A little brother of cestdelamerde.com is born today : have a look at JavaPorn - Pornographic Java.

Here is a picture a friend sent to me this morning :



It shows Chinese soldiers that seem to receive a "Monk Pack"...

This picture is circulating on the internet. This is not a new picture, it's known since 2003. As the rumors gorws on the Internet, the Chinese TV claims it has been shoot during the filming of "The Torch" in 2001 ; arguing that the uniform has changed since.

[edit] more on that story : http://www.rue89.com/chinatown/quand-des-soldats-chinois-se-deguisent-en-moines-tibetains (in french sorry)

I've just received photos that was printed by photobox.com. They are offering 40 prints in normal quality (not eco) for each new customer.

They just does not understand what an ICC profile is. Color rendition are wrong on all shoots. The colors are just rendered the same way as if it was printed from a Firefox browser without the ICC profile support... As the first time you order you have 40 prints free, I will ask my girlfriend to send test jpegs with fancy icc profiles embedded... So, I will do another post later to confirm this first impression.

Even worse : it seems that they are applying custom algorithms that totally change how pictures are exposed. This is really strange, since some printed pictures are brighter than on my screen and some other are darker !

Just don't send them you're pictures.

I'm trying to buy a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX APO II MACRO HSM telephoto lens with a Nikon mount.

The lens can be bought on French sites (like pixmania or missnumerique) at around 1000€ [1] & [2].

You can buy it from B&H at around 800$, if you take into account the euro/dollar rate and the french VAT (20%) it costs 690€ [3]. (There is no other taxes except the VAT applicable when importing this to France)

Why is there such a difference ?

[1] Pixmania price
[2] Missnumerique price
[3] B&H price

I've done some tests today using a ISO-12233 resolution chart.

It confirmed my first impression :

At wide open aperture (1.4), the border resolution is poor and the center suffers of very high pronounced chromatic abberations : high contrast figures are rendered with a purple, yellow or cyan glare that can be as high as 10 pixels.
Stopping down at 2.3 helps : the center is sharp, scratching the resolution of the 10M pixel sensor of the D40x. The border are still soft.
At 5.6 aperture, the center reaches the sweet spot of the lens, the borders are still a bit less sharp, but nothing to worry about.
An aperture of 8 is uniformizing the lens performance everywhere in the picture : however, the resolution of the center (and thus the border) is still a bit under the one of the center when stopped down at 5.6.
At 16, a mild quality drop can be observed in the center as well as in the border.

Vignetting is a non issue when using 2.8 or higher aperture settings.

Yellow/cyan chromatic abberations are present at all aperture settings. But this is generally not a show stopper here.

The lens also shows a quite high barrel distortion (I've nothing to measure this, but it seems high for a standart lens, maybe around 1%).

To conclude, this lens has a bad optical design, this is not a big surprise here as it is a (cheap) russian copy of a regular nikon lens. However russian engineeners have fogotten to include some features in this lens such as multicoated optical elements that would have helped in reducing chromatic abberations, at least at ultra wide aperture settings. Buying a regular 50/1.4 Nikon AI-S lens seems to be a better choice, even if the price of such a lens is a bit higher (>150$ or more for an used one).

I recently bought an Arsat H 50/1.4 lens for my Nikon DSLR. It is a cheap lens (<100$), however it is not really easy to find. Some items can be catched on ebay.

This lens is a soviet copy of the Nikon 50/1.4 standart AI-S lens. The build quality of the lens is not comparable to high quality Nikon lenses. Anyway, the lens is fully made of metal and it feels like a solid rock. the zoom ring is smooth but the aperture ring seems a bit fragile. The engravings indicating the aperture and the focus distance are dumpy. The rubber band of the focus ring is a piece of crap : it is poorly assembled to the focus ring.

At wide open aperture, the lens suffers from excessive chromatic abberations when using it in normal field condition thus resulting in dreamy pictures, especially when using it focused at the infinite. The image below is a 1:1 crop of a shoot at 1.4 focused on infinite :


Stopping down to 2.8 helps a lot :


I've not done strict resolution tests, nonetheless, the center performance seems to be very good from 2.8 to 16, but border performance is only good from 5.6 aperture. At wide open aperture, the border resolution is awful, and the center resolution is not so good : the lens seems to suffers of high diffraction/reflexion in it (as shown in the above image), using it in low contrast and low light condition helps here.

Even if this lens is far for perfect, it is still a very funny lens to use and some good pictures may be produced with it. Here are some sample pictures that demonstrates that a reasonnable level of sharpness can be reached with it :



Above pictures have been taken with aperture of 1.4 & 2.8.

Go to the about:config page, search for an entry called gfx.color_management.enabled, if it does not exist, create this entry as a boolean. Then, simply set this to true and restart you're Firefox.

This workaround has been tested successfully on Firefox 3 Beta 4, and may not work with previous versions.

Click on the link below to test if you're browser correctly handles colour profiles. Two different picture have been sent 3 times to flickr using different color spaces (sRVB, Adobe RVB and ProPhoto RVB). If you can see color differences between pictures, you're browser is a piece of crap !

Note that in Safari, all colors are exactly rendered the same way Thanks to Apple for taking care of beautiful colours on pictures !

The Test Flickr Gallery

What's amazing is that Flickr does not alter the original color space of pictures when resizing them.

Résultats des élections Municipales 2008

If you are a Facebook user, you may have noticed that sometimes, you click on something you thought was a Facebook internal link, but you are redirected to another site. Facebook duped you !

See the picture below, the link is actually an ad with the Facebook CSS style : smart