rwynant V1 Posted at 2-13 17:22
That,  and arguing with various folks.....mostly hallmark007, who is also gone for now.  If you were to look at bandwidth by user on here......those 2 took up 70%....just as a number, nothing to prove....just nice having those that want answers or ask questions not having their threads taken over by those two.

Randy

I haven't been following any of this...

In any case, it is extremely difficult not to argue with Wallmart007, the old man is toxic.
In the past I had a few pathetic clashes with him.

ps. I am happy to hear that he is gone for now Was he also banned? (again)

El Diabolico Posted at 2-17 01:27
I haven't been following any of this...

In any case, it is extremely difficult not to argue with Wallmart007, the old man is toxic.

Yes, "Hallmark" was banned and now apparently is down-voting comments mentioning that fact. I guess he'd rather people not be aware of it.

djiuser_IJ7oTXK2Xt8l Posted at 2-17 10:19
Yes, "Hallmark" was banned and now apparently is down-voting comments mentioning that fact. I guess he'd rather people not be aware of it.

Yes, "Hallmark" was banned and now apparently is down-voting comments mentioning that fact.
Except that he couldn't downvote anything if he was banned,

I guess he'd rather people not be aware of it.
Because a downvote makes a post disappear?
Do you want to guess again.

Labroides Posted at 2-17 13:07
Yes, "Hallmark" was banned and now apparently is down-voting comments mentioning that fact.
Except that he couldn't downvote anything if he was banned,

Apparently you're not very observant: he isn't banned any more. And as for the second comment, it's someone's way of showing disapproval of content. It's certainly possible, though, that someone else was petulant enough to be offended by my previous post who wasn't directly referenced by it. Did you really not comprehend the meaning or were you being deliberately obtuse?

djiuser_IJ7oTXK2Xt8l Posted at 2-17 13:21
Apparently you're not very observant: he isn't banned any more.

Hey dumbass, he did not say he was banned, he said 'if he was banned'. And he is right, if you are banned or suspended, you cannot downvote anything.

Geebax Posted at 2-17 13:23
Hey dumbass, he did not say he was banned, he said 'if he was banned'. And he is right, if you are banned or suspended, you cannot downvote anything.

Always with the insults. It's interesting how some people think it makes them big to act like jerks on the internet. I know you don't treat people that way in person because if you did you'd be friendless, jobless, and wind up in the hospital often.

djiuser_IJ7oTXK2Xt8l Posted at 2-17 10:19
Yes, "Hallmark" was banned and now apparently is down-voting comments mentioning that fact. I guess he'd rather people not be aware of it.

Are you one of those Auld women down at the shops, tongue wagging nothing better to do, maybe enlighten us with some drone talk ;+)......

hallmark007 Posted at 2-17 14:26
Are you one of those Auld women down at the shops, tongue wagging nothing better to do, maybe enlighten us with some drone talk ;+)......

I don't blame you for being embarrassed about getting banned.

djiuser_IJ7oTXK2Xt8l Posted at 2-17 14:50
I don't blame you for being embarrassed about getting banned.

Believe me I’m not as embarrassed as you seem to be .

hallmark007 Posted at 2-17 14:54
Believe me I’m not as embarrassed as you seem to be .

What a "clever" retort. Then again, that's about what I'd expect from you.

P.S. I'll bet it's really eating you up that you can't attack me the same way you have others so many times before on this forum, but of course if you did that you'd get banned again and probably for a much longer period of time.

djiuser_IJ7oTXK2Xt8l Posted at 2-17 13:21
Apparently you're not very observant: he isn't banned any more. And as for the second comment, it's someone's way of showing disapproval of content. It's certainly possible, though, that someone else was petulant enough to be offended by my previous post who wasn't directly referenced by it. Did you really not comprehend the meaning or were you being deliberately obtuse?

Did you really not comprehend the meaning or were you being deliberately obtuse?
Neither
But that would have been obvious to you unless you lack basic comprehension skills or if you weren't being deliberately obtuse.

rwynant V1 Posted at 2-13 17:22
That,  and arguing with various folks.....mostly hallmark007, who is also gone for now.  If you were to look at bandwidth by user on here......those 2 took up 70%....just as a number, nothing to prove....just nice having those that want answers or ask questions not having their threads taken over by those two.

Randy

how do you see bandwidth by user?

El Diabolico Posted at 2-13 00:02
Yes, the image was taken in portrait mode. I use a 3 Legged thing L-Bracket.

Ultra wide lenses are extremely sharp stopped down, stacking is rarely necessary. In your case, I believe you are running into problems because you are not very familiar with your gear. IMO, you should forget about stacking unless absolutely necessary. From the charts I've posted, it is clear that the 14mm is starting to soften up at f/11 (chose f/5.6 for better center and corner sharpness or f/8 for the extreme corners. Check charts above!). Please read that article because the author was also having soft corners until he learned to properly focus the lens.

I did a test w/ the Sigma f/1.8 14mm with the A7RIV.  If you get the depth of field right f/11 is unbeatable indoors and outdoors f/13-f/16 look the same all around.  I've also tried stacking which is ok but not that much different or any different than a good f/13-f/16 one shot.  Also, 120MP and 240MP is unusable outside sky for obvious reasons (clouds that move).

