Category Archives: Uncategorized

Cameras, Still photography, Techniques, Uncategorized

Using old camera lenses on micro four thirds cameras

Not that long ago, I used some old Minolta film cameras. These cameras used lenses with the Minolta MC/MD mounting system and I have several old lenses that can be used on micro four thirds cameras with an appropriate adapter.
Here’s my informal judgement as to work works well and what does not when using these old lenses on modern micro four thirds cameras. All of my tests were done on my Lumix GH-2, shooting JPEG images and evaluating the JPEGs as they came straight out of the camera. I did not do any tests in RAW mode.
Minolta 50mm prime f/1.4

  • f/1.4 – At f/1.4, this lens is soft, almost fuzzy, and with low contrast. Not recommended at f/1.4
  • f/2.0 – At f/2.0, this lens is clean with good contrast. I would rate this excellent for my own purposes at f/2.0 and above.

Minolta 50mm prime f/1.7

  • f/1.7 – At f/1.7, this lens is also very soft.
  • f/2.8 – I rate this aperture as “pleasant”. Its not really soft but its not quite a sharp either – but overall provides a pleasing, smooth quality to the image, yet with a very nice narrow depth of field.
  • f/4 – At f/4.0 the lens becomes very sharp.

Sigma 28mm prime f/2.8

  • This lens just does not work well at all until probably f/4, then its fine. The lens is useful, however, since it is a macro focus lens. The 28mm works like a 56 mm full frame equivalent lens on the micro four thirds format – but focuses down to about two inches (5 cm)!

Sigma 28-70mm UC Zoom f/2.8

  • f/2.8 – At both the 28 and 70mm zoom settings (56 and 140mm FF equivalent on m43ds) the lens is noticeably soft, probably better at the 70mm end than the 28mm end.
  • f/4 – At f/4 and above the images are excellent.

This Sigma 28-70mm lens is probably one of my favorite lenses on my Lumix GH2. Its great for shooting when I want a narrow depth of field, but provides excellent sharpness and contrast.
Other Lenses
Another popular old lens is most any Canon FD glass. I have not tested these but the reviews I have read of Canon FD lenses similar to those above, also perform similarly – such as the Canon FD f/1.4 lens being soft at f/1.4 but nicely sharp by f/2. These can be found on eBay for $30 to $70, sometimes including the m43 adapter ring. Older Nikon lens are also excellent and popular and available used.
Keep in mind that to use an old lens you need to ensure your camera can operate with a “no electronics” lens. The Lumix GH-2, for example, has a menu setting to let the camera operate even if “no lens is attached”.  I use this setting and then put the camera in “A” Aperture mode, and set the aperture and focus manually. My Nikon 1 camera only works in “M” mode when a non-Nikkor lens is attached – this works, but is not as convenient as using the “A” mode and letting the camera meter and choose a shutter speed for me.
Newer lens systems, like the Canon EF series can also be made to work but with limitations – these lenses do not have an aperture ring and the lens, by default, will also be in the wide open aperture setting. There is a trick to get around this but its cumbersome – mount the lens on an actual Canon camera, set the aperture using the camera settings, remove the lens and put it on the m43d camera and it retains the aperture setting. But why go to that trouble? Better off getting an original all manual lens like the Canon FD.
Both of these two photos were taken with the Lumix GH-2 and the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 lens at f/2.8 to create the narrow depth of field look. You can click on these images – twice, in fact – to zoom in to larger versions. Both are reduced in size and compression from the originals, however.
P1030698 (Custom)
P1030696 (Custom)

Uncategorized

How the industry ruined 3D TV for viewers

And the more I thought about that, the more apparent it became that 3D’s failure is a fiasco of colossal proportions in which the film industry is at least as culpable as the TV makers.
Before getting into that, though, let’s first just confirm that 3D really does seem to be in serious, potentially terminal decline.

via 3D Can Be Brilliant – When Hollywood And Your TV Aren’t Messing It Up.
The reasons 3D faded:

  • Lack of good quality 3D content
  • A bad story in 3D is still a bad story
  • Poorly filmed 3D movies – technically bad 3D; and the related use of poorly converted 2D to 3D, turning 3D into a marketing gimmick
  • Poor use of 3D – turning existing 2D scenes into 3D misses the opportunity of using depth cues
  • And of course, lack of 3D porn…
  • Other technologies are now in competition – namely 4K (eventually 8K), 48 and 60 frame per second video, “RAW” and HDR video – which mean fewer resources to pursue 3D now

4K 3D may resolve some of the technical issues with greater resolution for passive 3D glasses or glasses-free displays. I have seen some spectacular 4K 3D glasses-free displays – they do exist in prototype form.
For now, the new technologies appear to be larger opportunities for the industry – 4K and high frame rate, in particular. These technologies are likely to be the focus on the industry for some time to come before interest – and investment – returns to 3D. The Return on Investment in pushing 4K and HFR probably looks better than the ROI of further 3D work right now.

Related articles
Business, Uncategorized

USFS charges high fees for pressing red video button on your camera

Here is a link to the actual US Forest Service “Interim Directive” (ID). The USFS is proposing that this ID be made permanent. Please read the actual text for yourself: http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/InterimFilmingQAimprovedjune10.pdf

In summary, it says that:

  • you do not need a permit for any still photography including commercial still photography as long as you do not use actors, models and props, or locations normally unavailable to the public. If you use actors, models or props or need special access, you must apply to the USFS for a permit describing your content. Your proposed content must be approved by a USFS censor to ensure that it meets the specific objectives of the agency (see the ID, above).
  • you do not need a permit for recreational photography or video
  • you are required to have a permit for any motion picture, video recording or audio recording … if it is used to generate an income regardless of whether you have actors, models or props involved. If you post your video clip on Youtube with an ad, you need a permit. Stated another way, pressing the red button on your camera will cost you a bundle.

