When will the current alphas become 'obsolete' (1 Viewer)

I'm one of them strange people who doesn't upgrade electronics.
When my laptop became a dinosaur I opted not to buy another one and this was
about 3-4 yrs ago. I opted not to upgrade my iPhone 5c recently when the screen broke.
Instead I accepted a brand new replacement 5c the Apple Store offered me for 50 bucks. I was told I don't
have enough storage on the phone to download apps. Luckily I don't have any interest in downloading apps.
I just have my old iPhone, an old timey AM/FM radio with dial tuner...and that's it; no camera, tablet or laptop.
I don't care to have a camera. I don't need a picture of any birds I see. I like binoculars the way they are now and appreciate how easy they are to use. I like that they will not become unusable in just a few years and I won't be forced to upgrade. I don't think there are too many people like me left. The younger people at work are blown away that I don't watch tv on my laptop (that I don't own) and watch bare-bones basic cable programming on an old un-smart tv.

GG:

I like your attitude. You are not alone, just conservative. Carry on.

And a Happy New Year to you and all on the site.

Jerry

dries1 said:

So some are waiting for an accidental/incidental development?

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Exactly so.
Given how conservative this market segment is, no rational business man would invest to innovate there. Swaro, Zeiss etc are very rationally led.

Progress will come from outside, perhaps some camera or cell phone maker who is intimately familiar with computational imaging and who aims to make a splash at no great expense.

NDhunter said:

GG:

I like your attitude. You are not alone, just conservative. Carry on.

And a Happy New Year to you and all on the site.

Jerry

Click to expand...

You too Jerry Happy and healthy New Year to all.

Maybe it is a perception or personality thing, but for me I welcome whatever revolution or innovation creates the best tool for the job, and that is exactly what I see binoculars as: a tool to improve my ability to gain visual details of the natural world. I do not care if it is analog, digitial, etc, so long as it most is the most efficient way for me to acquire visual information. For a time, I took a scope and binos to view shorebirds and waterfowl (amonng others), but a few years back I received a cheap superzooms camera which all but eliminated my need for a scope in such circumstances (though a scope still comes in handy for other uses, such as hawk watching.. .).
Justin

Happy new years everybody! All the best to all the members.

Andy W.

NDhunter said:

GG:

I like your attitude. You are not alone, just conservative. Carry on.

And a Happy New Year to you and all on the site.

Jerry

Click to expand...

And to you Gerry and GiGi and Andy and everyone here.

Lee

jremmons said:

Maybe it is a perception or personality thing, but for me I welcome whatever revolution or innovation creates the best tool for the job, and that is exactly what I see binoculars as: a tool to improve my ability to gain visual details of the natural world. I do not care if it is analog, digitial, etc, so long as it most is the most efficient way for me to acquire visual information. For a time, I took a scope and binos to view shorebirds and waterfowl (amonng others), but a few years back I received a cheap superzooms camera which all but eliminated my need for a scope in such circumstances (though a scope still comes in handy for other uses, such as hawk watching.. .).
Justin

Click to expand...

Binoculars are more than a tool for me and I know others here feel the same.
I have a fondness, admiration and attachment to them. That's why many are here and like to talk about them so much. Some people collect them too. Of course I do appreciate my bino as a tool and use it as such. It enables me to engage in my interest/hobby. I know that digital/computer electronics can be collectible too like old gaming consoles for example, but I've never felt any attachment to any types of digital devices like I do for some other things (like binos). I'm not sure exactly why that is. Maybe I don't admire the craftmenship of computerized devices or the feel and function of them. These to me are merely tools and nothing more.

I go to a Blimpies for lunch some weekends after I go bird watching at a spot nearby and they have this super clear tv (astonishing). I finally asked the guy what type
of TV is it. He said it's a 4K. It's a lot better than what I have which is the original HD type (un-smart). I have no interest whatsoever to buy a new tv after seeing a much better one. Weird how I appreciate a clear pretty view through a top binocular, but don't care too much about TVs in the same way. My current tv still gets the job done fine.

etudiant said:

Exactly so.
Given how conservative this market segment is, no rational business man would invest to innovate there. Swaro, Zeiss etc are very rationally led.

Progress will come from outside, perhaps some camera or cell phone maker who is intimately familiar with computational imaging and who aims to make a splash at no great expense.

Click to expand...

I think Zeiss will jump on the train (with Sony support) when the tech is good enough. It's not today.

Maybe QIS will solve the equation with small sensor size, fast continuous readout but still good noise performance and low energy consumption:

"The Quanta Image Sensor (QIS) is a possible 3rd generation solid-state image sensor technology based on photon-counting. Primarily focused on scientific and defense applications, it may also be useful for consumer applications."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZSoQgDrOM

To add to my last post:

One thing I noticed lately about super clear digital images is an unnatural quality to some degree.
In the photo gallery sub forum here I recently noticed this unnatural quality to some of the bird photos.
Some of the birds look stuffed! They don't look like real birds. Hard to say exactly why, but here are some thoughts:
They look too clean perhaps.
Backgrounds are blurred out due to shallow DOF. The backgrounds are a wash of colors while the subject bird is focused in the foreground with super fine detail. The bird is removed from its environment and all life around it is erased. The bird looks fake and inanimate/not alive...stuffed. I would keep the background in focus as well to show the animal in the environment if I was taking photos these days. That's just an artistic preference of course.

Every time I watch the 4K tv at the Blimpie's I get a similar type of feeling. Last time they were showing Kindergarten Cop which is an old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The set looked like a movie set and things didn't look natural at all. I could see the makeup on the actors. Everything looked choreographed in the background with extras walking around. The police station looked too clean. The extra fine detail the 4K tv provides makes the shows paradoxically immersive and not-immersive at the same time. I hope that makes sense. I don't know how else to describe what I'm seeing.

Gilmore Girl said:

To add to my last post:

One thing I noticed lately about super clear digital images is an unnatural quality to some degree.
In the photo gallery sub forum here I recently noticed this unnatural quality to some of the bird photos.
Some of the birds look stuffed! They don't look like real birds. Hard to say exactly why, but here are some thoughts:
They look too clean perhaps.
Backgrounds are blurred out due to shallow DOF. The backgrounds are a wash of colors while the subject bird is focused in the foreground with super fine detail. The bird is removed from its environment and all life around it is erased. The bird looks fake and inanimate/not alive...stuffed. I would keep the background in focus as well to show the animal in the environment if I was taking photos these days. That's just an artistic preference of course.

Every time I watch the 4K tv at the Blimpie's I get a similar type of feeling. Last time they were showing Kindergarten Cop which is an old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The set looked like a movie set and things didn't look natural at all. I could see the makeup on the actors. Everything looked choreographed in the background with extras walking around. The police station looked too clean. The extra fine detail the 4K tv provides makes the shows paradoxically immersive and not-immersive at the same time. I hope that makes sense. I don't know how else to describe what I'm seeing.

Click to expand...

There is a camera editing technique called bokeh that is used to blur the background intentionally. This serves to focus all attention on a particular subject. You see it a lot, and I for one happen to detest it. That may be what you are seeing in those photos.

There is a lot of debate in digital screen preferences in cell phones particularly. Samsung for instance happens to focus on an extremely warm color tint that shows a high degree of over saturation. Some like it, some don't. When you are a photographer, you use things like Photoshop, GIMP, or DigiKam to tweak your photo on your computer. Your personal preferences work their way into the look of the photo. Edit to add: Not to mention conjuring up fake "photoshopped" sightings.

I don't know how long it will take, or who will do it, but we will see a digital binocular of some sort. Like smart phones the first ones will be pretty crude. However we are likely to see 45 mega pixel cell phone cameras this year, and anybody who has not played with the camera on a Google Pixel 3 smart phone and the AI tech Google has built into it is likely in for a surprise. No it is still short of what many would consider a real camera, but progress is an amazing thing.

I'm not likely to abandon a real binocular for as long as I live, but I am surely interested to see what shakes out in whatever direction "improvement" takes us.

Steve C said:

There is a camera editing technique called bokeh that is used to blur the background intentionally. This serves to focus all attention on a particular subject. You see it a lot, and I for one happen to detest it. That may be what you are seeing in those photos.

There is a lot of debate in digital screen preferences in cell phones particularly. Samsung for instance happens to focus on an extremely warm color tint that shows a high degree of over saturation. Some like it, some don't. When you are a photographer, you use things like Photoshop, GIMP, or DigiKam to tweak your photo on your computer. Your personal preferences work their way into the look of the photo. Edit to add: Not to mention conjuring up fake "photoshopped" sightings.

I don't know how long it will take, or who will do it, but we will see a digital binocular of some sort. Like smart phones the first ones will be pretty crude. However we are likely to see 45 mega pixel cell phone cameras this year, and anybody who has not played with the camera on a Google Pixel 3 smart phone and the AI tech Google has built into it is likely in for a surprise. No it is still short of what many would consider a real camera, but progress is an amazing thing.

I'm not likely to abandon a real binocular for as long as I live, but I am surely interested to see what shakes out in whatever direction "improvement" takes us.

Click to expand...

I was an art major in college and had a couple years worth of photography classes. This was film photography and I developed and printed my photos.
To create shallow DOF so that the subject is mainly in focus you would set the f stop to a lower setting (making the aperture bigger) and higher setting for deeper DOF. That's what I thought was happening with these digital photos, but makes sense you can simply manipulate the background with the graphics tools in the app. I don't know anything about digital photography except that it does seem to do a lot for you and makes it easier to get a desired image. I have no desire to take photos ever again. Not sure why, but I lost the passion for it.

Yep, I hate those types of photos too.

I would think if the military feels the need for digital binoculars it will come to fruition in short order. I doubt the military feels the need, as drones can see in all conditions.

Years ago there was a small niche for civilian thermal rifle scopes, as the price for a good one exceeded $25K, today there is a market and the best quality thermal scopes go for around the $6/7K mark (greatly exceeding the best old models for $25K) and the quality will just get better and the price will continue to go down for the very good models and will go up a tad for the exceptional ones. I can see binoculars taking that route digitally and 20 years isn’t all that long, as when I think back 20 years ago, some days it seemed like yesterday.|=)|

In rifle scopes I understand you can attach a smart phone to view the target with the "cross hairs and or red dot" on the subject, focusing whilst also recording this for playback. All you do is squeeze the trigger though wont be long before AI does this for you, or there's a little pressure button instead.
Another thread on BF mentions Canon IS binoculars as now being heavily discounted whilst also being reduced in the amount of models ( spec ) being offered. Is this down to reliability, lack of demand or new products coming out by "Alpha brands"?

Steve C said:

There is a camera editing technique called bokeh that is used to blur the background intentionally. This serves to focus all attention on a particular subject. You see it a lot, and I for one happen to detest it. That may be what you are seeing in those photos.

Click to expand...

With the advent of long lenses as well as very wide aperture for film and photography, these qualities have been around for over half a century, probably most often noticed in sports photography, but also in movies. Shallow depth of field is a useful tool for artists as much as it is a by product of the physics of the lenses involved.

Digital manipulation allows one to be more selective or purposeful with regard to all sorts of visual characteristics, and certainly can be done poorly or excessively, resulting in entirely 'unnatural' results. However anytime we are not looking with our own eyes at the world, we are dealing with a false reality, that is riddled with artifacts of one sort or another. Over time we accept them as some sort of reasonable substitute.

Think of all the qualities of film that make something feel old, or might imply the character of 'realism'... black and white, hand held camera shake, film grain, vignetting... all artifacts of the recording and projecting devices and processes, none of them inherent aspects of our own vision.

-Bill

Gilmore Girl said:

To add to my last post:
.....
Every time I watch the 4K tv at the Blimpie's I get a similar type of feeling. Last time they were showing Kindergarten Cop which is an old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The set looked like a movie set and things didn't look natural at all. I could see the makeup on the actors. Everything looked choreographed in the background with extras walking around. The police station looked too clean. The extra fine detail the 4K tv provides makes the shows paradoxically immersive and not-immersive at the same time. I hope that makes sense. I don't know how else to describe what I'm seeing.

Click to expand...

Gigi, That is a perfect description of the resolution of the projection system revealing all the flaws of a world not designed or lit to be seen with that much detail. In addition, the internal image processing is probably adding its own artifacts that make it look 'fake' (edge contrast enhancement, color compression and saturation). And finally, perhaps the budget had very little money for set design after they paid Ahnold's salary. 8-P

-Bill

wdc said:

Gilmore Girl said:

To add to my last post:
......
Every time I watch the 4K tv at the Blimpie's I get a similar type of feeling. Last time they were showing Kindergarten Cop which is an old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. The set looked like a movie set and things didn't look natural at all. I could see the makeup on the actors. Everything looked choreographed in the background with extras walking around. The police station looked too clean. The extra fine detail the 4K tv provides makes the shows paradoxically immersive and not-immersive at the same time. I hope that makes sense. I don't know how else to describe what I'm seeing.

Click to expand...

Gigi, That is a perfect description of the resolution of the projection system revealing all the flaws of a world not designed or lit to be seen with that much detail. In addition, the internal image processing is probably adding its own artifacts that make it look 'fake' (edge contrast enhancement, color compression and saturation). And finally, perhaps the budget had very little money for set design after they paid Ahnold's salary. 8-P

-Bill

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what it is. The further away the displayed higher (4K) resolution is from the natively filmed resolution, the more 'upscaling' artifacts are introduced. Some of the results can look truly woeful, and you would be better off watching them at SD (DVD) or HD (Blu-ray) quality - whichever is closest to the native resolution.