Shooting just under the infinity focus in the OSD delivers the best edge-to-edge sharpness and I mean edge-to-edge no smear.  I've done 5 shots.  1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5 and stacked but shooting with the focus set just under infinity is the best.  I took close to 200 shots.

Also, pano shooting w/ an ultrawide is very bad unless you need some serious quick 360° in and out intel.  If you are shooting in tight w/ a zoom lens like how the images of the M2Z stack for more MP, then it's good but w/ an ultrawide, editing is hell as the picture is curved and no matter what editing you do, you cannot get it to be straight or at least w/o massive amounts of work.

I've found, AEB stacking to be the absolute best as you have a lot of room to work w/ in terms of bringing up the shadows and decreasing the highlights.  The other benefit is Adobe seems to pick the sharpest parts of the images all the time when blending them together so it looks better than a 1 shot.  This is why my AEB aerials look better than any single shot.  Enhancing Image in Lightroom seems to be unnecessary and it drives up the MB way too unnecessarily high.

While I was gone I was messing with FPV and seemed to iron everything out.  Flying FPV w/ no limits is like no other.  DJI drones are like flying, crippled and extremely governed in comparison.  It's very easy to setup a Betaflight quad.  Easier than most think but what I've found is, if some settings (only takes 1 setting) are set wrong, people can get instantly injured, damage property, and/or lose the drone forever.

El Diabolico Posted at 2-3 00:09
Hello there, I will try to address your questions in the same order.

ISO and Aperture (f/stops) numbers have been established utilizing the Full Frame camera sensor size. The FF size was chosen due to the fact that SLR cameras used a 35mm film strip so when switching to DSLRs, the same sensor size as film was utilized. To make thing comparable, every sensor has a 35mm (film size) equivalent crop factor. FF or Full Frame lenses are used in cameras with a 35mm sensor. The 1" sensor utilized in the M2P, has a 2.7 times 'crop factor' compared to the 35mm reference number. This practically means that the 1" sensor is 2.7 times smaller than the full frame equivalent (please see pic below). The P4P also uses a 1"  sensor so the same crop factor that applies to the M2P, applies to it. The M2Z uses an even smaller sensor (1/2.3") that is equivalent to a x5.6 crop factor.

This thread will do wonders for the photographers who have no idea about the aperture scaling w/ the crop factor?  Is this right?  I'm not sure?

AntDX316 Posted at 2-24 22:20
This thread will do wonders for the photographers who have no idea about the aperture scaling w/ the crop factor?  Is this right?  I'm not sure?

Probably

Regarding the Sigma, as I stated before, according to different MTF charts, at f/11 is isn't as sharp as in smaller apertures. of course, if you have done your own trials and you're satisfied with it stopped down, great

Stacking will indeed offer a higher resolution image as it is getting rid of the noise. Astrophotographers use this technique to photograph nebulae and other constellations while getting a high-res image.
Yes, Panoramas with an ultrawide don't work well due to edge distortion unless you use a lot of overlapp between shots. 24mm usually is the lower limit for panos.


Closing, you have to be careful with the infinity markings and your markings. The main reason is that the lens case will probably expand or contract depending on the temperature under different conditions so that point that you've found today, might be slightly out of focus tomorrow. unfortunately, very few companies have a true infinity stop (Zeiss, leica).

El Diabolico Posted at 2-25 03:29
Probably

Regarding the Sigma, as I stated before, according to different MTF charts, at f/11 is isn't as sharp as in smaller apertures. of course, if you have done your own trials and you're satisfied with it stopped down, great

what is a true infinity stop?

yeah, I didn't know about the focus ring changes based upon weather and it's temperature

I've done my own trials by zooming in meticulously and comparing.

AntDX316 Posted at 2-25 05:00
what is a true infinity stop?

yeah, I didn't know about the focus ring changes based upon weather and it's temperature

The true infinity focus (hard stop on the lens) is when manufacturers calibrate the lens at the factory to stop at the infinity symbol AND the infinity symbol truly corresponds to infinity, meaning the image should be sharp and in focus.

However and although some manufacturers like ZEISS calibrate the infinity focus in their lab tests, DSLRs can vary slightly in the distance between the flange (lens mount) to the sensor (even the slightest difference can be significant with high Mpx sensors). In other words, you cannot rely on the infinity mark (on the lens) in order to achieve focus. It is paramount to use magnification (Live View) and manually zoom to infinity.
I've found an interesting video that might explain this even better

El Diabolico Posted at 2-27 06:11
The true infinity focus (hard stop on the lens) is when manufacturers calibrate the lens at the factory to stop at the infinity symbol AND the infinity symbol truly corresponds to infinity, meaning the image should be sharp and in focus.

However and although some manufacturers like ZEISS calibrate the infinity focus in their lab tests, DSLRs can vary slightly in the distance between the flange (lens mount) to the sensor (even the slightest difference can be significant with high Mpx sensors). In other words, you cannot rely on the infinity mark (on the lens) in order to achieve focus. It is paramount to use magnification (Live View) and manually zoom to infinity.

right when the infinity symbol hits the OSD seems to be optimal sharpness at distance but anymore just makes it worse