All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on No more Pentax for me!... at 16/10/2010 - 19:45
If so then any stereo photographing device applies to your earlier comment, not just the Nimslo.
In 1841 Henry Collen made a stereoscopic calotype portrait of Charles Babbage, so the idea is quite old.
In 1841 Henry Collen made a stereoscopic calotype portrait of Charles Babbage, so the idea is quite old.
Comment by Anvh posted on What's next? at 16/10/2010 - 19:41
Dangermouse wrote:
I've been getting the milky water effect with infra-red film recently (where shutter speeds of several seconds are common) and it'd be interesting to get it in colour.
Infra red is certainly intersting, sadly with the K10D you need very long shutter speeds, I hope with the K5 I can use the higher ISO to shorten those times.I've been getting the milky water effect with infra-red film recently (where shutter speeds of several seconds are common) and it'd be interesting to get it in colour.
You should try duotone your IR images, it can give a great effect.
I hope to shoot more of these in the future.
Comment by Anvh posted on ND Filters at 16/10/2010 - 19:35
Algernon wrote:
The Nimslo 3D Camera from the 1980's produced prints that didn't
need a viewer.
That's not fully because of the camera but because they used lenticular prints.The Nimslo 3D Camera from the 1980's produced prints that didn't
need a viewer.
The 3D monitors/screens that don't need glasses use this technique as well.
Lenticular prints are an ingenious way of producing multiple or 3D images in one picture without requiring a special viewing device. The final picture comprises of a number of images that are printed as very fine interlaced stripes. A special screen is laid over the top of the picture allowing the viewer to see only the stripes which correspond to one particular image at a time. The screen is called a lenticular screen and it comprises of a series of very fine lenses running in the same direction as the stripes. As the viewing angle changes, a different image will be visible. If the stripes are horizontal, then the final picture will contain a series of images that can be seen by tilting the picture. Vertical stripes are used for 3D pictures however as each eye will have a different viewing angle and therefore be able to see a different image. Horizontal lenticular prints are often used to show motion sequences e.g. a horse running and are commonly used in promotional novelties like the football card in Appendix B. If a horizontal lenticular picture is turned through 90 degrees, a confused and blurred image results as the two images seen by the eyes do not match and cannot be resolved to make a 3D image. A 3D Lenticular picture turned through 90 degrees allows the viewers to see the individual images used to create effect.
Comment by Anvh posted on What's next? at 16/10/2010 - 19:27
Paulcollins wrote:
I have been given 3 of these filters #2 #4 #8 I have no idea how or what to use them for, I know you can create some wonderful effect with them , but that where it stops for me any advice however small would be extremely helpful as I would love to use them.
there are several ways to show the density, here is a list with them all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ND_filterI have been given 3 of these filters #2 #4 #8 I have no idea how or what to use them for, I know you can create some wonderful effect with them , but that where it stops for me any advice however small would be extremely helpful as I would love to use them.
ND2 - cuts 1/2 (lets through 50% of the light) - 1 f/stop
ND4 - 1/4 (25%) - 2 f/stops
ND8 - 1/8 (12,5%) - 3 f/stops
ND16 - 1/16 (6.25%) - 4 f/stops
You can stack the effect.
so an ND8 x ND2 = ND16 or you can say 3 f/stops + 1 f/stop = 4 f/stops
Comment by Anvh posted on ND Filters at 16/10/2010 - 19:15
Paul it's amazing how you can find these old threads.
These days we also have now variable ND filters, you can turn them and like that adjust the density of the filter.
Very handy.
These days we also have now variable ND filters, you can turn them and like that adjust the density of the filter.
Very handy.
Comment by Anvh posted on ND Filters at 16/10/2010 - 19:09
No you're right about that, i also never really liked the look what the CMOS sensor produce.
The CCD seems the be cleaner and truer somehow.
I hope the K5 is better in that aspect because the sensor is from Sony and not Samsung, don't know if that might have something to do with it?
The CCD seems the be cleaner and truer somehow.
I hope the K5 is better in that aspect because the sensor is from Sony and not Samsung, don't know if that might have something to do with it?
Comment by Anvh posted on K-5 in Canada. at 16/10/2010 - 19:06
Mike-P wrote:
First time hearing that one.Anvh wrote:
I'll keep the K10D, there is no Pentax camera that can beat his low ISO performance so the camera will be perfect for studio use and landscapes (if i'll do them).
The sensor on the K10D seems much better suited to macro as well .. which is why I bought another one.I'll keep the K10D, there is no Pentax camera that can beat his low ISO performance so the camera will be perfect for studio use and landscapes (if i'll do them).
I thought with the higher is you might be able to get better macro photos handheld.
Comment by Anvh posted on K-5 in Canada. at 16/10/2010 - 18:12
beginner wrote:
I dont need higher ISO capabilities and the K20D AF is fast enough for what I shoot...so why bother!
Indeed why bother, just saying that things lay a bit differnt then you said.I dont need higher ISO capabilities and the K20D AF is fast enough for what I shoot...so why bother!
I still haven't gotten everything out of the K10D and I wonder if I ever will but that's not a point to upgrade your camera.
You upgrade your camera because it offers you something that you use that your current camera doesn't or doesn't do so well.
Comment by Anvh posted on K-5 in Canada. at 16/10/2010 - 18:11
Daniel Bridge wrote:
You might enjoy reading this, and perhaps you can then let every other manufacturer know how poor they are at producing lenses. I can't imagine any Pentax lens has had a 41.5% failure rate, but it would be interesting to hear Chris@SRSMicrosystems' findings once his rental scheme has been running longer.
Dan
read a bit further and you will find this.You might enjoy reading this, and perhaps you can then let every other manufacturer know how poor they are at producing lenses. I can't imagine any Pentax lens has had a 41.5% failure rate, but it would be interesting to hear Chris@SRSMicrosystems' findings once his rental scheme has been running longer.
Dan
The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is joining the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 (45% failure rate) in the Lensrentals Hall of Shame: lenses we no longer carry because their failure rate is so high we just can’t afford them. Almost half of them have failed, usually after 3 to 6 months in service.
Comment by Anvh posted on Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM available for Pentax at 16/10/2010 - 18:01
I don't think they will lose many lenses because of that but they would make the veteran Pentaxians happy.