joe6pack: Seems much better than Microsoft's hyperlapse.
I think you'd need to make a number of simultaneously-recorded videos with both technologies to see which is really "better".
I wonder how well instagram's tech would handle the rock climbing video from MS - the original had dozens of quick head movements in wildly different directions, but the processed video was still smooth and watchable.
And obviously, MS's tech is better than Instagram's for any video not made with their app.
Totally different - Microsoft's can stabilize existing video; this one requires the video to be shot in the app.
Kim Letkeman: "The resulting video, seen in the demo below, is quite impressive. As of now, the team does not have a release date, but mentions that those who are interested should stay tuned as they 'are working hard on making [their] hyperlapse algorithm available as a Windows app' - Note that the word app most likely hints at a Windows 8 application and not legacy desktop software (sorry Windows 7 users)."
I'm looking forward to playing with this app ... and I think it might be time that users and reviewers put on their big boy pants and stop wasting so much energy whinging about Windows 8. Using dirt cheap tools from Stardock, I have been running Windows 8 exactly as I ran Windows 7 for years now.
"[Windows 8 is] a POS operating system" - because, what, you don't like the new UI? Or can you give any technical reasons without embarrassing yourself?
Biowizard: oh YUCK. While the city-scape bike rides looked smooth enough, the mountain climbing/hiking sequences seemed totally artificial. The way entire blocks of landscape morphed, or appeared suddenly in piecemeal fashion, reminded of all that is wrong with Microsoft Flight Simulator, when whole weather systems appear or vanish in a twinkling, completely destroying the immersive experience.
In short, there is still only one way to create decent time-lapse, and that involves tracks, servos, tripods and more, in a carefully planned fashion. Please keep this pseudo-realism away from me.
[Edited for a typo]
Oh, for god's sakes, lighten up. If this gives consumers a simple way to increase their enjoyment of their own experiential recordings, it's of significant value - even if it doesn't meet your tedious pretensions to artistic purity. Jeez.
lol - boat too small!!!!!!!!
Does anyone know if an M-mount adapter will be possible?
EDIT: I guess it will.
laikanuki2: Not impressed by GoPro. It was not long ago the Hero3 Black was introduced and it has already become obsolescent. How many of these new features could have been added to the existing GoPro Black with a software upgrade
To rub salt into the wound, my Hero3 black still freezes every so often, requiring the battery to be removed to get it to restart properly, and this after several software updates. So instead of fixing the problem and giving proper support, GoPro simply dumps it and introduces a new model. And there is no guarantee that the problem is fixed in the new model.
GoPro is treating its customers with contempt!!
Yes, they should have made it smaller and added a new lens WITH SOFTWARE! Other companies do it all the time!
wansai: That is not an improvement at all. Its basically calculating nearest neighbour colour for blown highlights and then doing a fill of that colour.
You can see this by the fact that the "after" shot is nearly just flat yellow. It's basically faking the colour and it looks like it.
I'd rather take the first picture; at least that has gradients and tones even if it lacks the dynamic range to fully express it.
So when Samsung says the technology "creates a physical barrier between neighboring pixels, which enables each photodiode to absorb additional photons and, at the same time, minimizes electrical crosstalk between pixels", what they REALLY mean to say is that "we're just faking the color with an algorithm"?
Enlightening. Thanks for clearing that up.
ptox: So they're showing off their new, super sensitive CCD featuring extra low noise readout... via a low quality promo video filled with ugly compression artifacts. Great job, Canon PR people!
@vladimir: well duh. But why not let us see its full capabilities with a high quality video? The compression makes it look like crap.
So they're showing off their new, super sensitive CCD featuring extra low noise readout... via a low quality promo video filled with ugly compression artifacts. Great job, Canon PR people!
maxola67: Am I only to notice bigger dimensions of this device comparing to Olympus OM-D E-M5?130 x 94 x 63 mm against 122 x 89 x 43 mm.I mean it's has a size which is comparable to APS-C DSLR and that's said having 4/3 sensor.What's all about?
Yes, you are the ONLY ONE TO NOTICE! Thank you for sharing your colossally important insight--the E-M1 is NEARER IN SIZE to an APSC DSLR than the E-M5! This changes everything. The ramifications are extreme. I suggest we ignore its very existence. Oh, I'm not sure I can take it!
DELETED88781: Small sensor is not good regardless of any feature.Entry level FF DSLR has 4 times bigger sensor and only 200g more weight. Cost? Almost the same.