Still photographers can press the silver button, take still photos and sell them.

However, if they press the red button on the exact same camera, while standing at the exact same location, and post that video on Youtube with an ad running alongside the video, then you are required to obtain a permit, your permit must be approved by a USFS censor, and may be required to have liability insurance and to pay for a USFS ranger to monitor your activities while you press the red button.

The media got excited about this ID when they noticed the USFS has been enforcing part of the rule that says the news media is exempt only for “breaking news”. All other media use would require a permit and approval of the USFS censors. In actual fact, twice in the past month, a local public broadcasting TV show in Idaho was told by the USFS they must have a permit. In one case, they wanted to film students digging for garnets on USFS land (not wilderness land).

Yesterday, the head of the USFS backpedaled and says they never intended this to apply to the news media. That is not true. The Oregonian newspaper, 3 days ago, specifically asked a USFS official for permission to take photos in the Mt Hood Wilderness and was told they needed a permit. The next day, they drove up to Mt Hood, and without permits, took photos and posted them in their newspaper. A day later, the USFS backed off.

However, the rules still remain as I have summarized. The USFS is attempting to select the means of expression (still versus film, video or audio recording), and to approve the content of the latter 3. In the US we have the First Amendment, which is as close to a sacred document as we come here. This Amendment prohibits the government from controlling our speech or our desired method of expression. Citizens and the media are both protected. A professor of communications (journalism) is quoted in an area newspaper as saying he is astonished that this obviously unconstitutional issue was not recognized by the USFS staff when putting this rule together.

In the end, there are 3 main issues:
1. The USFS is selecting the means of expression (still photography given favorable treatment versus everything else)
2. The USFS defines “commercial filming” overly broadly and absurdly. The guy with his tripod, huge camera and 2 foot long lens taking still photos and selling them does not need a permit. The lady next to him shooting video with an iPhone that she posts on Youtube with an ad alongside, must apply for a permit and be approved by the USFS censors. This is utter nonsense.
3. First Amendment issues galore. The USFS is not only controlling the means of expression, but also states (states in plain language in the ID – this is not some wild assertion) that the content must meet their content requirements and be approved by the USFS (literally a censor, which is why I use that term).

The rule should be written to focus on the impact on the land and the USFS resources – and not be focused on the means of expression or the content.

Because the USFS has backed off the media requirements, the media may fade away from this issue. And because they exclude most still photography, I’ve seen still photographers posting on social media that this is just an old rule, nothing to worry about. Because it does not impact them.

Big production companies know they need permits and plan for it.

That leaves individuals that wanted to press the red button under threat as most do not have the legal resources to fight this absurd rule to the Supreme Court. Literally, press the silver button and drive to the bank; press the red button and pay a fine. Or use an iPhone. It’s absurd.

Some are now posting on social media and blogs that this is all blown out of proportion, etc, etc. Apparently none of them have read the actual text of the Interim Directive. Some are partially correct in that it mostly does not apply to still photographers – but it very much applies to individuals pressing the red button on their camera. This is not a time to tell people to ignore this and claim there is nothing to see here. This remains a very big deal.

This is our government and our public lands; this is not their private kingdom.

I encourage all still and video photographers, including hobbyists, to read the full Interim Directive above and then to file comments at this web site: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration

To further clarify their “means of expression” control, consider a different example. Suppose a poet sat in a meadow writing poetry (for later resale). This would be considered acceptable and no permit would be required. Now consider a person sitting next to the poet, but composing music (for later resale). The USFS makes poetry permit free but requires a permit and liability insurance for the composer. Makes no sense does it? But that is what the USFS is doing.

Related articles
Uncategorized

Civil War Battle re-enactment in 4K 3D Video

Click the Youtube icon to go to the Youtube page, if you prefer.

To play in 4K 3D, select your 3D options from the gear icon, and select the 1440 HD or 2160 4K speed settings for maximum image quality. Even on a 2K (standard) 1920×1080 monitor, the video looks far better than typical Youtube 3D video.

Online, Uncategorized, Videos

Is it impossible to get views on Youtube anymore?

Last week I was at Seattle’s Fremont Solstice Parade (including naked bike ride) and the affiliated Honk! Fest West.

(Some photos in the Flickr viewer are NSFW.)

I posted still photos on Flickr, each of which has had thousands of views. In fact, in the past few days, I’ve accumulated about 100,000 photo views, mostly for the Solstice Parade, and about 1/4th for Honk Fest and other photos on my web page.

Youtube? Hardly anything. After several days, just over one hundred people watched one of the naked bike ride videos! Two of the parade videos have zero views!

I have seen videos on Youtube and online blog and forum posts lamenting the difficulty in getting anyone to watch their videos anymore. In the past, it did not seem hard to get at least hundreds to a few thousand views. Now, its becoming difficulty to even get tens of views!

What are other people experiencing?

Is  Youtube search prioritizing its matches to give higher priority to those videos that have monetized (run ads) their videos?

Youtube relies on independent content creators to produce their Youtube content. If most are seeing their viewership drop, they will give up – or at least post less to Youtube. And that would not be good for the Youtube business model!

Related articles