jkokich: these pictures look like a million others.
I think BartyLobethal was being funny. His response is tautologically true given the statement he is responding to.
Menneisyys: Another useless filter app. I wish Android app developers would try to beat Photo Mate R2's (for example color) noise reduction algorithms instead of writing flashy (but, for serious shooters, useless) camera apps for girls / women / teenagers.
There are way more "girls / women / teenagers" than serious shooters that would buy an Android app for photo processing.
mpgxsvcd: I am not so concerned with who won what category as much as I am concerned about who didn’t win any categories.
Why? If you are buying into a new system (so you have the flexibility to choose a system) you want the best choice (even though this is only the best camera recommendation and not system). Why do you care about the long list of losers?
peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.
Did you RTFA? The copyright office's document explicitly says 'A photograph taken by a monkey' in the list of things that are not copyrightable. And no, said photographer did not plan and execute these shots, unless "having your camera snatched by an animal" is what you call planning.
I guess the hand/arm is not real, but a part of the support of the top guy? Maybe even the carpet (at least for the guy in the other shot).
mr moonlight: At least someone isn't caught up in the micro sensor mega pixel war. 8MP is too much as it is. I'd much rather have better quality images and better low light performance. If I need high resolution pics, I pull out my regular camera.
Yes, but unless your friends/viewers have a 4K monitor, sharing 8mpix images means you have to resize them, so they might as well have put a 2mpix camera in there which is enough to fill a full HD display.
David Hurt: iPhones do NOT interest me. I am Samsung All the way!!
Then what are doing reading an article about iPhones?
Seriously dpreview, you say "a fairly underwhelming spec of 8 megapixels". C'mon guys, you know better than that. I don't care about the iPhone, but 8 megapixels in these tiny sensors is already ridiculous. The HTC one is boasting "ultra-pixels" and still doesn't match a decent camera in image quality. Why do you have to perpetuate the nonsense by implying that the 21 and 40 megapixel phone cameras are better.
You should check out "Enfuse". It is an open source program that does the exposure stacking for you and it is super easy to use. Even if it does not reach your desired result, it will certainly give you a better starting point the the original images.Great shot, by the way.
This is Schrodinger's cat, it's in a superposition with itself! :-)
I withdrew my entry because it didn't abide by the "single person" rule.
Nice shot, and interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.
I wonder if you could hold a clear (sacrificial) piece of glass, or clear plastic, in front of your lens while composing/focusing/metering, to catch all the water drops, and pull it just before taking the shot. Wouldn't that save you from some trouble?
harrygilbert: What I'd like to see is a 3D printer with the ability to input a holographic image, and create a tangible output. Then every home and museum could have inexpensive copies of the finest sculpture from throughout history.
Yeah, it'd be wonderful to have a "David" made of plastic resin in the middle of your living room!
(unknown member): Yet to see a phone with manual mode for photography
rocklobster:I'm assuming that the specs are in resulting pixels, not in photosites, so when they say 4MP, you get 4MP of full color, no matter how many actual photosites the phone needed to create that.
GURL:I couldn't agree more with you. I think there is a simple test. Take a picture of something with lines and start downscaling the picture using a Lanczos, or Catrom interpolation filter until you can count less lines than in the original picture. The smallest picture where you can count the max number of lines tells your what your real resolution is.
"4MP is probably a bit too low for many people"??? Why, because all the other phone makers tell you that you need 13-41?
I would say that for a picture taken with a cellphone, 1MP is low, 2MP is about right and 4MP is too much. Most of these shots will be viewed on a screen (so 1920x1080=2MP is enough), or will be printed 6x4 or 7x5 (and with 2MP you get 270dpi and 216dpi respectively).
I really wonder what use calls for more than 4MP on a cellphone.