scott_mcleod

A lot less than I would have got last week :(

Could it be the new Aptina MT9H004 sensor rather thna the Sony one? 4.78um pitch, 4,928 x 3,280 = 23.56mm x 15.68mm, 16.16MP with HD capability (though the MT9H004 can shoot at 1080p30)? I guess we won't know until further details get released... this module is not even on the Ricoh site page for the GXR yet!

They're *time-lapse* movies made from stills (as the captions on the NASA site says). If you click on the links to individual frames you will see the original resolution was... 4256 x 2832 - the same as a D3s. How about that!
Some of the daytime stuff at the bottom of the page has an original res of 4288 x 2848 so I assume they used a D300 or D300s for those.

So the GX1 has virtually identical specs to the G3, no viewfinder, a fixed screen and the body-only costs $100 more??? If it was the same price I could see that you're (effectively) "paying more for less" but getting a more compact body in return; however this pricing strikes me somewhat cynically as cashing in on all the folks who have been waiting for a *real* successor to the GF1...

BTW Canon is legally obliged to roll over for the h.264 codec, as is everyone else held hostage by these guys. I recall reading somewhere that at least one DSLR maker was looking at creating their own codec to get around this (can't remember which one). Intellectual property is one thing but the video codec game is a license to print money IMO.

You don't see people being sued for selling prints made from JFIF-encoded files, do you?

But if you can't even view the image without using Lytro (or their approved) software, then surely any print would have to be made using Lytro content (with attribution)? The really "interesting" part is found under User Content, e.g.:

...with respect to content that you submit to Lytro.com you grant us a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, worldwide, sublicensable and transferable license to:

◦Copy, store, display, and distribute such content;
◦Modify and create derivative works of such content by using our light field picture player or another player approved by us. We may allow our users and visitors to create other modifications or derivative works and print your content for their personal use;
◦Transmit copies of such content to, and embed such content on, other websites;
◦Display the Lytro trademark with such content; and
◦Display and feature in public areas of Lytro.com, at our discretion, certain of your public living pictures selected by us.

Nice deal for Lytro, huh?

I did not imply it was in any way illegal - but can you imagine any other camera manufacturer placing such OTT conditions and restrictions on the images *you* create? No commercial prints without their express permission? And so on... maybe some are okay with this but even if I was interested in the Lytro (which I am not), their T&C's and the non-replaceable battery would be deal-breakers

Before anyone gets too excited you'd all better read this (all of it):

https://www.lytro.com/legal/terms-of-use

I shall say no more... (except a thanks to Thom Hogan for pointing this out in his blog)

Any 3D effect cannot simulate a separation greater than the diameter of the front element, so it's going to be less than half that of the average spacing of the human eyes. Unless they release a humungous version, which is unlikely to fit with their target demographic. Lytro - the ultimate one-trick pony.

"Motion Snapshot" has to be the most pointless, flash-in-the-pan, agonizingly pretentious pseudo-feature I have ever heard of. The description of this alone made me literally roll my eyes (not to mention the dismal lens specs). Sorry Nikon, you missed the mark with this one so badly my head is spinning...