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: 482, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.

True. Thankfully, I don't do design.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.

Lightroom (perpetual license version) will never expire either, and it costs less than half of what you paid for CS6.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Couple comments from Tom Hogarty of Adobe:

"This will not impact your previous standalone version of Lightroom and we will continue to provide upgrades to the perpetual versions of Lightroom."

"This post has no impact on our perpetual commitment and just reassures those customers who have chosen to adopt the membership model going forward."

And, as a reminder:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

As far as anyone knows, Tom's claim that "future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely" is true, and I can't imagine a reason to doubt that statement.

The one thing that has changed is, the CC versions of LR will stay partially working if your CC subscription expires. If you have a perpetual version, then nothing has changed.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.

This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.

So, W5JCK, do what I do - use Lightroom (perpetual) and PS Elements (perpetual). Very powerful and cheap combination.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: OK - so now I'm confused a bit. I have the stand-alone version of Lightroom (5.5), along with Photoshop CS-6 (which I at least continues to get ACR updates). I don't have CC, nor do I believe in any type of "subscription based" services.

Am I to understand that future major versions of Lightroom will now be only available through CC?

That's not what it says, and Tom clarified. I posted his quotes above (a little too late, it seems).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 17:15 UTC

Couple comments from Tom Hogarty of Adobe:

"This will not impact your previous standalone version of Lightroom and we will continue to provide upgrades to the perpetual versions of Lightroom."

"This post has no impact on our perpetual commitment and just reassures those customers who have chosen to adopt the membership model going forward."

And, as a reminder:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 17:14 UTC as 48th comment | 6 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: This article goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe, and all the detailed evidence and careful explanation in the world won't change that. The enormous number of posters jumping in to flatly assert the article is wrong (or make claims that clearly show zero understanding of the article) is getting into the double figures now. Fun to watch actually :D

That's because DR is very insensitive to pixel size.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 12:45 UTC

Staff Sergent Reid is likely to be the new most-hated person on DPReview.

I suppose he gets that a lot!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 13:08 UTC as 25th comment
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

Because you're not looking at pixels, you're looking at images.

The columns of this sample should help. Examine them carefully, including the labels.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Constant%20aperture%20comparison%201-6%20crop.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:49 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jylppy: Wow! 1000+ comments. What a great article!

I think there is a minor error in the paragraph about diffraction. Diffraction is pixel size, not sensor-size, related. Sensors with smaller pixels (ie. more pixels per area) suffer from diffraction "earlier" with smaller F-number. Usually smaller sensors (i.e. larger crop-factor) use smaller pixels to reach "required" MPx-levels (who would buy 5MPx m4/3rd when FF cameras have 20MPx+? These would have roughly same-sized pixels).

Good read about diffraction at excellent Cambridge in Color site:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

For the final image, diffraction is image size dependent.

Pixel size is only relevant if you are pixel-size limited in the final image (meaning, you're final image is pushing or at 1:1 already).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:19 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

"You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor..."

Yes, you will.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:17 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenMajor: Way Way Way to much information. Reading this will suck ounces of creative energy from most readers.
Do your self a favor, read the "Why should i care" section at the very end. It states..."Ultimately, (the info in the article is) "unlikely to make much difference to your day-to-day shooting".
Rude and insulting of DPREVIEW to offer a long and complex article and at the end tell the reader their was little or no reason to read it.
Pathetic.

It's supposed to help you pick cameras and lenses, not help your day-to-day shooting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:15 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: This article goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe, and all the detailed evidence and careful explanation in the world won't change that. The enormous number of posters jumping in to flatly assert the article is wrong (or make claims that clearly show zero understanding of the article) is getting into the double figures now. Fun to watch actually :D

Given the same sensor technology, this applies. And, usually, the difference between m4/3 and full frame is at least two stops.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 22:53 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

ljmeis78: The f stop we know and love (focal length/divi ded by aperture) is known as relative aperture because the actual size of the hole varies from lens to lens. It is useful because it produces uniform expose regardless of lens used, all other factors equal. So why are smaller sensors more noisy?
Small sensors have small pixels, collecting fewer photons than larger ones for given exposure. This requires more amplification after A/D conversion. Moe amp, more noise as any audio phile will tell you. Effective aperture depends on lens design and controls DOF

Pixel size has almost nothing to do with it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 03:00 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

SouthElginDad: I don't understand why "total light hitting the sensor" matters. The image is captured by pixels, not by the entire sensor. It seems to me that total light -- per pixel -- is roughly the same, whether or not there are more total pixels on a larger sensor. (Granted, a smaller sensor may have smaller pixels in order to maintain resolution, but that's not what this article is saying -- it's saying that the total light hitting the entire sensor, regardless of how many pixels are on that sensor, is what matters.)

I get the part about the DoF, that makes sense. But I don't understand why total light on the entire sensor makes any difference.

Quadrupling the pixel count, and then down sampling the image to the same final size will result in about the same final images. In your example, down sampling the 50MP full frame image to the 1MP of the hypothetical smaller sensor will result in a drastically lower noise image than the native image from the smaller sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:50 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: In shooting experience of FZ1000, another thread seems to be developing FL/F-stop equivalent because Panasonic engraved the equivalent FL on the barrel.
My point as I humbly present is that the solution is not to engrave equivalent F-stop added on the barrel but to remove the equivalent FL markings.

Respectfully,

Same difference. Either use equivalents for both or neither. Either option is honest.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:35 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

SouthElginDad: I don't understand why "total light hitting the sensor" matters. The image is captured by pixels, not by the entire sensor. It seems to me that total light -- per pixel -- is roughly the same, whether or not there are more total pixels on a larger sensor. (Granted, a smaller sensor may have smaller pixels in order to maintain resolution, but that's not what this article is saying -- it's saying that the total light hitting the entire sensor, regardless of how many pixels are on that sensor, is what matters.)

I get the part about the DoF, that makes sense. But I don't understand why total light on the entire sensor makes any difference.

Because signal to noise ratio equals the square root of the total number of photons collected. And the image is formed by the entire sensor. This is why a full frame camera captures a better image at f/2 than a cell phone does at the same f-stop.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:33 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: This article goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe, and all the detailed evidence and careful explanation in the world won't change that. The enormous number of posters jumping in to flatly assert the article is wrong (or make claims that clearly show zero understanding of the article) is getting into the double figures now. Fun to watch actually :D

It's not just on DOF. It's also on total light and therefore shot noise, and on diffraction. And equivalent focal length is on angle of view. Between the two, they're on everything that matters in this area.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2014 at 02:02 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

mostlyboringphotog: Lastly, F-stop is useful because it indicates "equivalent" amount of light passing per unit time/area regardless of FL or the aperture diameter. Now by creating another derivative, what does it help?

Does it really help to normalize lens performance or its relative merits?

A lot of posters think so and so may be it's useful but I think it comes at a cost of mudding the definition of "F-stop" and understanding DOF.

Is there not a better way to communicate the difference that a sensor size affects your image making?

Again, thank you all for your patience.

It just says half size. It doesn't say if that's linear or areal, and it obviously means linear (i.e. 2x crop).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 20:20 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2029 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lights: I kinda think products like the Metabones adapters for APS-C and M43 are an interesting side-track in the Equivalence debate.

They do, just in reverse. Teleconverter and wideconverter are the same except for which side of "1" you're on.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 19:04 UTC
Total: 482, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »