brycesteiner: Why are the lions not scared of the drones or robots? In one of the pictures on the NatlGeo site you can see the shadow of the robot. It's close.
If you were a lion, would you be scared of a small robot? A lion would probably think of such a robot as PREY that, for some reason, does not smell tasty enough to be worth hunting.
fyngyrz: Does it still require OSX 10.7 like the beta did?
Worthless to me if it does. I have a very stable 10.6 system, not about to change it to get a feature CS5 already has, since CS5 runs just fine on 10.6.
Programmers who, in true knee-jerk fashion, require the latest OS from Apple for no good reason whatsoever, should be fired. Who are you serving, Adobe? Apple? Or the poor sod who pays you money for your app?
Well, with a 10.7-requiring app you made sure you wouldn't get my measly few dollars.
While I'm running 10.6 on my own machine, 10.7 (Lion) is not "the latest OS from Apple". Apple is up to 10.8 (Mountain Lion) already, not counting whatever they may have planned for WWDC this week.
Bach Photo: I would say that my vote for "Having to repeatedly pay to retain access" goes along with "Uncertainty over future of Adobe or pricing". Overall I hate not owning, I own my home, I don't rent.
If they did that, you could quit renting ("subscribing") at the reward point, to save money. Possibly not what Adobe wants if the goal of this change is to keep people paying rent forever …
CarlosNunezUSA: A very nice article by Corel . I think they are the best alternative to Adobe and have really strong products. The problem is that they have no Mac Version which is a pity. I would encourage you to leave a message on their page requesting an OsX version. They cannot do that in 2 days, but I guess my CS6 version can hold until Corel is ready, if they make the commitment. Now would be a good time for Corel CEO to put on the big pants and challenge Adobe with an annoucement.
Even Adobe stopped major development of the MOBILE version of Flash, because, essentially, Steve Jobs was right. You can still get mobile Flash on Android devices, but it's an old version; everyone expects that it will eventually be superseded by HTML5.
With regards to DESKTOP Flash, that runs on Macs, although a lot of people use browser plug-ins like Click2Flash that keep it from running by default.
midou: I would accept subscription. But if I stop the plan I would like the software stay Working as it is. To prevent people to cheat with such a plan there can be various condition how to renew the subscription in the future. There can be also some minimal length of subscription to be qualified For such a running software
You're saying that you would accept a subscription plan for purchasing the software and its updates. Subscription as in "magazine subscription", where if you stop subscribing, you keep everything you've purchased so far.
Unfortunately, what Adobe seems to want is rental, as if "if you ever stop paying for the apartment, you don't get to live there any more".
CFynn: Seems like they are imitating the marketing tactics of the narcotics and tobacco industries. Get users completely dependent on a regular, time limited, fix of their product and they have a steady income stream.
Once users are hooked they can also jack up the prices whenever they like.
It's the old mainframe and minicomputer "software rental" model – the one that we thought personal computers had changed for the better.
One of the firms that followed this model charged customers more for everything – not just for upgrading to more users, but ALSO for upgrading to a faster CPU (same architecture) even if they kept the SAME number of users.
Going back further, there's a story about a mainframe company that sold two different tape drives: a "fast" one (for $50K?) and a "slow" one (for $25K?). A customer could upgrade by paying the difference but customers were not allowed to watch the technician do the upgrade. One customer did manage to watch, and reported that "The technician opened the tape drive cabinet, moved one jumper, and closed it up again."
T3: Regarding piracy, I think the best way to decrease piracy is to *decrease* the price of your product, rather than *increasing* it. It's like music. Now that music is only 99 cents a song, people buy songs all the time now. Make it easy and cheap, and people will buy. Sure beats paying $18 at the music store for a whole CD album just to have a couple songs that you actually like. The cost of buying CDs were so high, people opted to pirate songs. Likewise, if Adobe didn't charge such an exorbitant amount for Photoshop, more people would be able to afford it, and fewer people would resort to piracy. But Adobe just doesn't get it. Now with this cloud strategy, it's just going to drive more people way, but this time it'll drive them towards other competing products.
I buy music, and I don't fit any of your three categories.
1. I know computers well enough to program them; not just enough to run programs that someone else has written. So I could find out "how to pirate" very easily; that's not what's keeping me from doing it.
2. I don't have an irrational fear of malware embedded in music files. (The nastiest case of music malware that I can think of came when a certain major-label company distributed "CDs" that installed DRM, and that also installed a hidden root kit to try to keep the user from removing the DRM infestation from their computer. Although I knew enough not to buy one of the infested "CDs", I didn't care for that approach to customer relations, and I boycotted virtually all audio CDs from THAT company for a LONG time.)
3. I don't feel any duty to subsidize pirates.
As for financial justification, artists need to eat, too., even if the deal the industry gives them on recordings is often a raw one.
Edgar Matias: The 1.3x Crop Mode basically crops the sensor down to m4/3 size. Very cool.
I think they're saying that if the lens has an actual focal length of 200mm, and a "35mm-equivalent" length of 300mm in regular DX mode, the "35mm-equivalent" length would be 400mm in this DX plus 1.3x crop mode. That is, there's a roughly 1.3x crop factor above and beyond the 1.5x DX one, for a total crop factor of 2.0x as compared to full-frame.
huyzer: Wish it had a swivel back screen.
