At the end of the video, when she's giving us the web address, she says "back slash". Sorry, but that is a "forward slash". Little details done wrong, degrade confidence.
XeroJay: Jeez, with results this awful, why bother? Looks like smartphones won't be replacing my 85L anytime soon.
That is such a lame reply!! How is getting an awful image justified by a lighter weight?
Lea5: It's the little things where you can see god's art at best.
MarkByland, why would you dismiss daddyo's comment and not allow for the possibility that math was also created by God?
Looks like the sky was added in to replace maybe a dull, gray sky. Look at the edges of the field where they come in contact with the sky.
Arijit Banerjee: Photographing chicks is totally against birding ethics. I am not voting on this.
That is the most rediculous statement I've EVER heard!!
TLD: I've lusted over the 24 inch Cintiq Touch since it came out, but it is a lot more money than the non touch version, and is so big it would take over your desk space leaving no room for a couple of large monitors. So I am interested in this device because it is a) affordable, and b) could occupy the same desk space as my Intuos 4.
But AFAICT this is NOT a Touch device, so I doubt I'll bother. There will probably be a Touch version down the road, but if the 24 inch Cintiq is anything to go by, a 13 inch Cintiq Touch would cost half as much again, be too much money for what it is and does.
Now if someone can tell me that I missed the Touch feature in 'this' version, I am definitely interested.
It says it right in the 1st paragraph: "Combined with the company's latest Pro Pen the Cintiq 13HD offers 2048 levels of pressure sensitivity for graphic design and retouching."!!! Unless by "touch", you meant finger touch, but why would that be important for retouching and drawing? The pressure-sensitive pen is what you use for that!!
I'm just curious. Why are the three top planes' smoke trails blue (right out of the airplanes), but green beyond? Clearer when viewed at the original uploaded resolution.
Sorry, I might've rushed to judgment. You are right! But the image is very "soft", which originally led me to my conclusion.
Religion of PEACE!!!!
You neglected to offset the image of the eye to account for the thickness of the camera!! Even though the shot is head on, I think you need a bit of an offset. Right now it looks very obvious that two shots were taken (one of the face alone & one with the camera) and that the LCD was erased to reveal the eye on the layer below.
Then you have the technical aspect that the image of the eye on the LCD would be very dark due to the lack of light between the camera and the eye. So you coul've made it a bit darker to be more realistic.
Sorry, but these realities take away from the intended artistic idea.
You're a jerk, mocking the Holy Night when Jesus Christ was born! If you don't insult you won't be insulted!!
Away with you and your allah god of the crescent moon!! Oh Holy Night (especially this time of year) refers to Jesus Christ's Birth on Christmas day!
Looking at the whites of the eyes and pupils (viewed at 100%), this IS BY FAR one of the worst Photoshop OVERprocessing I've seen!!
maniax: rare woods, crocodile skin .... Even if I wanted to buy this sony copy i would feel bad about the materials they used.
Why would you feel bad? Man has been using beautiful wood creations since the dawn of time. For God's sake, set yourself free from the brain-washing you got in the Marxist school system! Personally, I don't like wood or animal skin on a camera, but not for the same reasons you have. Why would I say that I'd feel bad about the materials they used??
OMG. So beautiful, I can't breathe!!!!!!
Oh yeah, the definition of beauty!!!!!!!!!!