Some films/shows were captured at higher resolution than the 'printed' copies were released/broadcast at, and quite a few have been remastered for release at higher resolution (usually HD[720p] or Blu-ray[1080p]).

Bill is right about all the flaws being revealed by higher resolution (4K) ...... some of the sets, makeup, and early special FX look rather comical when the picture is sharp enough to show a boil on a blowfly's bum! ||

Even now, I love watching the old original super-marionation Thunderbird series, and the TV UFO series, which we originally got as 20-odd year old reruns .... Gerry Anderson was a genius! :t:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Anderson
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfIAKj3Gl1E
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3HWhEikJmIM
LOL! I loved the class of Lady Penelope and always wanted a real pink 6-wheeled Rolls Royce ..... but could never find one! :cat:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDy4OMAkgY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvURidpkCY
Fantastic stuff!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAFVSzGhVw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFrvr-VY-q4
Luckily the alien UFO pilot wasn't wearing a seat belt and was thrown clear of the impact explosion lol ! 3

I think a lot of the budgets of "Arnie" films were taken up with the American accent acting lessons! :-O ...... though in fairness he speaks much better Austrian than I could ever hope to .....

P.S. As far as the out of focus backgrounds on photos goes, this is usually a desirable artistic feature used for subject isolation. When it is done the analogue way (even on digital cameras) - ie. by using a large aperture (low numerically) refractive lens of high quality then the results are very pleasing (even if a rather substantial $$$ hit to the wallet!). For example, see this photo of an Eastern Yellow Robin (which from memory was something like ~5-8m away) in my gallery - at f6.3 my budget 600mm lens was wide open, but the background was far enough away from the subject to be completely blurred out nicely. https://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/510538/ppuser/92780

When these increased bokeh backgrounds are achieved by computational photography such as is emerging with smartphones, then I don't find the results as pleasing or natural ....

P.P.S. [GiGi] A lot of the photos in my gallery were taken on old school film (which I then photographed with my phone to post in the gallery - losing some detail and nuance, and introducing distortions in the process - I have to find a better way to digitise my old film prints to a higher resolution).


And btw - the whole subject of what makes a 'natural' colour representation even within the broadcast/display industry is an area of much debate and nuance. Much progress has been made over the last two decades though and the differences between manufacturers are not as great as they used to be - there has been somewhat of a convergence towards natural.

Haha! and you lot think there are raging debates here about 'colour cast', saturation, contrast, brightness, and subjectivity! lol o



Chosun :gh:

Gilmore Girl said:

Backgrounds are blurred out due to shallow DOF. The backgrounds are a wash of colors while the subject bird is focused in the foreground with super fine detail. The bird is removed from its environment and all life around it is erased. The bird looks fake and inanimate/not alive...stuffed. I would keep the background in focus as well to show the animal in the environment if I was taking photos these days. That's just an artistic preference of course.

Click to expand...

No, it's probably impossible. Check the focal lengths, if provided. Many bird photos have to be taken with 500mm (or longer) lenses that can't also keep backgrounds in focus even if one wanted them to.

tenex said:

No, it's probably impossible. Check the focal lengths, if provided. Many bird photos have to be taken with 500mm (or longer) lenses that can't also keep backgrounds in focus even if one wanted them to.

Click to expand...

I do see those huge 500-600mm lenses out. I also see people carrying smaller lenses too that look to be maybe 200, not really sure. Looking at a handful of photos in the gallery here I see some 100-400mm lenses being listed. I guess it depends on how much reach you want. If I was back in it I'd probably carry something lighter mostly for convenience and just get photos of closer birds.

But what I was getting at earlier is this purposeful isolation of the subject by manipulating DOF to be very shallow making the background disappear for the most part. I see some nice photos in the gallery which have varying degrees of background blur. Most photos look natural. However, sometimes I see some bird photos online which make the birds appear stuffed/lifeless. The detail of the subject is super fine (extreme) and clean and the background essentially removed. Whether this is equipment limitation or manipulation (or some degree of both) I can't tell. But these types of photos are not something I would strive for personally. Closer photos can have deeper DOF by Adjusting f stop, but i see photographers are intentionally making an adjustment to get the "bokeh" shot (or whatever it's called) and they may be using the SW graphics tools too as Steve pointed out.

It's been many years since I've taken manual photos, so I've forgotten some of the technical aspects.

See...

https://gladstonegallery.com/artist/jean-luc-mylayne/work#&panel1-1

Large format camera, normal lens and lots of patience (but then again, they're not really about birds...)