If using a phone as a display would be "not that handy", wouldn't carrying around a LCD monitor with HDMI and A/C power cables dangling from it be even less so?
Even if you managed to find a battery-powered device that took HDMI input (most only support for output), that arrangement would still be much the same as carrying the phone ... only with that dangling cable.
Earthlight: Seems to me Nikon continues to put out great products instead of dumbed down, crippled stuff in order to milk the customers.
At this point my Canon gear is pretty much complete for what I need. I will use it until it has no practical value and if at that time Nikon still dominates like this, I will happily jump ship.
Seems to me that improved auto-focus is a benefit not only to "machine-gun photographers" (the ones obsessed with huge buffers), but also to those who control the time of the shutter release.
And yes, if you have a D7000, you might not want to rush to trade it in, but not everyone has a D7000 (or its counterpart in other brands' lineups).
racketman: some company should bring out a tablet targeted specifically at photographers with CF and full SD slots etc
If what you are looking for is a portable photo backup device, there are devices made specifically for that purpose. They typically are based around notebook-size hard drives, have multiple types of card slots, and can serve as external drives to Macs and PCs (for importing photos once you get home). Most such devices have very small, low-resolution (sometimes even only black-and-white) screens that are more suitable for selecting menu controls than previewing photos, but if backup is what you need, they are specialized for that job.
Mssimo: When did 1024 x 768 8" screen become "low-res." This article needs a new title. It may suck for photographers but for other reasons like its crap 5MP camera and low storage.
"It barely have enough resolution for windows 8 or mac os" - even if that were true, how is it relevant? This is a tablet running a tablet operating system, not a tablet-shaped PC. It has the same 1024 x 768 resolution as the iPad and iPad 2, which sold like hotcakes (and that was with the pixels spread out over a larger area).
Pandaemas: I awe apple devices for their display, but offering a low res device doesn't seem like a smart move...
It's the same resolution as on the iPad 2. My guess is that keeping that resolution helped not only with cost, but with weight and battery life. (Remember, when they went from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3, the battery capacity went up significantly but the battery life did not, in part due to the Retina Display.)
Reilly Diefenbach: Exciting stuff for photgraphers! Imagine a 4K 60" showing your jpgs and vids.
Program sources == the huge library of movies shot on film.
Yes, there's work to be done in developing a 4k equivalent of DVD / Blu-Ray, but if the vendors thought that couldn't be done, why would they spend money developing the UHDTVs?
silentstorm: What kind of standards is CEA upholding???
Last i studied form my text books, 4k resolution is referred to horizontal resolution having 4000 or more pixels. 4096 is what i understood from Zeiss research decades ago.
Why is 3840 consider 4k resolution????? So that makes 1920x1080 a 2k video standard too??? WHAT A JOKE!!!!
Is our standards getting lower?? Or did someone goofed?
"Why is 3840 consider 4k resolution?" Because 3840 x 2160 pixels is exactly two times as many pixels in each direction as 1920 x 1080, the resolution for 1080p HDTV. Exact integer scaling should simplify the design of UHDTVs that have to be backwards compatible with current HDTV programming. At the very least, it can't hurt. That's more important to manufacturers than boosting the horizontal pixel count from 3840 to 4096.
As far as the "goof", 3840x2160 has four times as many pixels as 1920x1080. You know, pixels as in 2D? So they're not calling 1920x1080 "2k", they're calling it "1080" or "1k' as always.
Scottelly: My 13" MacBook Air displays at 1440x900. That is one reason I chose it over the 13" MacBook Pro. It would be nice to see a 15" MacBook Air with that new retina display. I really don't need a built-in Super Drive. I haven't used my Super Drive in months! (I got one with the MacBook Air, because I figured I would need it. I have needed it a couple of times, but it is not something that needs to be integrated. The MacBook Air is much more handy than a heavier computer, and I love the screen!) It would be cool to see the 13" MacBook Air get an upgrade to a retina display too! I guess that is coming. Now for the hard drive! (256 GB just isn't enough. Mine is almost full already, and there was no option to get a bigger hard drive in this computer!)
> It would be nice to see a 15" MacBook Air with that new retina display.
If you look at the specifications, this thing essentially IS a 15" MacBook Air (no hard disk, no optical drive, no Gigabit Ethernet port, no Firewire port, uses a SSD), with a Retina Display, and with the quad-core CPU / discrete GPU arrangement characteristic of the previous 15" MacBook Pro.
OneGuy: 220 pixels per inch is the new apple "retinal" thing? Well, for at least a year Sony has an 11" diag laptop (the Z series) with 1080x1920 pixels, which translates to 216 pixels per inch.Yet, Apple has better marketing and wakes dpr up, albeit a year late. Further, dpr is lame to comment that in addition to resolution there is the importance of the color repro gamut, which is a function of technology and at this time IPS (In-Plane Switching) displays are the king -- and Apple isn't there.
Color fidelity is important to photography, I'd say.
If you took a moment to look at the technical specs for the MacBook Pros with Retina Display, you would see that the display is a "LED-backlit display with IPS technology". And if Apple is "a year late", where is a Sony laptop with a screen that has this many pixels? Hmm? Considering that Apple is the first to market with this, you have an odd definition of "too late".