dccdp

Works as a software engineer
Joined on Apr 1, 2008

Comments

Total: 246, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

nwcs: Very happy to have the white background be permanent. Any class in usability of human factors or any UX background shows that black text on white background is easier to read. But for those who prefer the opposite, nothing's stopping you.

Care to link to those numerous studies?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

Georgeee: Dpreview can check and analyze the preferred background after a period time, and decided which one is the popular one. Use that as default . For me , black all the way.

No, it won't always stay black. It'll revert if you clear cookies for privacy reasons, for instance, or if you use a new browser, etc. But hey, we are all having reading comprehension problems and wait for odpisan to solve them.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

Photato: Professional software like AutoCAD has always had a Black background for a reason.
Please make Dark mode the default, I am not always Logged in.
Might as well switch to Imaging Resource as the go-to Photo website.

@odpisan. Did *you* read the post you are replying to? Really?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

odpisan: VERY good solution! Now can everybody have his favorite layout! Congratulation 4 idea!

*********************

IT IS SHOCKING TO SEE how many users simply do not read or do not understand the text.
The think that white background is permanent & do not know that THEY CAN CHANGE IT IN A VERY SIMPLE WAY.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS???
Did you understand the article?
YOU can change background!

You can choose between black or white background & if you choose black, it will stay black when you open the site next time.

Uuuuffff
>:o((

Simplemindedfolkspress

Dismissing people as simpleminded without really understanding their complaints is really... simple minded. People are not complaining about missing the choice, that was obvious from the beginning. They are complaining about the white theme becoming the default, therefore being the new "signature" for this site for all new users. Most users don't search for theme settings on a site, therefore they will not even know there is a better look for this photography site. The dark theme was always great for photography and it made dpreview look smarter than all those "common" and uninteresting sites out there.

Reading understanding issues everywhere. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

Jun2: grey ?

green?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 14:23 UTC

Now dpreview is yet another website, no trademark look. It's like Coca-Cola making all their labels yellow and changing the fonts to Arial.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 14:22 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

NarrBL: That unstoppable pop up was the worst. Please don't do that again.

White? Bad for long viewing (ask even youthful programmers). Bad if you have any sight problems like diabetes, incipient cataracts, normal issues of maturity when many persons do photos, etc.. Particularly bad if you want to sleep after viewing -- read the ample research.

I would,have defaulted black for those reasons, not to say that this is a _photo_ site, with all its well acknowledged reasons.

I know you wanted to look like too much of the web does these days.

Just, I beg you, don't go any small step whatsoever further on grayish, low value and color contrast, no matter what the 'kool kids' seem to have.

/s/

It's trendy to annoy site visitors these days. Change is better regardless of the consequences. Destroy all, reset all, start fresh with no history or brain. Postmodern madness.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 14:14 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1170 comments in total)
In reply to:

caravan: Except for the gimmicky touchscreen this could be camera of the decade.

Of the decade of savings just to afford it.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:01 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

dccdp: What is this fixation with immersive environments? Have the human beings become too rudimentary to understand art without actually being surrounded by direct, obvious representations of the imagined worlds depicted by it? Has art itself lost its ability to use that wonderful tool called subtlety to express ideas? Is a picture, a film, or a book too subtle to spark any kind of response from us? Are we really that incapable of imagination so that in order to think of an environment we need to actually and explicitly be surrounded by it?

I don't think so, VR is only a fad, and all these articles in the tech press that try too hard to convince us of its importance are just parts of a conjunctural advertising campaign that will be forgotten in a few years.

The industry must be utterly desperate to invest so much in advertising technologies with uses that no one's thought of yet.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2016 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

JaredTarzan: I really don't understand why this can't just be an option in account settings? Why force us into something we don't want?

Actually, they are selling you, not buying you that way.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2016 at 12:32 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

@cainn24:
"Even if by some chance it fails to impress you personally (which would be quite a thing)"

So, your effort to convince others that their own prejudices need not be transferred to the entire industry is represented by this? A statement that doesn't even bother to accept that the "marvels" of VR may actually fail to impress others? Are we defective or something in our role of participating to your "quite a thing" event? Because we really are not impressed at all, and frankly, that's really nothing. Sorry to bother you, but we are not impressed because we are truly not that impressionable.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2016 at 14:39 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

dccdp: What is this fixation with immersive environments? Have the human beings become too rudimentary to understand art without actually being surrounded by direct, obvious representations of the imagined worlds depicted by it? Has art itself lost its ability to use that wonderful tool called subtlety to express ideas? Is a picture, a film, or a book too subtle to spark any kind of response from us? Are we really that incapable of imagination so that in order to think of an environment we need to actually and explicitly be surrounded by it?

I don't think so, VR is only a fad, and all these articles in the tech press that try too hard to convince us of its importance are just parts of a conjunctural advertising campaign that will be forgotten in a few years.

You'd be surprised how people see completely different things just by looking at one picture. Have you tried to discuss a film with your friends immediately after watching it? And I mean really talk about it, not just "did you like it? -- let's get more pizza!" kind of talk ;) And I believe "filtering" a story with your own mind is essential, and is better done when some details are mising than when they are forced on you in a closed, ready-made environment.

But, I guess time will tell. And yes, I will probably try VR in the future again, although I don't expect much from the experience.

Regardless of our opinions, thanks for an interesting discussion.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 22:48 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

M1963: As far as I know, all 'immersive' experiences thus far have failed. 3D cinema hardly takes anyone to theatres and the attempts in music reproduction, such as Quadraphonic, DVD-Audio and multichannel SACD never really took off. It's just that people don't find it necessary or useful.
As for photography, I can't see how VR can improve the visual experience. Why don't you just go to exhibitions instead? You know, you can even - gasp! - fraternize with other people!

Sorry for barging in. But you keep deluding yourself that your own opinion on VR is somehow transferable to others. We don't think alike. I tried VR, it was underwhelming. Now you'll probably tell I didn't try the right "high end" version. Possibly. But there is a much better chance that I am simply not that impressionable.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 16:56 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

dccdp: What is this fixation with immersive environments? Have the human beings become too rudimentary to understand art without actually being surrounded by direct, obvious representations of the imagined worlds depicted by it? Has art itself lost its ability to use that wonderful tool called subtlety to express ideas? Is a picture, a film, or a book too subtle to spark any kind of response from us? Are we really that incapable of imagination so that in order to think of an environment we need to actually and explicitly be surrounded by it?

I don't think so, VR is only a fad, and all these articles in the tech press that try too hard to convince us of its importance are just parts of a conjunctural advertising campaign that will be forgotten in a few years.

@Dale: The difference is that a photograph or a book doesn't force its story on you by completely isolating you from the real world and imposing its detailed view on all you perceive. A picture allows you the freedom of interpreting it as you want, you can distance from it, you can allow your mind see it in the real world context, you are basically free of any constraint. In VR you don't have that freedom, as everything your sensory inputs get is what the VR shows you. There is no room for your own imagination anymore, everything's already "served", like a quick lunch.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 13:53 UTC
On article Virtual Reality: It's not just for gamers anymore (154 comments in total)

What is this fixation with immersive environments? Have the human beings become too rudimentary to understand art without actually being surrounded by direct, obvious representations of the imagined worlds depicted by it? Has art itself lost its ability to use that wonderful tool called subtlety to express ideas? Is a picture, a film, or a book too subtle to spark any kind of response from us? Are we really that incapable of imagination so that in order to think of an environment we need to actually and explicitly be surrounded by it?

I don't think so, VR is only a fad, and all these articles in the tech press that try too hard to convince us of its importance are just parts of a conjunctural advertising campaign that will be forgotten in a few years.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 22:25 UTC as 32nd comment | 8 replies
On article Primer: What is VR, and why should photographers care? (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

osu9400: I don't know if it qualifies as true "VR" but the only device that excites me right now is the Hololens. As a photographer, I would LOVE to let customers see their photos hanging on their wall in huge sizes as they walk around.

The hololens is indeed interesting. I can see its potential, augmenting the reality with information, hints, etc. But the VR thing with its almost pathological immersion in an environment completely isolated from the real world looks like a very strange choice to make just for entertainment.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 14:59 UTC
On article Primer: What is VR, and why should photographers care? (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

dccdp: The 3D feature was abandoned in current TVs, mainly because most customers couldn't be bothered to wear those glasses for watching 3D shows and movies at home. A minor inconvenience, granted, but it made an entire industry abandon a technology that was hyped as revolutionary just a few years ago.

Now, VR comes with a big, limiting and awkward headseat that you must wear for viewing a 3D environment, which also has the "bonus" of completely isolating you from the real world.

Will it catch? Well, we'll see.

Perhaps, but it also has more side effects (nausea, headaches, weird isolation from the real world, etc), so I wonder whether its entertainment traits alone will actually convince people to adopt it.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2016 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Banas: Meh. I don't see this VR thing getting traction any time soon...
;-)

@Mark: Well, don't get too excited though. They were investing lots of money in 3D TVs just a few years ago, too. Lots and lots of traction that got the carriage nowhere.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

tokyojerry: The dawn of the VR era. Looking forward to this exciting era! will have more traction then 3D TVs tried to pull off a few years back.

It's a fad. It will pass, they are only wasting money on a fool's errand.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 19:05 UTC
On article VR / Action cameras forum just launched (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

Peiasdf: OMG OMG, DPReview have a VR forum where people can meet face to face in virtual reality just like in The Matrix. Technology is amazing. What will they think of next.

@Mark: Yeah, I get it: you want me to believe that reading this page right now is really happening in the real world... Not buying it! [tapping on the wrist, Trek style]

Link | Posted on May 20, 2016 at 09:57 UTC
Total: 246, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »