Bart Hickman

Bart Hickman

Lives in United States Cedar Mill USA, OR, United States
Joined on Apr 17, 2005

Comments

Total: 120, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

peevee1: Do you even need focusing on the sensor this small? Wouldn't DoF be like from 2ft and up when focused at hyperfocal? And who cares about focusing speed for macro?

Even at 2ft, background items are blurry on my iPhone 5s. And for closeups I take quick shots of people, business cards, scans, and I like that the AF is quick. I *could* wait for a couple of seconds, but that would get annoying quick.

As for diffraction, it's not just a function DoF. The formula doesn't work out the same for tiny sensors and super short focal lengths. Likewise, it also doesn't work out the same for tiny subjects and super short subject distances.

This is why you can shoot F/30 with a macro lens or diopter and get tack sharp images, but the same lens and F-number at normal distances looks like mush.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 13, 2014 at 05:57 UTC
In reply to:

Jogger: "There is also a new M8 co-processor which is coupled with a barometer and allows for accurate tracking of changes in elevation. "

And this is critical for phones because???

The barometer augments the GPS and motion detector. Between those, you can make very accurate estimates of absolute elevation. I love the motion detector on my iPhone 5s. It very accurately measures how far I've hiked which is extremely handy when I'm looking for a fork in a trail or how much farther I have to go. And because of how they've designed it, it uses zero battery.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 04:33 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: A bit disappointed that it isn't all crazy with the specs but after using a LG G2 for a month in January and a Note 3 for 2 months just now, there is still no other choice but Apple. Raw specs sound sexy but if raw spec is all there is everyone here would be shooting D810 + Nokia 1020.

That said, if I am designing these two phones, I would make both 1mm thicker, add in a huge battery and put OIS on both. It would make them slightly more expensive to make but it would also convince some spec-whore to switch.

BTW, there is a photo comparison out for iPhone 4.7 prototype vs iPhone 5S. Night scene is a lot better. Looking forward to the full review.

When the retina displays came out, there was a very noticeable difference compared to everything else. Specs did not matter then either--you just looked at the screen and could see the difference. Doubling resolution again isn't nearly as noticeable.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 04:30 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Do you even need focusing on the sensor this small? Wouldn't DoF be like from 2ft and up when focused at hyperfocal? And who cares about focusing speed for macro?

Hyperfocal is only approximately in focus for a 4x6 print.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

intruder61: Samsung still stays on top.

Samsung was already not on top before today. They just fell further behind.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 04:22 UTC
In reply to:

Aroart: All negative commenters are losers. It's simple , this will be better than the last and there will be better in years to come. Haters need to get a life...

Going to Samsung for better battery life would be a mistake.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 04:13 UTC
On Sony a5100 First Impressions Review preview (605 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Sony and Micro Four Thirds may not have caught up to Canon and Nikon yet. However, Canon and Nikon are not progressing at all in this class of camera while Sony and M4/3s are picking up steam steadily.

sandy b, the mirrorless market is shrinking? Also, can you name an example of a company intentionally delaying entry into a market while they wait for other players to drop out? I can see how they might wait until some enabling technology is ready. But I don't think any company ever just sits on investment capital waiting for competitors to go away.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.

If the guy who stole my shovel leaves the artifact on the ground for me to find the next morning, then I get to keep the artifact.

The shovel scenario is an extreme example showing that I don't even need to own a tool or even put out any effort to claim ownership of the efforts of a monkey even when I didn't even plan on exploiting the monkey's natural behavior.

But the photograph story is far more clear cut. A photographer with a camera goes out into the world with his camera, gets photos with it, and returns and capitalizes on the fruits of his efforts. Wikimedia didn't do squat except sit on their collective butt's and make a free copy of his photo. That's the type of scenario that IP law is meant to protect against so as to encourage clever experimentation such as the photographer did.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.

If a human steals my shovel, he gets arrested for theft. If a monkey steals my shovel and blunders onto an artifact with it, then I obviously get to keep the artifact assuming I find where he dug. In no scenario does the artifact go into the public domain.

This is a no brainer.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 15:07 UTC
In reply to:

NZ Scott: I think that Slater should not have any rights to the images. Copyright is an acknowledgement of intellectual property stemming from the owner's creative endeavours. In this case, the framing and composition of the images was controlled exclusively by the monkey and Slater did not have any creative input. It does raise some interesting questions about ownership of tripwire-triggered images. In my view, those images should belong to the person who set up the camera/tripwires.

What does composing the image have to do with anything? Investment, risk, and commerce which results in commercially successful product (ie., "useful arts") is the only thing that matters.

