the 'logistics of supporting two sets of software' explanation begs a bit of disbelief... what's stopping them from having a subscription model where after having subscribed for a certain number of months, say 2 years, the user gets to keep using the functionality of the product with no further upgrades to the product... it's still only one product line that requires development, and people get to have some amount of usability... Adobe can have yearly builds of the software up to a calender date, and people who subscribe for a certain number of months to that point get the functionality up to that software build but no further updates... there are many possible consumer-centric possibilities if one wishes to pursue them without having to support the 'logistics of supporting two sets of software'
Murray Rothbard: You can't own an image, an idea, a sound, a flavor, anything that is not tangible and subject to objective, universally agreed-on parameters. You can own a piece of paper on which animage is printed, you can own a digital file containing color data, but you cannot own particles of light. If you don't want anyone to "steal" your image, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise, as the expression goes: What has been seen cannot be unseen."
actually, a patent cannot be an idea, it has to be an implementation of an idea... like, say, a person cannot patent the idea of time travel, only a way to achieve time travel...
but in this case, the photographer can own the rights to the image that he captured, which is not an idea or an image in its abstraction but an actual piece of work he carried out... the main problem with the case is the time lapse...
wootpile: bleh, that c1 is a technologist fan's camera - not a photographer's
give me a Nikon 7700-like thing (including flipscreen) with a large sensor and I would satisfied.
a P7700 with the electronics, mount, and sensor of a V1... shouldn't be that difficult considering the two cameras aren't that different in size... could be slightly bigger than the P7700 and would still be great...
Bullsnapper: Excellent. Maybe we will again be able to rely on photos as evidence ("the camera never lies") by being able to prove a photo has NOT been manipulated.
This meshes with an item on Australian ABC-TV Media Watch last night (www.abc.net.au/mediawatch) about Google Images being able to match almost any image with other images on the web, so proving or disproving an image's veracity. They used an image asserted by a newspaper to be of Osama bin Laden to prove that it was a fake - it was of another similar looking person.
So, two new tools come together to provide truth. This is good.
not likely anytime soon... the technology mentioned in the article can prove an image has been manipulated, but it can't definitely prove an image has not been manipulated... even the researchers admit that there are processes that their technology can't pick up...
Thanks Uwe for your generosity and happy holidays to all whatever holiday you might be celebrating
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review