— ROGERS

Archive
Tag "photo"

A smattering dust can really ruin a good scan. Watching the local film processing guy drop your neg on his putrid floor (imbecile!) can raise your blood pressure faster than you can say C41!

So I’ve been having problems with little smatterings of dust on most of my scans. And the scanner I use doesn’t have Digital ICE (it’s an old Minolta – keepin’ it real). After using a few of the available software-based anti-dust systems out there, I remained unconvinced. On the discussion boards, people were saying to do it by hand. For bigger bits, sure, but a billion tiny grains…?

I decided it was simple to do better. I wrote (in the loosest sense) a Photoshop action which reduces dust, but doesn’t remove all the grain from the photo.

It is does all this with a difference matte made from the original (dusty) image, and a version that has been run through the Photoshop Dust & Scratches filter. Old school like.

It aint fancy.

But it is fast and reliable. Also, it doesn’t get rid of all the dust (yep, paint it). But will remove all that cocaine you chopped up on your negatives the night before… Or if you are more like me, the baby powder that they seem to sprinkle all my negs with when they leave the lab.


200805111434.jpg

See? The grain (mostly) survives. All that the matte is doing is revealing back to to D&S version of the image. Visually, it looks ok, and has probably saved me about a lifetime of manual healing brush time. Now you can get out there and shoot — post production is for the birds!

I make no guarantees this will work with your stuff. But have a go, it might.

200805111413.jpg
Read More

May we all see like insects: light fields and plenoptic lenses. There could well be an interesting shift in specialised photography where extracting 3D data from digital images shot with either special lenses or sensors (and with a lot of post-processing/number crunching) become useful tools for VFX practitioners.

(Full disclosure: like most people, I’ve had a lenticular fascination since I was a kid. I just didn’t know what to call it…)

Now, of the technology, the immediate, demonstrated applications are variable focus (in post); or the ability to move the camera and change perspective within about a 10° arc. While this is something readily achievable in a layered composite, the implications of it being readily available and nicely packaged with a bow are quite interesting (see: focus stacking, helicon focus). And, if (if!) it can be applied to moving images, then there would depth information that you could use to extract layers. That is, you wouldn’t have to pull a key; you could go without green-screen; rotoscoping would be easy… oh, the possibilities… Okay, I’m getting way ahead of the technology.

But then, beyond the “3D” hype, there have been a lot of recent, significant developments in sensor technology, such as the Panasonic high dynamic range sensor… and even the CIA is hocking its image technology. Yes, the Central Intelligence Agency. Insert your conspiracy theories here. How about the Gigapan $300 (?) photo-robot…

While we may wait for a new digital camera in the coming months, we should probably bear in mind that Moore’s Law can be applied to digital photography and cinematography…

More reading: Refocus Imaging; Max Hodges comments; Stephen Shankland article; Photography 2.0/R&D

Read More

It is interesting when you are scouring on the web for the newest thing™—be it the RED camera, or anything else—that so many reviews are now done by new owners writing on their own blogs. Some of them write excellent appraisals, some of them don’t. “Traditional media” reviews can be much the same; but usually more space limited in publication, so they are not as in-depth or obsessional as the non-traditional media. The key difference between mainstream reviewers and bloggers is that they don’t actually own the thing they are reviewing. Bloggers usually have used their own money.

So when you read blogs about the latest big thing, in my case recently, the Sigma DP1, you are usually getting the opinion of someone who really, really wants this thing to be good. Even if it is not.

423929637_f3f4d19991.jpg

The DP1 looks like a marvel on paper. The (Foveon) sensor is giant-sized amongst its rivals, which means it should be less noisy, and have better dynamic range than most. By all accounts, it seems to. The optics seem reasonable. It is quite a capable camera. People are comparing them to SLRs, and suggesting the DP1 is more like an “affordable” digital rangefinder. The wheels start to wobble when you find out that the focal distance (minimum 16cm) is quite limited and the lens is only f/4.0—especially when compared to rival cameras. Image-wise, it should be better than its rivals, but it doesn’t seem to be significantly better, and new images would suggest that it is amazingly better. But some things are pretty disappointing, like the very slow write times. Up to 12 seconds a shot… perhaps less with a faster card.

But everyone wants it to be good.

Enter Carl Rytterfalk, blogger. You can’t say that he isn’t enthusiastic about the DP1. His posts cover a range of excitement, disappointment, workarounds, and excitement again. Luckily, he is posting informative stuff on the camera… and some entertaining videos (he also blogs about the Sigma SD14, similar sensor but in an SLR body). The nice thing about his reviews are that he is unapologetic in his enthusiasm, but he doesn’t ignore the problems:


Btw, as someone said at the forum already – turning off quick preview makes the DP1 faster between shots. And I also tested a normal SD card that came with another camera – it’s SOOOO SLOW! It really takes ages. So please. Use fastest card you can find, it’s a huge difference!

Timed save times RAW (light blinking):

SanDisk Extreme III 4GB: 2.5s

Canon SD SDC 32MB: 10s

Time before you can take another shot (single mode): 3.8s and quick preview off.

If you look at his site, you’ll see he’s thorough. He even compares it (somewhat tenuously) to the RED Mysterium sensor.

It is also worth considering that so-called “bloggers” could be paid shills for whatever company they are promoting. Ever wondered how some of these guys get their hands on stuff way before everyone else? On the other hand, now that bloggers “get there first” with reviews, you have to wonder at the number of posts that are less to do with reviewing and more about soothing buyers regret. People like Carl Rytterfalk, excepted.

And the camera? Its quirks guarantee it will be a cult hit.

More reading.

Read More


Kubrick — via Bagelturf — shooting in candlelight using a modified Zeiss f/0.7 lens originally intended for spy satellites. I don’t think I saw the f/0.7, but I am pretty sure the f/1 Zeiss he had modified to mount onto a Mitchell camera was at the Kubrick exhibition in the ACMI (Melbourne) last year. There is an extract from American Cinematographer about it at Visual Memory (they also have a trove of additional Stanley Kubrick archives).

Current fast lenses include the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/1, VFX Supervisor Tommy Oshima has one… as do quite a few others… current version is $6k USD new. There is also the discontinued Canon EF 50mm f/1.0.

Read More

200803220014.jpg

I did this as an exercise to see whether printing a book would be better than doing separate 8×10’s of some shots… well, at least it started that way. Then I got carried away… and now a lovely 8×10″ 30 40 page book. You can get it here and you can preview the insides here: Echo/1 China.

From Guilin in the south of China, to the Inner Mongolian Grasslands, Beijing and Shanghai. It is the off-set view of a rather epic 3 week Olympic shoot…

I’ve convinced myself to do a series (hence the Echo/1 title). In case you were wondering, an echo is “the persistence of sound after the source has stopped.” Much like looking back at a photo, an echo of light.

Read More