I mentioned the Vudu Disc to Digital program in a prior post, so I am following up on the service and how it works.

The service will allow you to upload certain DVDs and Blu-ray Discs to their site and make them available online.  The cost for DVD transfers in standard definition is $2 per disc.  The price is the same for transferring Blu-ray Discs to their HDX (1080p) format and if you want to convert your DVDs to HDX it costs $5.  When I signed up, they had a deal that made it cheaper for a few months, but I don't think they offer it any more.

The main downside is that they do not have all movies on file, so if you have a large library, I can almost guarantee that you won't be able to convert them all.  Also, some DVDs can't be converted to their HDX format.

Other than that, you simply download their VuduToGo app on Windows or OSX and load a disc.  Assuming the movie is in their library, it will then give you a choice to use HDX or standard definition for DVDs, and after you choose, it will allow you to copy it.  It works fairly quickly and I had very little problems with the software.

Once you have your movies loaded to their site, there are several ways to access them.   My main use for these files is streaming with a Roku, but the Vudu app is available on many products (iPad®, iPhone, computers, Xbox 360®, PlayStation® 3, certain Blu-ray players, and certain HDTVs).  Once you sign in, you will see every movie you have uploaded and you can instantly stream them.

For on the go, they have iPad, iPhone, and computer apps that will allow you to stream the movies.  However, the best part is that you can also download the movie to these devices and have them available when you are offline.   For my iPad, it took about 20 minutes to download a movie.

I should mention that the quality of these files (HDX) is really good, but not Blu-ray quality.  For me, once I see a movie in its best format, I don't mind watching it again in a lower quality.  If you are someone that only wants to watch Blu-ray, you may want to rent one of their movies in HDX before converting your movies to be sure you can live with HDX quality.

All in all, I really like the service.  The ability to convert DVDs to HDX quality, the ability to have a backup offsite, and the ability to download the files to a device for playing back when you aren't online is fantastic.  

I have to admit that I have always preferred taking photos to editing them.  Quite often, I have gone on an outing and snapped off hundreds of photos and only looked at them on the camera's viewfinder.

My girlfriend will ask me to just put the camera down for a while and enjoy the experience, but I am one of those people that enjoy it more with a camera in hand.

For one thing, looking through a viewfinder makes me take in more of the details of the experience and forces me to really pay attention.  This makes it easier to remember details of the experience for a long time.  I remember visiting Seagrove Beach, FL and visiting the area where Eastern Lake flows into the Gulf of Mexico.  The details of the sun going down, the boat on the beach, the birds, etc.. all are etched firmly in my memory.  

Anyway, with the heat of the Memphis summer bearing down, I have been going back through my many photos and I decided to edit some of them that have been untouched since I moved them to my computer.  It is definitely interesting seeing some of these photos after months or even several years.  I remember attending my niece's birthday party several yeas ago and taking horse pictures, the dog rolling in the grass, and the barn cat sleeping in a resin chair. It is a vivid recollection of everything we did.  I probably would have never thought about it again had it not been for the photos I took.

After spending a couple weeks looking back over my photos, I am glad I took the time to look through my archives.  I have barely scratched the surface, but it is a great way to bring back memories of the experiences I have had over the last several years.  In short, going through my archives makes me happy to be a photographer.

I mentioned several reasons that full frame cameras are more versatile in a prior post, but I also missed an important issue with micro four thirds when compared to Canon/Nikon cameras.

According to USA Today,  the m43 (micro four thirds) format is extremely unpopular in the United States.  According to the article, "Of the 1.8 million cameras shipped in the Americas (not just the USA) in April, a measly 38,843 of them were mirrorless — 2% of the total."


Also, Olympus received a large investment from Sony last year, so it is easy to speculate on how long they will be in the business of making these cameras.  If they decide to drop m43, it would leave Panasonic as the only company making m43 cameras.   For those investing in Olympus lenses, this would leave them without image stabilization because Olympus puts stabilization in their bodies rather than their lenses (unlike Panasonic).  


I should mention that I am a big fan of the format because of the small lenses and camera sizes.  Also, the cameras and lenses are often cheaper than the other formats.  The ability to add an adapter and use these cameras with most any lens ever made gives them even more appeal.


However, with so many questions about the longevity of the format, it makes it a tough decision on whether I should invest money in the lenses.  Yeah, my EPL5 (my initial impression are here) should work for a long time, but as I mentioned in my other article, there are plenty of improvements that need to made.  I currently have 3 lenses and I would like to add a few more, but they aren't exactly cheap.

The popular thought on DSLR lenses is that they are worth the money because they can be used on new camera models in the future and they will usually continue to hold a lot of their value.  This allows a consumer to feel justified in spending money on lenses.  They are investment for now and in the future.   My mindset is that the Canon 100mm, that I bought for a 20D about 8 years ago, will still be in my Canon kit in another 8 years.  I worry that the m43 lenses will only work with cameras bought today and in the near future and will not work on cameras down the road.  This, in theory, makes the purchase of an m43 lens more of a gamble compared to a DSLR lens, unless you only care about using it today.

My plan is to wait a while before buying any new lenses.  I currently have m43 lenses the cover 28-300mm and 20mm f1.7 for low light.   When I need something else (which will be rare), I am going to just rent the lens for now.  Luckily, there is a lens rental company near by, so I can save on shipping.

I should mention that I may decide that using the camera now with great lenses outweighs the question of future use and buy a couple more lenses .  I just can't decide how much money I want to spend on this format right now, which is a major problem for the format if others are asking themselves the same question.  

I really do hope the m43 has a future and that the current companies making bodies will continue to improve. I just wonder if the market for these cameras will grow.   The smartphone cameras are getting better and better, so the market for the intermediate, small camera could continue to shrink, while a great portion of serious photographers will continue to buy full frame DSLRs because of their many advantages.  I guess time will tell and I certainly don't have a crystal ball.

As I mentioned on my Win8 page, I installed Win8 on my mid 2010 Mac Mini a while back. At the time, everything I read said that I should allocate 20GB of space to the partition.   To be "safe", I allocated 30GBs.

Unfortunately, 30GBs ran out way too fast!  Anytime I tried to run anything on Win8, it choked up and then I started getting errors at start up saying I was almost out of space.  I ended up deleting almost all of my programs, but it still had very little space. 

I decided to research allocating more memory, but most of what I read said that I needed a backup, a startup disc, and a lot of time.  As a result, I put off the project and just stuck with using only OSX.

A week or so ago, I looked into it again.  I found a few programs, one of them was $9.95 for one week of use.  However, I waited and just got around to doing the project today.  I found a program called CamptuneX that was recommended quite often. I could only find it a $19.95 price, but I thought it was worth it if it was relatively painless.

Well, I did have some issues.  I ran into an error on my first try.  It said "Mac OSX filesystem failed, please repair Mac OSX and try again".   I looked into it and found out that I should run "Disk Utility".  I "repaired" my OSX drive and my partitioned drive.  I ran CamptuneX again and it ran without a problem.  I should mention that it took over an hour (somewhere between one and three hours).  I then restarted my computer and ran VMWare Fusion5.

This is when I ran into a message that said "move bootcamp virtual machine to trash".   I opened the VMWare application and the bootcamp partition was on the left side of the box and a trashcan was above it on the right.  I right clicked on it and chose "delete".  It got rid of Bootcamp.  I then clicked on a box to reinstall bootcamp.  After that, I restarted Windows and it updated VMWare tools and restarted.  

After all that, I am up and running.  The partition is now 70GBs and should hold me over for a while.  I mainly use Win8 for WMC and JRiver Media Center, so I am not too worried about space concerns at this point.  I still think the program was worth the money since I did not need to burn discs or backup (although I would suggest that you backup, since I do not want to be blamed if you wreck your computer).  Actually, now that I think about it, under any circumstances, I am not taking credit if you wreck your computer.  You should follow up with CamptuneX if you have a problem.

I have decided to eliminate the "buy it" page from the site.  Although it was getting some activity, and Amazon shows a lot of clicks, very few people were buying anything.  Since the layout of my pages only allow room for so many titles in the header, I have eliminated the page to make room for another page down the road.  Also, I get more clicks out of the blog section, so I will try to include all of the links in that section in the future.

Also, I will try to get in and add links for products in the pages that discuss them when I have time.   If you have a question about where I got something and it isn't linked, send me an email or fill in one of the comment sections.

I have tried to keep my pages relatively free of advertising, but I feel that linking to product locations in articles makes it easier for people to track them down rather than having to go to a "buy it" page and locate them.   

Since buying an Olympus Pen E-PL5 (that I reviewed here), I have been reading a lot about micro four thirds cameras to learn more about them.  

While doing research, I have run across a few articles about why some photographers are completely switching to micro four thirds (m43) for their work.   A couple of these photographers are professionals, which seems to lend extra weight to their articles.  (Keep in mind that most m43 articles are positive toward m43.  Many full frame shooters have never considered switching, so they don't write articles about it.)

As has been said, the photographer is more important than the equipment.  As an example, there are pros using the iPhone as their main camera.  Therefore, it goes without saying that a pro can use an m43, a fixed lens camera, an iPhone or just about anything else that takes photos and still make a living.  The question is whether your photography is more stylized with a fixed lens or requires the flexibility of a full frame.

One article mentioned several myths of the difference between full frame and m43.  Included in this list is "the low light argument".  The author agrees that full frame (FF) is better than m43 in low light, but he apparently doesn't believe that this type of feature is a benefit.  After all, he says photographers haven't be concerned with low light capabilities for the majority of the past "100 years".   While this may be true, people survived without running water for 100s of years, but we still like the benefit of technology that allows us to do things we could not do in the past.  

Of course, if you always shoot with a flash, other lighting, or outdoors in great light, I guess you don't care about getting better, low noise pics in lower light?  I would guess that most amateurs and many pros, would care, but apparently that idea is not totally universal.

Second, the article's second myth is "the shallower depth of field argument". He makes the argument that most pictures do not need shallow depth of field, and that when you do need it, you can shoot with one of the f1.8 prime lenses or add blur in Photoshop.  Keep in mind that Canon makes a 50mm f1.8 that costs $125 and they also make a 50mm f1.2 that cost $1400.  Obviously, Canon sells quite a few of these much more expensive lenses for a reason.  People want the ability to shoot in low light or blur out a bad background.  While even the inexpensive iPad Snapseed app has a feature to blur background, this can be time consuming and nearly impossible if you have a background that is similar in color to a subject's clothing or hair.  Also, many photographers want to take a more photojournalistic approach with less editing.

The  so called "myths" above are often the main difference in the price of lenses.  If you want a fast lens, you can pay a lot more money for it.  The other issue is that the m43's f1.8 lenses do not blur background the same way an f1.8 lens does on a FF camera.  It would require an f 0.9 to get the same depth of field.  Keep in mind, that f1.8 on a FF is a lot cheaper than an f1.2, so good luck finding an f0.6 lens to get a DOF similar to an f1.2.

This is my main issue with the m43 system right now and why I plan to keep two systems (FF and m43).  If you want a fast zoom on m43, you currently need to spend over $1100 on a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 or $1300 on the 35-100mm f2.8.  These will get you the same DOF as a f5.6 on a FF.  I don't mind the blur difference between f2.8 and f4 for the major difference in price and weight, but going to f5.6 will definitely make a difference.  

While I don't disagree with many of his other arguments, I do believe that the higher pixel count on many FF cameras make up a lot of the difference in the 2x crop factor for telephoto lenses.   The best m43 sensors are currently using around 16 megapixels vs the 36 megapixels on the Nikon D800.  With more than double the megapixels, a nature photographer could easily crop down a photo to make up for the difference in "crop factor".  Also, many photographers, obviously not the author of the article,  prefer wider angles than 24mm.   There is a reason that Canon has the 16-35mm f2.8, 17-40mm f4, and a 10-22mm (APS-C).  Panasonic makes a well reviewed 7-14mm m43 lens, so I am not sure why the author believes there is an issue with wide angle photos on m43, but I thought I would respond to this argument.

While the author of the "myths" article apparently doesn't care about shooting with high ISOs, shallow DOF, or ultra wide angles, my guess is that many photographers do care about these differences.  In many ways, a casual photographer needs more flexibility in their lenses than a pro photographer that mainly shoots a specific type of photo.  As an example, a person could be a pro and only shoot in a professionally lighted studio with subject matter that doesn't move and have a staff of editors that apply "enhancements".  For the casual photographer, most of us want tons of flexibility.  In one trip to New Orleans, for example, I may want an ultra wide lens for shooting inside a church, a fast lens for blurring out backgrounds to isolate a subject in a parade or on the street, or need to shoot at high ISOs in a jazz club.  These needs are different from a professional still life photographer.  Also, I have to edit my own photos, so I would rather get the photo as close to "print ready" when I take it.

While I do love the ability to stuff a camera in a jacket and have it with me, I am still not anywhere close to selling my Canon equipment to switch to shooting with m43 all the time.  For one reason, the main benefit to m43 is the size and weight and Canon is already making a small APS-C camera that doesn't lose autofocus with their regular lenses (while using an adapter) and they also make a few small lenses to work with it.  If they continue to make and expand on these small lenses and progress in several areas that they are lagging behind the m43s, I would rather go that direction.   It would allow me to keep my current Canon lenses, give me more time to switch to smaller lenses, and also give the benefit of using the larger lenses with a smaller or larger camera and not lose autofocus like you do with m43 and an adapter.  For me, a larger camera is often easier to balance, has more dials and buttons, and feels better in the hand (I have big hands).   Many times, I would pick the larger camera even if the performance was the same.  

For now, I am happy with what I get from m43, but it is no where close to the capabilities of FF.   Here is a feature comparison of the OMD EM5 (which is the m43 mentioned in the article) vs the 5D MarkIII.  I have an E-PL5, which is even lower rated than the EM5, so the difference is even bigger.  That doesn't mean it won't take great pictures, but it is currently not as flexible as a full frame.  

I hold out hope that Canon will continue to improve on the EOS M and I won't ever need to give up on their lenses or make a switch....I prefer expansion over a burn it down and start over approach.  I only have three m43 lenses, so I could change over to EOS M with very little effort.  Right now, I am getting by with the combination of both camera systems and an adapter that will allow manual focus on the E-PL5 with my current Canon lenses.  I know this article sounds like I am bashing the m43, but I am mainly just pointing out the differences and why they matter to me.  I bought the m43 because it will fit in a jacket pocket and the 5D won't.  In other words, the m43 still has one major benefit over FF.    

***I forgot to mention that the Continuous Autofocus on the FF (I have a Canon 5D Mark III)  is much better than the Continuous AF on the E-PL5.  I guess the author of the "myth" article can't explain that away.  I really do hope that M43 catches up in the areas that it can because I do like the idea of a small system, but it just isn't there yet.  As I said, this doesn't mean you can't get great shots with m43, but there are compromises that will need to be made for certain types of shooting.  For me, it is worth having both systems right now.