LensBeginner: Another proprietary file format...no need for that, thanks
They could embed some metadata in a standard image file; no need for unwieldy sidecar files.
They're mostly interested in video rather than stills it seems. The same thing should still more-or-less apply, though.
When I brought the desktop screen I'm looking at now (a NEC EA231WMi, 23" 1920x1080), conventional wisdom seemed to have it that 1680x1050 was an appropriate resolution for screens around 22" and higher would be overkill. I've always been keen on reasonably high pixel densities and at that time was frustrated by how hard it was to find laptops and non-giant screens with nice high resolution... but come on; 2560x1440 is pretty workable on a 27" screen...
DotCom Editor: I hope none of those screen were running Windows Vista
There might be more compute power in the camera that took the photos, let alone the laptop...
Mr Fartleberry: Real Dark Ages stuff. Loading your own bulk film is like rolling your own cigarettes to save money.
I'm missing the radioactive negative brush though.
I don't smoke anymore, but do you realise that rollies are much much nicer than straights, as well as cheaper?
johnny 99: I don't get the demand for a micro-SD card slot. Once you start storing apps on the micro-SD card (like almost all Android users do), you cannot remove the micro-SD and expect the device to keep working. Having the memory sealed into the device makes it sturdier and thinner.
A full sized SD card slot would be nice, but it is easy enough to plug a card reader into the micro-USB port (using an OTG cable).
I think people like to have the option of a cheap semi-permanent memory upgrade, especially given the premium that device manufacturers (Apple especially) tend to charge for storage. I know I appreciated that on my old phone and miss it on my new one.
My very favourite thing I've ever read on DPR was a thread on the Pentax SLR forum, where someone said they'd given in to temptation and splurged on a load of expensive Limited prime lenses.
They proceeded to post lots of pictures taken with the kit lens at appropriate focal lengths, receiving lots of comments about what a good "investment" it was, and how the quality really shines through etc... Of course eventually they spilled the beans.
ironcam: It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.
The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.
They mean that the actual amount of light reaching the sensor will be the same, as will the other characteristics of DOF and FOV. It's just condensing approximately equivalent light into a smaller area.
ptodd: Smartphones can use their accelerometer / gyroscope as a spirit level.
This was meant as a reply to Ron Co, but for some reason I can't seem to get the appropriate button to come up on my mobile device...
Hmmm, I can reply to this, though...
Smartphones can use their accelerometer / gyroscope as a spirit level.
nathantw: Carrying around a bunch of hardened sand is heavy enough. Can you imagine carrying around a bunch of liquid?
AFAIK no-one is intending for big fast lenses use this, at least in the short term.
ptodd: Why the perpetuation of the idea that "configuring the camera board is not for the faint of heart"? That article didn't really show that it needed any significant configuration at all; just plug everything in and run the simple precompiled, bundled, program to operate the camera. Their only real complaint was that there wasn't an icon on the desktop... come on!Much easier to write a little bash script to automate the command line utility than to keep pressing a button on the desktop while the camera's up in the clouds... admittedly the path to the executable may not be entirely obvious, but still this is not in the realm of things that won't be answered by a quick google "I'm feeling lucky", followed by entering a single simple command.
Nice to have Dave's input; I didn't see that when I wrote my last comment, not that it changes much (the comment was a response to Lars in case that's not obvious).
Great work, anyway.
The RPi is specifically designed to encourage people to engage with hands-on DIY computing. How high up the list of challenges faced in this project do you think "actually configuring the camera board" might have been?There needs to be a balance when reporting on things like this between inaccessibly technical and dumbed-down. You can guess where I'd place that BBC article.
Peanut88: Be careful as this may have military surveillance applications well favored by the terrorist as it is cheap, good and effective.
Be careful. Not too much details.
If the terrorist wants to do something like this, I'm afraid they'll work it out even if every last detail isn't spelled out.
Why the perpetuation of the idea that "configuring the camera board is not for the faint of heart"? That article didn't really show that it needed any significant configuration at all; just plug everything in and run the simple precompiled, bundled, program to operate the camera. Their only real complaint was that there wasn't an icon on the desktop... come on!Much easier to write a little bash script to automate the command line utility than to keep pressing a button on the desktop while the camera's up in the clouds... admittedly the path to the executable may not be entirely obvious, but still this is not in the realm of things that won't be answered by a quick google "I'm feeling lucky", followed by entering a single simple command.
Tonio Loewald: You missed Acorn for the Mac, and Photoline which is cross-platform, both of which are better Photoshop replacements than most of the programs discussed.
Preview on the Mac comes free and is surprisingly capable.
Aperture does correct lens distortiom if the lens profile data is embedded in the RAW file (works for my Nikon images, and apparently for M43).
Tried installing Acorn: "You have Mac OS X 10.7.5. The application requires Mac OS X 10.8 or later."
Apple rant follows: I should probably not post it and you should probably not read it...
What is it with the Apple mentality for constant forced upgrades? I can remember reading some dev somewhere writing about how the great thing about developing for Mac is that you don't have to hold back from using the latest greatest APIs etc because all the users always update straight away... and yet I've had trouble just unzipping something on a friend's mac in the past because the simple zip utility I downloaded to the <1year old laptop wouldn't work on that version of the OS... that was some years ago, but the user-friendliness myth is not new.
I know that the OS upgrade would be cheap and probably a worthwhile improvement, but still... I'm not sure now's the time for me. OSX is probably the most sophisticated, but Apple still wind me up...
I just started using Pixelmator to make a little graphical help screen for a simple iPad app. I find that it is not the tool for the job, suspect Acorn would be better. For instance, putting an image into a new layer (I had hoped to import svg, but appreciate it doesn't try to do vector graphics), translating and scaling it to fit then it insists on applying the result destructively: complete non-starter for that kind of simple layout / compositing task. I guess it just wasn't designed for that.
I'll probably use PaintShopPro that I already have as I'm a bit skint for buying more software now, but obviously not needing to go into Windows would be a plus (I can run it in Parallels, but with 'only' 8gb of RAM, no SSD, a few browser tabs and an IDE open, the machine gets bogged down). It's a bit daft having a mac but not having any decent OSX graphics software! Maybe I'll try that PS flavoured version of GIMP.
I wasn't aware of Acorn. It does look fairly decent. I just got hold of a copy of Pixelmator in the sale for my occasional mac-based image-editing needs, but maybe that would've been a better choice.
I was mostly aware of Pixelmator because it's still one of the few to use the GPU properly.
mrsfixit: I think the removable battery is great.Most people who have cell phones do NOT have multiple batteries for them. You use the battery that's in the phone until it starts to die, then replace it.With devices with integrated batteries- you have to toss out the device.It makes no sense to throw a whole device out- one that may still work perfectly and still suit your needs- just because the battery wore out.
Well, a device like the Nexus 4 apparently only requires removing a couple of screws to get at the battery. If changing the battery is just a one-off when the old one dies, then that level of accessibility is fine.
ryansholl: All of the novelty and effectively none of the cost. I see no problem here.
It seems to me that a substantial part of the novelty is lost; the most novel Lytro samples are things like splashes of water or spontaneous group shots... this will not be able to do anything similar.
Roman Korcek: As xda-developers pointed out, pictures are much better in the burst mode. Could you Dpreview / DxO guys test that?http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2195895
This comment needs more recognition. On the basis of that thread, it's incredible to believe Sony messed up the device with such OTT noise reduction. I imagine future software updates will improve image quality.