One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

David J Taylor wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

1440 x 1080 would allow for a small band at the bottom for status
information etc. It sounds like we looking at somewhat more than 1MP
(of RGB triples) to approach an optical finder.

It could have an infinite number of pixels and until they fix the lag it
won't be a replacement for optical for me.

If you're shooting landscapes or still lifes or portraits or products in a
studio it may be fine, but for anything that's moving the lag is still a
killer.

As for the person who was on about holding the camera at arms length, get
thee to a Best Buy and really _look_ at the cameras on display, don't just
glance at them and sneer, and you'll find that many of them have eye level
electronic finders.

IMO the best deal would be to have both an electronic and an optical finder,
then you can use whichever one best suits the shot. If they can be
superimposed in the same window so much the better.

Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.

.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.

HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something that
needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact battery
powered device.

6 MB/s is not that much by today's standards - in fact the above could
be 9 MB/s (12 bit depth) and still not be that much of a stretch.

OTOH, displaying 1920x1080 in a camera sized display is another matter.

Rather than an "EVF" image the approach should be to use lasers to
generate the image directly on the users retina. This would provide all
the resolution of an OVF as well as allow for zoom in detail.

The issue of phase v. contrast AF should be a non-issue if a phase AF
could be included in the optical path. Perhaps a semi-silvered mirror
at the expense of 1 stop of light to the sensor. Oops, this dumps a key
advantage of EVF, a more compact camera.

David J Taylor wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
Yep, hence the suggestion to improve DSLRs with an EVF switch. The
advantages of EVF don't require high res if you can flip freely
between optical and digital. In some ways the digital preview is more
useful at very low resolutions, like for example light meters, and
more specifically the idea of getting a realistic squint reality check
on your composition and exposure. It probably doesn't take many pixels
to build a reliable live histogram. That's what you want in the
viewfinder when twisting the aperture ring, or maybe DOF preview,
depending on the situation.

With many DSLRs now having Live View you almost have that.

Live view on my D700 is pretty lame. There are a bunch of awkward things
about it I won't go into now but the worst is when I had left it in live
view, then pick it up & raise the optical viewfinder to my eye and after
clicking the shutter, the view turns black and I missed the shot :-(

I use it for macro sometimes or extremely challenging focusing
situations on a tripod. It just is not very useful for general use, it's
easier to chimp the LCD than switch modes.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.

.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.

HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something that
needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact battery
powered device.

6 MB/s is not that much by today's standards - in fact the above could
be 9 MB/s (12 bit depth) and still not be that much of a stretch.

I make 1920 x 1280 x 30 (frames per second) x 3 (colours) x 8 bits (per
colour) somewhat more than 6MB/s.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
[]
It could have an infinite number of pixels and until they fix the lag it
won't be a replacement for optical for me.

If you're shooting landscapes or still lifes or portraits or products in
a
studio it may be fine, but for anything that's moving the lag is still a
killer.

Although I managed some good racing-car shots (moving!) with my bridge
camera, I have been much more successful with my DSLR. This is in bright
sunlight where lag shouldn't have been too much of an issue.....

[]
IMO the best deal would be to have both an electronic and an optical
finder,
then you can use whichever one best suits the shot. If they can be
superimposed in the same window so much the better.

... and many recent DSLRs offer both LCD (Live View) and optical finders.
Having the option of an eye level EVF would be the icing on the cake!

Cheers,
David

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
I use it for macro sometimes or extremely challenging focusing
situations on a tripod. It just is not very useful for general use, it's
easier to chimp the LCD than switch modes.

--
Paul Furman

Almost all of the time I use the optical finder. Live View is reserved
for awkward shots, where the swivel finder helps a lot, and for video, of
course.

Cheers,
David

Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.

.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.

HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something that
needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact battery
powered device.

6 MB/s is not that much by today's standards - in fact the above could
be 9 MB/s (12 bit depth) and still not be that much of a stretch.

I make 1920 x 1280 x 30 (frames per second) x 3 (colours) x 8 bits (per
colour) somewhat more than 6MB/s.

( d o h ! ). Yep, pushing 100 MB/s at 1.5 bytes per colour... still, is
that really an issue in dedicated hardware?

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in
the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about
3000x2000 "real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6
megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.

.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.

HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something
that needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact
battery powered device.

6 MB/s is not that much by today's standards - in fact the above
could be 9 MB/s (12 bit depth) and still not be that much of a stretch.

I make 1920 x 1280 x 30 (frames per second) x 3 (colours) x 8 bits
(per colour) somewhat more than 6MB/s.

( d o h ! ). Yep, pushing 100 MB/s at 1.5 bytes per colour... still, is
that really an issue in dedicated hardware?


I don't know. I just fixed the webcam in my laptop - woohoo - some
idiot on the assembly line forgot to plug a connector in to the
motherboard properly, and it fell out at about the same time the
warranty expired.
Anyway, the lag situation - wave hand in front of webcam - is very
dependant on resolution set, at maximum (1280x1024) it's truly horrible,
at 640x480 it's sort of okay. I don't know where the blockage is in the
pipeline there. A bit the same when say playing a bluray disk, is the
CPU/GPU getting hot from decoding, or from feeding the video signal out?
The lag is pretty bad on my D300 in LV mode at 640 x 480, and on a Canon
5DII, about the same as the webcam set at that resolution. OTOH I
haven't tried the new panasonic cameras - perhaps they're better.
Some of the time this won't matter. Sometimes it will.