This work does not owe it's form to the forces of nature. Cameras do not occur naturally. Photographs do no occur naturally either.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

You twisted my logic just to be argumentative. The terrorists were the subject of the photo, not the photographer. And since they did the whole thing in public view, it's fair game. Any photographer gets the benefits whether they caught the whole thing on film on purpose or by accident.

Obviously someone who gets it on purpose is more deserving from a moral standpoint. But the law isn't designed for moral reasons. It's designed to encourage commerce. In the WTC case, the person accidentally taking the video might never have shared it with the media if there was no reward for it.

There's also the issue of possession. The person owning the camera physically possesses the original work. And deleting it would never be construed as property theft. Same situation for the monkey photo. Without the belief that he owned the photo, the photography may well have never shared it with the world. He could have even deleted it and there'd be no legal theft.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 05:06 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.

Of course owning the tools means I have the right to their output. If you sell a tool (shovel, camera, etc.) at the store and put a price on it, that's the end of the transaction. If you were expecting royalties, you needed to put that on the price tag at the time of sale.

People keep talking about "creativity" like it's some legally protected concept. It's not. It's about a person owning the fruits of their own labor which is the basis of a free market. If I buy a shovel and use it for a job, I get all the money for that job. The shovel maker doesn't expect anything further (again, they would've had to say so on the price tag at the store.)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:55 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

The monkey didn't choose anything. The photographer created the entire situation as I mentioned. Other photographers who have the same idea and spend the same resources to get themselves in that situation also deserve whatever results they capture.

Whether the photographer ever has any other bright ideas is beside the point. The person who happens to capture that one shot of the airplane hitting the trade center, will own the copyright to that photo regardless of whether they ever sell any other photo in their life.

Besides, what is the logical conclusion to your argument? If the monkey did "choose", are you saying he should be legally protected by copyright law? If so, do you also agree the monkey is subject to taxes on income?

If I accidentally drop my camera and the shutter release happens to hit a rock and takes the most awesome shot ever, should the ownership of the photo be decided by the quality of my intentional photography? Or does the rock own it?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Maybe wikimedia's decision is not against some flawed copyright law but it is clearly against basic human ethics in my opinion. The pictures by nature should belong to the photographer as they were the output of his property and his efforts, accompanied by some contribution of an animal in this case. Just be reasonable guys and respect other people property, even when there is no written law about it.

zkz5, software makers license software usually with no royalties. Certainly Adobe doesn't ask for royalties. They could, but they waive them under the terms of use. Cameras and other hardware are not like software--you buy it, you own it.

As for architecture photography, a camera does not make specific use of anybody's property. It merely gathers photons that bounced off the property and headed towards the camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:11 UTC
In reply to:

NZ Scott: I think that Slater should not have any rights to the images. Copyright is an acknowledgement of intellectual property stemming from the owner's creative endeavours. In this case, the framing and composition of the images was controlled exclusively by the monkey and Slater did not have any creative input. It does raise some interesting questions about ownership of tripwire-triggered images. In my view, those images should belong to the person who set up the camera/tripwires.

If the monkey owns the copyright, does Wikimedia need to get his permission? If they pay the monkey a royalty, does the monkey need to file a tax return on his income? If the monkey refuses to pay, will the IRS seize his bananas?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:03 UTC

This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:00 UTC as 420th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

I know, I just was confirming that the file transfer stuff work in Mac iTunes.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

Then I'm not sure what the issue is. On the Mac, you plug in your iPhone and select it in iTunes. Then go to the Music tab, check the sync music box, then select the songs you want to transfer. They get copied from the iPhone to the computer in the iTunes media folder.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2014 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

Yes, but how did the MP3 files get onto the iPod touch in the first place? And were they shown inside the standard Apple music app? I can transfer files I ripped from CD too.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

SanPedro: Considering you can get an 8Gb usb/micro USB flash drive for less than $10, that's a ton of money for an app that will sync your files.

And all because Apple can't/won't fit a micro SD card slot.

All of my iPhone (or iPod touch) music originated either from iTunes on the device or iTunes on my Mac or by ripping CD's on my Mac. When I buy something in iTunes on my iPhone, the next time I plug it in, iTunes will ask if I want to transfer my purchases to the computer. But even if I never plug my iPhone into my computer, I can still re-download everything from the iTunes store on the Mac. It's always worked this way for music and video.

I've also bought music on Amazon. Same situation though. I can get the files onto my Mac and then put them in iTunes. From there they get to all devices.

Photos sync either via iPhoto (which is free) or the Image Capture utility or Adobe Lightroom. I wouldn't be surprised if Picasa imports them too. I believe iCloud photos are also available through a web-browser (I don't know the link--it's not through the usual iCloud interface.)

Are you getting MP3 files on your iPod through some means other than iTunes?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 1, 2014 at 19:02 UTC
Total: 120, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »