sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

Been shooting since the days of Adam and Eve!

Comments

Total: 185, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

Skipper494: Can never understand why people think that a third party knows a camera manufacturer's RAW algorithm better than the camera manufacturer and, of course, the latter's converter comes free.

Even if the software and hardware departments are separate, they work together, very closely, throughout the design phases of a project.
That also includes outside suppliers, such as a sensor supplier if it is not made in house.
They meet constantly, daily, weekly, etc. for design feasibility, implementation, design verification, ..., sample production runs, and finally production.
They work on a project as a team for that projects, from the various departments, product planners, suppliers, lawyers (for legal matters), marketing, finance, etc.
So Skipper494 has a good point.
But the issue with free RAW converters that are provided with the cameras is that it is minimal and limited with what it can do in terms of editing.
The other bigger issue is that the people who are familiar and comfortable with the use of a certain software package don't want to bother with something else. They'll always swear by their program, and don't want to bother with anything else.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: 4 hours for data to arrive?
Couldn't they afford a DSL line??? Darn it. AT&T should've given them free DSL for the mission!

Now seriously, the technology is remarkable, and very impressive. Hats off to the engineers involved in the design of the ship and its various components.

Sadly, the whole crew of engineers combined on this mission probably makes far less money a year than a singer or an actress, who may not even have a high-school education!

One thing still baffles me about astronomers though.
How do they measure distances to other objects in space and declare that it is 100 billion, or 200, 300, ..., 500 billion LIGHT YEARS away?
Light, or a signal to that far can't come back to us during a lifetime, or 2, or a few lifetimes!!

A light year is the distance traveled by light (at ~ 300,000 km/sec) over a period of one year (or 31,536,000 seconds).

Thank you for caring to take the time to reply.
Personally I do not take what astronomers say at face value! :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

Bene Placito: This explains much of the "why" it happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Of course the public were not made aware of much of this.

Politicians know the truth, but they are shrewd, and the vast majority of the public is naive and ignorant, and simply take what the politician tells them at face value.

Politicians know this fact well. They are not in Washington to serve the public or the country first. Their first priority is to be re-elected.
Re-election campaigns require lots of money. Therefore, the politician becomes a slave to the big donors, and we know who the big donors are.

Sadly, some commenters here try to argue the facts.
Facts are facts; PERIOD! You do not argue facts because you make a fool of yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 03:25 UTC
In reply to:

Bene Placito: This explains much of the "why" it happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Of course the public were not made aware of much of this.

@ Bene Placito
Thanks for this link.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 02:51 UTC

4 hours for data to arrive?
Couldn't they afford a DSL line??? Darn it. AT&T should've given them free DSL for the mission!

Now seriously, the technology is remarkable, and very impressive. Hats off to the engineers involved in the design of the ship and its various components.

Sadly, the whole crew of engineers combined on this mission probably makes far less money a year than a singer or an actress, who may not even have a high-school education!

One thing still baffles me about astronomers though.
How do they measure distances to other objects in space and declare that it is 100 billion, or 200, 300, ..., 500 billion LIGHT YEARS away?
Light, or a signal to that far can't come back to us during a lifetime, or 2, or a few lifetimes!!

A light year is the distance traveled by light (at ~ 300,000 km/sec) over a period of one year (or 31,536,000 seconds).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 02:04 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AndroC: The source quoted for this website, Southwest Research Institute, is blocked by Bullguard - a very reputable security product - as being a malicious and dangerous site. ?

That link is actually a link to a PDF file which has the details about RALPH.
The site is safe.
Please forgive me if I told you that Bullguard is among the least effective antivirus programs actually, and known to produce a high level of false alarms.
This is according to the independent, and most respected Austrian organization for AV testing, which you may want to look at its latest report.
I went to the site and downloaded the PDF file. No alarm, no issues.
I use and trust the product that has been rated #1 over and over in their testing.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 01:40 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

I have been using LightZone for a while.
By default, without any slider adjustment, its rendering of RAW files seems to be identical to Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which is good for what I do.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 03:06 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

@ImageAmateur,
Thanks for sharing your experience with what you have used.
You may want to try LightZone. It's an open source program. They recently released version 4.1.
The site explain the history of this program for interested visitors.
It's quite extensive, and no doubt there is a learning curve.
I'll let you form your own opinion, if you decide to try it, rather than stating mine.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

@LadyGaga,
Thanks for your input, but judging by the number of "Likes" to my original suggestion, it looks like you are outgunned by a large margin :-)

=========

Now, generally, there is always a learning curve when we try to use new software that has extensive capabilities.
So I do understand the reluctance for some to abandon their comfort zone.
I understand that comfort zone very well because I absolutely hate Photoshop, as well as Lightroom, no matter how good people think they are; that's because I have been using Paint Shop Pro since its first DOS version back in 1989 (to the best of my recollection), long before most people even thought about digital cameras.

I need more YAY sayers, please, Click "Like" on the original post, above, if you support the request.