Totally. It's as if people buy cameras to take pictures, and not for the sensors they contain. Sensor sensor sensor. Mmmm-MM! Nothing like a big sensor. I put mine on my pillow as I go to sleep. 4x the light, 4x the light, 4x the light. Golly, I could say that all day long.
StevenE: When I studied the trumpet my teacher told me "the quickest way to become satisfied with your performance is to lower your standards." The same applies to photography.
I'll keep my 5DIII; the compacts and mirror-less (I've tried a couple) are just not ready yet. I'll carry an EOS-M with 22mm f/2 when photography is secondary and I want something reasonable with me.
Since, of all the mirrorless options available, you'd pick the EOS-M, you're not qualified in the slightest to make any pronouncement on their "readiness" to fulfill your obviously pedestrian photographic requirements.
forpetessake: That's been mentioned many times on the forums that the only game left to increase IQ is increasing sensor size, and given time, the FF prices will go down and virtually all compact cameras will be FF. For some reason this simple fact provokes knee jerk reaction from people with small sensors. Must be a Napoleon complex.
You must really value your own opinion, since you post this one in pretty much every forum and/or news item on this site.
The capabilities of all sensor sizes 4/3 and up are *already* beyond the abilities of most casual shooters to exploit. Why would they give up zoom lenses and true compactness just to acquire a sensor of arbitrary largeness that confers benefits they can't even realize?
This is an especially silly prediction when you consider that the performance of smaller sensors will continue to improve--likely to the point where compact cameras can produce images on par with today's DSLRs.
(Excepting, of course, The Most Important Feature In The Universe: the DoF control of a 35mm sensor--but no larger! No larger!)
Have you considered that the "knee jerk reactions" you provoke are more to do with your grating certitude, extreme lack of humility and penchant for tedious repetition in the face of considered arguments disputing your unrealistic fantasies?
Panasonicus: As an owner of a G3 with which I am very pleased (apart from very poor battery life) I am open to an upgrade but not size-wise. Most of the GF series offer nothing over the G series and especially if you require a viewfinder. That this one also allows the use of Olympus lenses while retaining IS is a big deal indeed. I suspect the only wasp in the paste will be the price. Aside from that possible deal breaker, this looks like the best yet from Panasonic--especially if it is as small as my much loved G3.Update: just read the specs--its quite a lot larger and heavier than the G3. Pity--what is the real advantage here other than more direct controls? No fully articulated screen is a negative.
Sorry, did you just write that the GX7 is quite a bit larger than the G3? Where did you see that?
goshigoo: From Dof prespective; it will act like 85 f/2.4 on 35mm FF
a 6D + 85 f/1.8 will have shallower DofAlso, IQ wise, 6D + 85 f/1.8 @ f/2.4 could be better than this lens
35mm FF still has it's value when shallow Dof is needed
tko: So, is Road & Track going to start reviewing tricycles? Field and Stream magnetic fishing games? Better Ammo rubber band guns? High Fidelity USB sticks?
Is there is any hobby where people choose their gear based on how convenient it is, and not how it performs?
In no other enthusiast area do I see such pandering to laziest hobbyists. I don't use the word "lazy" as an insult - I'm lazy in many areas, no big deal. There's a lot of stuff in the world I just don't care about as long as it basically works. It's perfectly OK for people to feel that way about cameras. A minimum performance tool for a job.
But why have a web site that glorifies low performance? Why not write articles about the coolest and the best?
Road & Track will occasionally test a Yugo. Once they tested a blimp. Good clean fun. But they sell magazines with test of exotic supercars. They don't write articles on why a bike is all you really need. This site, seems to want to appeal to the Yugo drivers.
Dull, rote snobbery.
But I'm sure you're a GREAT photographer.
mpgxsvcd: I am really starting to think that the Sony Cyber-shot RX100II is going to be an outstanding camera.
Yes... after all, it has a ONE INCH SENSOR! The only thing that MATTERS!
Nismo350Z: Barney, I think the camera phone users have 20 reasons why they haven't touched ANY camera in years ;-)
Still can't beat a DSLR system for bokeh, though.
Sorry to be pedantic, but you mean "can't beat a DSLR for thin DoF at a given angle of view".
Bokeh describes an image's out of focus area, and is entirely a product of the lens, not the sensor.
Really superb. He's got loads of great insect photography on his site. Everyone should take a look.