I was using an inline javascript block in my blog post to initialize the lightbox script for the images in the post. Now, as my photo website/blog is XHTML, I enclosed the javascript code in a CDATA tag. But Wordpress, for some unknown reason, converts the end ]]> into and ]]> for some cheesun. I spent ages trying to work out what wordpress function was causing this, and how to fix it, until I eventually found this thread on the Wordpress forums: the_content breaking inline javascript. So it seems it just a Wordpress bug that none of the developers wants to fix.
So in the end I just removed the CDATA tags, I didn't have any &s, >s, or <s in the javascript code anyway. I'm not sure what to do if I do need to use those characters in javascript in a future post though. I guess I'll just have to comment out the offending line in the Wordpress core.
In the afternoon there was a Sigma SD14 DSLR camera coming up near the end of the auction on ebay. It was only £300 at the time (it ended at £420 + £15 P&P), and came with 2 lenses, a flash, and a 2GB CF card. So I looked into the camera and main lens to see if was worth buying.
The Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 lens didn't seem to get particularly good reviews. Next I looked into the camera's Infrared abilities, which is what I'd be purchasing it for. Strangely, I couldn't find much info or examples on this. Most of the examples I could find were black and white, or false colours that I didn't find particularly appealing.
It seems that the camera handles IR photos a bit differently to other cameras. I think this is probably because one third of its (RGB) sensor is red pixels, while normal Bayer (GRGB) sensors are only one quarter red pixels. From the comments I read, it seems that exposures times without the IR blocking filter are also much quicker than with other cameras.
However, after reading this post, which says
I've used a Sigma SD 14 before. Removing the hot mirror is stupid easy then all you have to do is add a visible blocking filter (or a couple sheets of unexposed, developed E-6 film) in front of the lens. The downside is it is around 4.something Megapixels. That said, it's uninterpolated. I feel that it's as sharp as a 10MP camera, not a 14 like sigma claims. You can up-res or just print it at 100-150dpi.I was less sure. If the SD14 was really good for Infrared, it's unlikely they would have switched to the Fuji IS Pro. And I already have my nikon mount lenses (and accessories) I could use with the Fuji IS Pro.
I currently work with a Fuji IS-Pro for doing infrared photography of paintings. It works extremely well, except many lenses seem to have hot-spot issues at small apertures, so it took a little while to find a good lens (even the Zeiss Makro they originally bundled the camera with had hot-spots.) The advantage of the IS-Pro is it has live view. If you're using a completely visible opaque filter, the live view still works for framing and focusing.
Then I also read the posts on this thread: Digital IR cameras, where it is suggested that even the very old Nikon D50 would be better than the Sigma SD14. Particularly in the last post, which says:
So I decided I'd probably be better off getting a Fuji IS Pro, and it was only worth getting the Sigma if it was really cheap.Quote:
Unfortunatly some of the Sigma users on the DPreview forum can get a bit carried away at times but, the point still stand that the Sigma out of the box can do IR photography with no modifications apart rom removing the dust cover NONE of the other DSLRS can do that.
None? The Fuji UV/IR can do IR out of the box (and UV which the Sigma doesn't do), and it doesn't need a filter to be removed. Plus, the Sigma filter is fragile:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25194633
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25212031
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25213943
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=25214601
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=24390827
However, most cameras do require a modification for IR, and an unmodified D50 isn't too bad either.Quote:
As to the point about the D50 being a better camera in which way?
Many ways. The D50 is cheaper, faster buffer write times, faster and more reliable autofocus, fewer firmware bugs (no lock-ups or corrupt images), has an easier to use interface (no ridiculous FUNC button), an orientation sensor, auto-ISO, lower noise especially at higher ISO settings, more sophisticated flash system, substantially better battery life and a significantly wider selection of lenses including fast normal/tele and stabilized lenses. On the other hand, the SD-14 has depth of field preview and mirror lockup and the D50 does not. And although the SD-14 can use non-Sigma lenses with adapters, they won't autofocus and they require manual aperture control, and sometimes they even need to be disassembled so that protruding parts don't hit the dust filter. It's a good thing that filter is removable!Quote:
body yes very probably but image wise not in a hundred years, show me an A0 print of a D50 image that has the detail of any one of the Sigma images go on have a look at the sigma forum on pbase or is it that because its not a Nikon or Canon it can't be any good or is it a case of being to blinkered to actually see that the Foveon sensor could just be the way to go and get rid of all the bayer mush.
There are literally millions of very sharp and detailed Bayer images printed at A0 and larger and that the 'Bayer mush' is invariably due to focusing errors, lens choice, shallow depth of field, camera shake, etc. Also, Sigma images are heavily sharpened (even 0 sharpening in SPP is actually a heavy dose of USM). And lets not forget that those huge Sigma images had a LOT of postprocessing done to avoid all of the jaggies and other artifacts.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=22514745
In the evening I watched 'Cyclists special' and 'Holiday' (both British Transport films) with Mauser. I thought 'Holiday' was better than the other films so far, being shot in a more artistic manner, with good music, and little narration. It was quite interesting to see Blackpool in the fifties (not that I know what it's like now though). Some of the local kids had small carts they would use for transporting tourists suitcases. The film showed them waiting together, like mini rickshaw drivers.
After that I wrote this blog post, did some more work on my photo website blog, helped Mauser with Photoshop, and looked into Neutral Density filters.
I found on ebay some 'Fader ND' and 'Fader ND Ultra' filters that sound very similar the Singh Ray vari-ND filter, with the standard Fader ND offering 2-8 stops, and the Ultra version offering 9-12 stops. The 'official' Light Craft Workshop versions are quite expensive though, £122 for the 77mm standard version or about £150 for the 77mm ultra version.
The weather was a mixture of sun clouds, and rain, with it raining quite heavily for a bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment