Lee Jay

Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 627, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras post (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Frankly, they're all essentially useless because they all have fixed focal length fixed lenses. Without a range of focal lengths available in a cell phone camera, I'll be carrying a real camera anyway, and so I'll use that instead, in all cases.

I could maybe live with two built-in primes and cropping (say, 24mm equivalent croppable to 60 and 80mm croppable to 200), but not one. I have to have some telephoto capabilities in my pocket camera. I often crop my current pocket camera (24-105) all the way in to around 300mm equivalent or so.

Sounds good, until your subject is in the air, in space, far away and you're already at the cliff's edge, or on stage while you're in your seat. In other words, it sounds good until you're in the real world.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 18:51 UTC
On DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras post (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Frankly, they're all essentially useless because they all have fixed focal length fixed lenses. Without a range of focal lengths available in a cell phone camera, I'll be carrying a real camera anyway, and so I'll use that instead, in all cases.

I could maybe live with two built-in primes and cropping (say, 24mm equivalent croppable to 60 and 80mm croppable to 200), but not one. I have to have some telephoto capabilities in my pocket camera. I often crop my current pocket camera (24-105) all the way in to around 300mm equivalent or so.

Yeah, fixed-lens single-focal-length cameras are pretty much useless. I discovered this simple fact when I bought my first camera in 1979, which was a Canon AE-1 and 50 1.8. Since I had no other lenses, it was essentially that. And it was annoying, to say the least.

I quickly saved my pennies and bought a 28/2.8 and a 70-210 zoom.

People that look for subjects that can fit their equipment baffle me. I shouldn't have to serve my equipment, my equipment should serve me.

I get a lot of really odd looking portraits taken on cell phones sent to me. While it's possible to shoot portraits with wide-angle lenses, you have to know what you're doing and most cell phone users do not. I often get images of people with big heads or big feet that I have to distort or tilt heavily to make look reasonable.

I still think the first company that makes a main-stream cell phone with good smartphone features and a zoom or dual-focal-length camera will cause a major shift in the market.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 18:24 UTC
On DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras post (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Frankly, they're all essentially useless because they all have fixed focal length fixed lenses. Without a range of focal lengths available in a cell phone camera, I'll be carrying a real camera anyway, and so I'll use that instead, in all cases.

I could maybe live with two built-in primes and cropping (say, 24mm equivalent croppable to 60 and 80mm croppable to 200), but not one. I have to have some telephoto capabilities in my pocket camera. I often crop my current pocket camera (24-105) all the way in to around 300mm equivalent or so.

I think they're useless to more than me since the vast majority of cell phone images that are sent to me from others are also useless.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 17:54 UTC
On DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras post (359 comments in total)

Frankly, they're all essentially useless because they all have fixed focal length fixed lenses. Without a range of focal lengths available in a cell phone camera, I'll be carrying a real camera anyway, and so I'll use that instead, in all cases.

I could maybe live with two built-in primes and cropping (say, 24mm equivalent croppable to 60 and 80mm croppable to 200), but not one. I have to have some telephoto capabilities in my pocket camera. I often crop my current pocket camera (24-105) all the way in to around 300mm equivalent or so.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 17:49 UTC as 34th comment | 9 replies
On Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM real-world samples gallery article (140 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: Does the world really need a "new" 50mm F/1.8 prime that isn't as sharp at F2.8 as the 40mm F/2.8 pancake? What's the point Canon? Upselling consumers to the 50mm F1.4? As it is, a brand new prime lens that isn't acceptably sharp until F4 isn't of much use to anyone.

It will be interesting to see what the street price of the Yongnuo YN EF 50mm f/1.4 settles down to? There are plenty of reviews of the F1.8 and now a few of the Yongnuo 35mm F2.

The point is that's it's a stop and a third faster and 25% longer than the 40, at a lower price.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 13:33 UTC

This is what happens when you put marketing people together with legalized pot.

Direct link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 19:15 UTC as 139th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

larryis1: I need to get a boxed version so I get the backup disc as well for the upgrade pricing of $79. Anyone know where to purchase a boxed version of the software?

Regards, Larry

Yes, the download is the entire application.

Well, you need your serial number too, of course. Just save it in a text file or document.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "What's more, the output is a 16-bit DNG file"

Richard. I think it's quite important that you mention that this is a 16 bit *floating point* DNG file. A 16 bit linear file can hold around 16 stops of DR. A 16 bit floating point file can hold about 30 stops of DR due to the inherent logarithmic encoding of floating point format.

FYI, I'm not actually sure the pano tool creates a 16 bit float. I know the HDR tool does. Could be, I'm just not sure.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: Decent enough article but why rant on about some random feature that isn't part of Lightroom and which no-one expected to be part of Lightroom? Strange!

Averaging - not relevant. And this is only the first version of merge.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
In reply to:

KingOfAtlantis: Had a little play around in LR CC since I own the subscription. I usually use Capture One Pro. I must admit, I am very novice at LR but first impressions compared to C1 is that I have far less control and all my options are crammed into a side bar that I have to scroll or close and open tabs. The Ui feels unnecessary. More like a Smart TV start screen instead of an editing workplace. I want to be able to use LR CC well though so I will give it the benefit of the doubt for now. I just hope I can learn these weird shortcuts easily. I really thought, being Adobe, the shortcuts would reflect off Photoshop. Why doesn't C crop, why doesn't cmd 1 zoom 100% etc.

Use solo mode on the panels (right click a panel header). Way better. Just click to zoom to 100% and there's a pref for zoom to center or zoom to click location. Very efficient.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "What's more, the output is a 16-bit DNG file"

Richard. I think it's quite important that you mention that this is a 16 bit *floating point* DNG file. A 16 bit linear file can hold around 16 stops of DR. A 16 bit floating point file can hold about 30 stops of DR due to the inherent logarithmic encoding of floating point format.

Well, 16 bit float is half the size and "good enough" for the job, so it was chosen. Makes sense to me, since these files are already huge. Why store data you don't need?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 19:55 UTC
In reply to:

larryis1: I need to get a boxed version so I get the backup disc as well for the upgrade pricing of $79. Anyone know where to purchase a boxed version of the software?

Regards, Larry

Why?

Just download the downloadable version, and back it up yourself (i.e. make your own disk, use a USB drive, save it to your backup drive, Backblaze, etc.).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

larryis1: I purchased LR version 5 in February from B&H, any chance that Adobe will give me an upgrade to version 6 "on the house"?
Regards, Larry

Yeah...that's been the case before too. But it's a $79 upgrade, which isn't that much (many of us will pay that much for a lens filter!).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

henrikbengtsson: So, is there ANY improvement in actual IQ at all? Better rendering, sharpening algorithms and improved noise reduction etc?

Same process version as before, which is pretty darned good if you use it properly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

larryis1: I purchased LR version 5 in February from B&H, any chance that Adobe will give me an upgrade to version 6 "on the house"?
Regards, Larry

I have no idea. Look it up on Adobe's site and prepare to talk with a lot of clueless people.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

zsedcft: Great upgrade for people who don't own photoshop. I imagine that even a large number of pros could get by with just lightroom+ nik software now.

I still need photoshop so I can't see any reason to spend the $150 to upgrade from lightroom 5. It is a bit more clunky having to move over to photoshop for all of the heavy lifting, but I often end up using tools that are beyond what lightroom supplies for those special pictures anyway.

The upgrade price is $79.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:46 UTC

"What's more, the output is a 16-bit DNG file"

Richard. I think it's quite important that you mention that this is a 16 bit *floating point* DNG file. A 16 bit linear file can hold around 16 stops of DR. A 16 bit floating point file can hold about 30 stops of DR due to the inherent logarithmic encoding of floating point format.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:43 UTC as 131st comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

sdh: I demo'd LR5 and found the fullscreen Loupe mode (fullscreen meaning the image fully fills the screen, no empty space or space for UI-flyouts) to be painfully slow. It was a dealbreaker for me and I stuck with LR4.

Wondering if LR6 improves this area?

It's instantly fast if the preview is rendered at a large enough size. LR6 now has an auto option for preview rendering that automatically renders previews at the right size for full-screen.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:38 UTC
In reply to:

Ribbit74: Here's my quick summary after playing around with LR6 for 20 minutes on my 13" rMBP. Mainly just looking at performance and not new features yet.

1) Switching between modules is MUCH quicker (Library/Develop)
2) OpenGL acceleration is used, though it's not clear when that's used
3) Exposure and other sliders seem to be as responsive as 5.7, but no faster
4) No noticeable difference in export speed vs. 5.7 (have not tried import yet)
5) Fuji X-Trans RAW rendering is identical to 5.7, still can't handle green detail
6) Presets still work (VSCO, etc), no difference in speed that I can tell
7) CPU usage is high after install... "address detection" is enabled by default and will spend time indexing your library. Face detection is NOT enabled by default. I paused all indexing though to do my performance testing.

Acceleration is used on Develop sliders, but only if you enabled it in the prefs. If you did, they will be around a factor of 10 more responsive.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:29 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: There's a trial download?
Everything I've tried takes me back to CC.
Annoying.

Well, the two versions are the same. The trial just gives you access to the LRMobile app and service as well. You don't have to use it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 17:27 UTC
Total: 627, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »