dprived prev: if loss of sharpness is what worries us about using a polarizing filter, then using the right exposure and contrast / color adjustment tools in Photoshop, many subjects can be photographed (and later edited finely) without a polarizing filter on the lens ...
Yes and no.. The postcard effect is easy achievable.. But the reflection reduction is not possible to do afterwards.
dammit... i missed this contest... i have tons of great photos for this category:
my best, which look a lot like the winner... https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KL4w6bbuSOE/SPuaBC2iYrI/AAAAAAAADi8/iv7FzteRum0/s1024/_DSC0392%20copy.jpg
I love this photo !...
you should visit this place many times all year long, looks like a good scene ( also from the orther side )
Looks very good !
This looks like a good combo... Apple hardware and Microsoft OS :D
Nice wide angle !
Birk Binnard: Well OK, but...
1. What about roll paper feed - will it print panoramas longer than 13"?
2. How much does the printer cost?
3. How much does printer ink cost?
4. Can each ink color be bought individually?
1. nope (unless you somehow come by a roll of paper, which is nowhere to find in stores)
2. 799$ like said in the article
3. tons of dollars
4. yes, and some in bulk, and some you can find nowhere... as usual
Eric Glam: I actually don't understand why JPEG-XR never made it with broad public acception. It offers so much more than JPEG, and competes well with JPEG2000.
I know JPEG-XR was designed & proposed by Microsoft, which said it would be royalty-free. So if only Adobe would have embraced it, it would have been much better for us all.
JPEG2000 suffers from royalty rights, as you say... JPEG-XR suffers from the widespread use of JPEG along with their codecs and algorithms ... today you have finished SOC-designs on shelfs ready to be put into cameras.
the same story goes for MP3's
angel-xy: The greater the compression, the smaller the file size, the greater the data loss and increase in pixel size and decrease in resolution. This JPEGmini sounds like more amateurish junk. Probably OK for compressing for Email or sending over wireless devices. I would never use it for compressing good quality archived or stored images. I prefer Photoshop level 10, 11, 12. Less than that creates colour distortion and loss of detail and resolution. TIFF format compresses without image loss, for good quality images which need storing as well, it compresses with layers.
TIFF is a container that normaly stores raw bitmaps, the compression technique is LZW which is a simple run-length/dictionary (lossless) compression. nothing fancy here
JPEG2000 and highquality JPEG's are also lossless in the sense that noone will notice if anything is missing :)
put a big face in the middle... looking down... would be funny !
a scene from Terragen (Planetside)... the planet/world simulator ...