If you are sticking with what you have, regardless, it's fine, enjoy it, but please allow others to speak out.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 02:35 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (282 comments in total)

There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 14:43 UTC as 52nd comment | 8 replies
On LG G4 camera review post (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

brianj: I can buy a canon ELPH for $200, with 24-240 mm optical zoom, can someone explain why this camera with less features and a higher price is more desirable.

LOL @ numpties. Apple products are not for me, and would never recommend them even to my enemies.

I think there were queues when the S4 came out.
I never followed the LG news until this time.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 19:42 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

bed bug: One point that is missing from the review is that the memory for the S6 is now internal only; a micro-SD card can not be inserted. This means if you are using the device as your main camera for traveling then you may need to upload/download images in order to make room. The edge comes in both 32GB and 64GB versions (just obtained mine on the weekend).

It may also be worth mentioning the 'virtual shot' option that allows uses to capture an object from multiple angles, making almost a 3D capture - very interesting feature.

Kind regards
Stephen

The point is not missing.
It's clearly there in the specs list.
For me, an SD (or mSD) is a deal breaker.
Therefore, I'll stick to the S5.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 19:10 UTC
On Samsung Galaxy S6 / S6 Edge camera review post (94 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I have an S3, and looking at upgrade possibilities, frankly, the S5 interests me far more than the S6. The S5 is waterproof to the point of being submersible, has a replaceable battery and accepts a micro SD card, is a slightly more pocketable shape (slightly thicker with more curved back corners), and it's $250 cheaper as well.

Isn't IOS used by some manufacturer's as an acronym for Intelligent Optical Stabilization?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 19:04 UTC
On LG G4 camera review post (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

brianj: I can buy a canon ELPH for $200, with 24-240 mm optical zoom, can someone explain why this camera with less features and a higher price is more desirable.

Regardless of portability, I still see sheer greed.
A high-end tablet is portable (the Surface, for example), and would do a lot more than what a phone can do, and is still cheaper.
I understand the size argument, though.

I think it's the consumer who is letting them do that.
Consumers line up in long ques the night or the morning a new version is released, and gladly hand their money to these companies!!!
So it's a perfect example of the law of supply and demand, from Economics 101.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
On LG G4 camera review post (73 comments in total)
In reply to:

brianj: I can buy a canon ELPH for $200, with 24-240 mm optical zoom, can someone explain why this camera with less features and a higher price is more desirable.

I'm baffled at the prices of these phones.
$600, $800, $1000, ...
A new, high-end laptop, with an Intel i7 processor, 8GB memory, and a 1TB disk (or 512GB SSD) can be found for less than $1000, and, obviously, can do far more than a phone can ever do, plus telephony as well.
Is it just pure greed?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 12:42 UTC

Nice box to photograph the model's shoes!!
Nothing new here, and I think it is not worth mentioning it in a DPR article. No need for an update, please :-)

I doubt that they can sell many of their SMALL-OBJECT studio at this price in the Internet age.

eBay, Walmart, Amazon, ..., all have similar products for around $30, and they even provide 4 additional background/backdrop colors.

Here is one on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Photo-Studio-Video-Lighting-Shooting-Soft-Box-Light-Tent-Cube-Backdrops-KIT/141691835651?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20131003132420%26meid%3D1a46237b4b514e2db509078d836ae00d%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D4%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D360767771414

or go to the main site
http://www.ebay.com and search for item # 141691835651

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 12:20 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.

I think I said "If the band/artist 'BUYS' the copyrights from a photographer, ...".
That means they already PAID the photographer for all current and future use of the images.

I was talking about any band or artist, in general, not this (Foo Fighters ridiculous contract).
No photographer should ever sign a contract like this, IMHO.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.

@ThePhilips,
I hear you, and I fully understand that.

The photographer has the option to say "thanks, but no, thanks" and walk away, or "SELL" the copyrights.

If the band/artist buys the copyrights from a photographer, then the photographer has nothing to complain about, and the artist should be free to use the images in any way they like. That's fair.

Personally, I would not sell them the copyrights unless the price is attractive enough, or if I was in a difficult financial situation without many options.

The other option is to sell the photo gear, go to art school and become a cartoonist :-)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 20:31 UTC

Who are the Poo Fighters anyway?
Oops! Foo, I meant to say.

I thought Rock had died after AC-DC, The Who, Sabbath, Ozzy, Zeppelin, ..., etc.

NO ONE is forced to sign the band's contract, or very much any contract. It's that simple.

Just leave them alone. Let their management team photograph them with a smart phone and then see the results!
Maybe then they'll appreciate the presence of a real photographer, and (maybe) then they'd agree that they should pay the photographer some petty-cash money!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.

"... artists can hardly make any (living) money ..."

Pooooooor artists. My heart is bleeding!

I agree 100%. An artist (singers, bands, ...) who is making $50 MILLION a year is hardly making any living money, and, therefore, such artist can't afford to pay a starving photographer a few hundred dollars!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 12:41 UTC
Total: 185, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »