards "mirrorless cameras". If you haven't heard about them, the differences are pretty interesting. Basically, DSLRs are still like the one in this article - digital sensors crammed into an SLR. Mirrorless cameras take more liberties, as if they were imagining a digital camera from the ground up rather than starting with an SLR. Eg: http://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

>with everyone having a smartphone with high quality cameras on them there really is zero excuse for there to not be highly detailed accurate videos of this Absolutely not. I understand the tendency to assume that modern tech would make it relatively easy thing to accomplish but there are considerable challenges with ground-based aerial photography/videography...at nighttime...completely unplanned and unscheduled...by an amateur. Better technology makes the field more accessible in a general way, but there is still a very large barrier of: skill, hardware, and out-right luck involved in good image capture as a medium. Consider, if you ever look towards the beginning or end of some runways you may see a group of plane spotters setup taking photos and video of the airplanes. The typical hardware used to capture things well is a minimum of: DSLR, tripod, battery extenders (or spares), and good perch to rest during lulls (it's more physically demanding on your arms then you might imagine.) More crucially, this is for airplanes that are taking off and landing 1) in a predictable pattern 2) at routine intervals 3) captured primarily in daylight. Add in height? Introduce increased shake. Add in darkness? Introduce exposure (hold the camera still, longer to get a brighter image). Add in inexperience? Introduce beginner mistakes. On top of those practical concerns, it's probably also pretty creepy to see these unknown objects/drones/whatever. Fear impacts our ability to react in…

I see you are impressively knowledgeable in this field. But my issue is not with your knowledge, it is with your comprehension and logic. So, fro example, Nikon typically provides three options for Raw: Compressed, Lossless Compressed and Uncompressed, as seen below: https://photographylife.com/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/GrQZt6ZFhE4jsKqjDEtq… "Lossless Compressed means that a Raw file is compressed like an ZIP archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, and you work with the data as if there had never been any compression at all. Lossless compression is the ideal choice, because all the data is fully preserved and yet the image takes up much less space. Uncompressed – an uncompressed Raw file contains all the data, but without any sort of compression algorithm applied to it. Unless you do not have the Lossless Compressed option, you should always avoid selecting the Uncompressed option, as it results in huge image sizes." Why make the distinction if there is no difference? Apple is COMPRESSING the image. Period. RAW photos can be compressed, but if they are then they are "RAW Compressed" Files, not "RAW" files.Apple is not saying you are shooting RAW Compressed, it says you are shooting ProRAW photos, which is slick marketing because everyone thinks they are shooting RAW photos but ProRAW is not RAW. The…

Several reasons: * Until fairly recently, cameras couldn't focus well using just the sensor. The simple sensor-based focusing is based on contrast, and the problem with the method is that the camera can't tell whether it's as focused as it can get, or in which direction should focus be changed. So the camera constantly "hunts". You can see that happening a lot on youtube with people trying to show stuff from close (eg, Bosnian Bill, AvE very often have this problem). * Phase focusing fixes this issue, but initially couldn't be incorporated into the sensor. The mirror in DSLRs bounces light into the better focus detectors, which are located on the bottom of the camera. Here's an illustration of the system: https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works * Sensors get hot when they're constantly lit. Cameras refuse to keep taking pictures when it overheats. A DSLR's sensor can cool off while the mirror is blocking it. * Sometimes the viewfinder is the better way, eg, if the LCD can't overpower the sun. Making a good digital viewfinder is harder than just optics. * An optical viewfinder has no lag and almost zero battery usage But yes, mirrorless is definitely the future. The DSLR was a technical compromise, and in fact mirrorless has advantages of its own: * As this article says, DSLRs require a large separation between the sensor and lens to make room for the mirror, and that makes some kinds of lenses hard to design. Mirrorless cameras can use whatever…