tulku: I'm a little bit over the narrow mindset that appears to be a common thread amongst antagonists of the Lytro or Lightfield technology. I keep reading comments that photographers know what they want in focus and it's just a camera for bad photographers and the resolution is too low.
You cannot really hide things in a lightfield image, so as a photographer you have to be aware of the entire image that is being created. It's not about missing a shot and focusing later, rather, it's about taking time to really compose an image that can be explored by the viewer. I would have thought this factor would be intriguing to many photographers.
As for resolution, maybe it's not up there yet, but then again it's not really an image style for printing. Last time I checked I could not interact with a printed image and change focal points, or move around within the image like I can with a Lytro image.
Anyway just some thoughts.
There you go redefining words again to suit your ends.
Funny you should claim I ignore facts, the problem is that facts that I ignore often aren't.
That fact remains true of the best Samsung lenses, and I note that you cut out of part.
Canon and Nikon have a lot of catching up to do with the optically better Samsung lenses. Olympus and Fuji and Sigma also shame Canikon, but not as much.
It's amazing I didn't even have to finish reading your post to know that you'd have invented a "fact" to suit your ends. In other words I wrote the first paragraph without even noting the BS you'd posted about Nikon and Canon lenses somehow being optically excellent and thereby competing with the likes of Leica and Zeiss. (Yes, the best Samsung do, and Canikon isn't even close to Leica or Zeiss for optical performance).
Mike814: Should I wait to purchase the D750 since I assume Nikon with be correcting the flare problem before they send out the next batch of cameras? Or should I buy the D750 now and then just send it back to Nikon for repairs?
I believe, Nikon used something more like carbon fiber than plastic in the parts of the D750 which aren't magnesium. Though the grip may indeed be plastic.
Carbon fiber is usually significantly stronger than plastic.
Nope, it’s not me wanting.
I clicked on your gallery, not some subfolder, and immediately found an image with a name in it.
I thought that’s odd.
Clicked a couple of more images over on the thumbnails and found another image with a name in it, but now a different name.
You may have thought that you posted the work of others in distinct folders but that’s not the result. So take it up with DPR. Note, I’m being awfully trusting of your explanation.
HowaboutRAW: Le Kilt,
It sure looks like fraud, or theft.
Particularly since you don't do any identifying of the pictures as by someone else.
My assumptions could be wrong, but you've offered no good explanation for posting other people's photos in your DPR gallery. There are two with names embedded. Those are different names. So at least one of those images is not yours.
The fact remains that you posted images by others without clearly identifying them as some separate category. They are just part of your gallery, sans boundary, folder, delineation, etc.
I'm being mighty trusting of your explanations, note how different that is than your behavior.
No, they aren't in clear albums. You can take that up with DPR.
shineofleo: Too sad to see the news, since the idea of Lytro impresses a lot people. I was one of them, but now I think Lytro is sinking.
From tech side, the idea (focus later/changing DOF) looks cool, but it is hard to implement. The PhD paper is great, but it could not find an effective way to solve it. I am not sure if there will a effective solution in the future, but now it is a brutal-force version. Yes the lightfield means LOTS of data, and the current 'converting rate' to an effective 2D image is very low. The extra data was not wasted, it is just paid to get the ability to focus afterwards.
still image has been so hard, I could not image how video would do for it. Another PhD paper is needed or this video way is another dead end.
Naturally it affects the marketing aspects, continue ---
And I just think you're incorrect.
Now agree the 2D files output look processed, but they're not ful of classic digital artifacts.
Bringing up the D3S and D800 as points of comparison--that's very strange. (And the D800 has colour problems above base ISO--which the Lytro Illum doesn't.)
Again: I've never said that Lytro will be the party to fully realize this technology.
Then 7MP for an 8X10, yes by that formula of 300ppi, but you know better.
The fact remains that you posted others' work in your album.
And you've only offered claims about this that and the other album, but that "other" doesn't exist. (Now you can change it and assign clear and proper credit and that will clarify things.)
Note my use of the subjunctive.
I don't care how the photos were linked in forums, they show up in your album without clear explanation that they are by others and there, in your album, not a subfolder, to demonstrate something. And that fact makes puts in an inappropriate light.
You've already given all sorts of good reasons not to share more.
Scottelly: It seems to me that with micro-SD cards handling 128 GB of data at UHS-II speeds now, the data is not going to be a major issue. Besides, they can just use a compression technology to reduce the amount of data written to the cards, if necessary. As far as processing the data is concerned, they can put two or four processors in the camera, if necessary, where a typical 1080p60 video camera could process the data with a single processor. 4K is coming though, so they really need to concentrate on making their first 4K video camera shortly after they demonstrate a 1080p30 video camera. This equipment will be big and expensive, and few people other than pros are likely to use it, so they will want 4K capability. The software used to process the video will be another issue. Today's computers might not handle it well at all. Of course, tomorrows computers will be twice as fast, and RAM is incredibly cheap now. 16 GB for $100! (DDR3-1600)
It's indeed correct English in the sense of grammar, just not how the term is used in normal English.
As I've already explained your meaning was clear, your usage is odd.
I didn't see any album noted, you can take up the allocation problems with DPR.
I saw one album, yours.
So Le Kilt,
If you bother to do a websearch of the words "cheapskate shot" the results are near zero.
While a search of the term "cheap shot" yields tens of thousands of results--including online dictionaries.
Don't forget to use quotation marks.
The D750 is not all plastic. Far from it.
The 5DIII is an excellent camera, but can't touch the D750 for high ISO work.
That Canon printer, if you want to keep it, will cost a bundle in ink. (As will any serious ink jet printer.)
The 6D, a very good camera, can't touch the AF of the D750.
But if you already have the Canon L lenses, that's a reason to stick with Canon.
They're not in some other album on the website I viewed.
I didn't have to pick thru this album or that. I just clicked images, found two with distinct names, and no great explanation.
I'm not going to chase every forum link, if there. You've yet to offer evidence for what you claim.
Your hopes for me are correct.
The fact remains that you have no business posting photos by other parties in your gallery, absent massive red flags warning that it's not your work.
SnakePlissken: I would be interested to know if Lytro have ever actually sold one of their cameras. How they manage to rustle up $50m is impressive when I have never seen one of their cameras in use and never expect to.
There are buyer's reviews on the BH website.
A websearch of the terms "lytro illum files" should lead you to people who at least have the camera.
jtan163: The big problem with Lytro is I don't want to have to rely on their web software.It's a far worse cloud lock in that Adobe CC.
And they Lytro don't appear to understand the photography market.I mean what photographer wants a one button camera?
One button cameras are for people who use phones, and most of them don't understand focus - most people I know who shoot with phones don't tap to focus and therefore shoot blurry pics, unless their subject happens to be in the default depth of field.
In other words Lytros has been bit by the same "phone users don't care if their images are rubbish" bug as the rest of the industry.
Yep. You have misused terms and words--inventing a new meaning for "context".
There's also the kind of big problem of using photos with two entirely different signatures in galleries. Most would assume that means the imagery doesn't belong to the poster; there's another term for that.
So that's another "misuse" demonstrated by you. Of course here "misuse" means something else, James, or is it Peter? Likely another name.
Remember you also got caught making up sensor pixel count claims for the Illum.
Not to worry, your meaning was clear if usage odd.
There's no common term "cheapskate shot at...".
You mean "cheap", it's fine your meaning was clear, if not exactly normal English usage.
But zero times 4 is still zero.
Now that I've found evidence of posting others' work in your pictures, I'd be real careful.