Michael Foran: I can see why this technology would go over a lot of photographer's heads- particularly traditionalists. But for a person, like myself, that also does a lot of compositing and effects for video, I can see a lot potential here. By creating a depth map with the shot, it almost negates the need to shoot on green screen as you can pull your mattes from the depth map. And with plotted 3D space it's much easier insert your effects and CG elements because your camera and lens are already solved. It's really more for post-production, not the DPReview crowd, although cinematographers would need to learn it if it were integrated into production. This is a much more practical use for this technology than the consumer market.
@HowaboutRAW, I'm not sure what you mean. The video clearly shows them pulling mattes from the light field data. They don't get into any detail about the process, but they replace the background on a few shots without the need of a green screen. I presume this is because they can create a depth map and then crush it to create a clean matte. Can you explain what your comment?
I can see why this technology would go over a lot of photographer's heads- particularly traditionalists. But for a person, like myself, that also does a lot of compositing and effects for video, I can see a lot potential here. By creating a depth map with the shot, it almost negates the need to shoot on green screen as you can pull your mattes from the depth map. And with plotted 3D space it's much easier insert your effects and CG elements because your camera and lens are already solved. It's really more for post-production, not the DPReview crowd, although cinematographers would need to learn it if it were integrated into production. This is a much more practical use for this technology than the consumer market.
I wish Adobe would quit with these bell-and-whistle features and improve functions of the program that actually matter to photographers. How about better skin tone control? or the ability to control noise in zones of brightness? i actually do like the program but their focus on gimmicks over substance is a constant irritation.
Wasn't this exactly the plan they publicly set forth a couple years ago? I don't have a link to the actual article but I recall them making a statement that the low and mid range markets were saturated and they were going to focus on higher end models. So this is exactly what they predicted would happen, they shifted their strategy accordingly, and had a big increase in profit because of it. And yet this headline seems to imply they failed somehow.
Any chance us a7ii users will see this firmware update too?
Michael Foran: When is DPReview going to stop dancing around it and post a proper review?
Haha, well it's more than the numbers. I'd like to know where you definitively settle on some of the outstanding issues. Until you put a bow on it I consider everything to be evolving. Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the informative coverage.
When is DPReview going to stop dancing around it and post a proper review?
40daystogo: Just so that Sony is made clear on how users feel:
-- I want a third option of: lossless, compressed RAW.
I would have preferred Sony relay this and done it properly, rather than giving us some half-hearted attempt to pacify upset users.
The problem is, now that Sony gives us a half-hearted fix, they might delay the lossless, compressed RAW for a long time, thinking that people are satisfied. We're not.
Sony, given the choice of compressed, lossless RAW, versus uncompressed, mega-big files - what sort of crazy person would want to massively large uncompressed files?
I doubt we will see this in this round of cameras. For one, using a lossless compression algorithm, like ZIP, LZW or RAR, would most likely require licensing fees to patent holders. As these fees are not worked into the business plan I think it's unlikely they will authorize them for a firmware update. Secondly, compressing this way was not designed into the camera and would likely compromise other features of the camera with the CPU overhead. My prediction is that you are going to have to make a choice between file size or uncompressed files until the next generation of these cameras arrives.
bernardf12: I would like to see how Sony will fix the lossy compression issue with the already slow processor and limited battery capacity. I am not going to hold my breath for that one. That together with the lack of cheap compact fast primes makes it worthwile to wait to see what the others are up to next.
Sony isn't particularly renowned for adding features in firmware updates. They add lenses and tweak a couple settings, but if the feature isn't there when you bought the camera it's not likely to appear in the future. That being said, they have publicly acknowledged the lossy compression issue as something that could be improved with firmware, which is a large step further than they have gone on any other issue they have ever commented on. So perhaps this might be the one new thing they introduce. But if history is the judge, It will appear in the A7SII and beyond.
Jogger: Dont photographers mostly use Lightroom or similar.. unless you are a graphic design or in a production environment why you would use PS in a photography workflow.
As a person who uses PS extensively, and was once devoutly used the PS Raw Importer, I can say that Lightroom eventually won me over. I found that I was rarely using Photoshop, and just developing the image in ACR and saving it out as a large PSD file. Yes, 95% of Lightroom's basic functionality is mirrored in ACR, but once I spent some time with it I found that it was a much more efficient environment for developing, and I could still bring pix into PS when I needed. I know there are lots of other good RAW image developers out there, but personally I like LR quite a bit. That being said I haven't seen a need to upgrade from 4 to 5. It's all bells and whistles in the upgrade.
AbrasiveReducer: This is why they want you to subscribe. How many photographers will read about these features and decide they need to upgrade right away?
Yeah I thought the subscription model was supposed to be a way to get away from bold bullet point features and focus more on making the software solid at the core (which isn't a great selling point but is better for pro users).
jadot: looks good to me. Yeah yeah I know, Adobe subscriptions etc blah blah. I'll take up to date software over waiting for 2 year product cycles.
There are plenty of free alternatives if you can't afford subscription. get over it.
Exactly. It's this kind of extraneous software add-in that the CC subscription model was supposed to suppress. It's a ridiculous addition. There are SO many features and fixes I would rather have than 3D printing ability. I'm not even going to go into my wishlist, but as an After Effects user I REALLY wish Photoshop would find a way to implement live filters as a default.
Mystery Gardener: I see that a lot of the whiners and complainers commenting on the new Adobe CC features are the same people who fervently stated that Adobe would not add any new features to the CC product (no incentive). Please stand up and be counted (yes, you too hiding in shadows at the back of the room).
I am still using CS6 but will be joining the cloud group in the future if they keep adding new functionality. My cable/internet/phone package is 200 dollars a month, 10 bucks a month seems relatively cheap (basically the same cost as 2 good cups of coffee).
I am mixed on the subscription only model. I like that a subscription model allows them to develop functionality that may be extremely helpful to users, but might not help them sell a big update. With the cycle of selling new versions every 6 to 12 months broken, they can focus on real user related issues, not just what looks good on the the bullet points of the box. But at the same time this biz model removes control from the user to upgrade at a time or price that works for them. I wish Adobe would allow upgrade points for those who would prefer ownership to subscription.
OBI656: So I have updated my CC version but Perspective Warp nowhere to be seen ... ?
What is going on ADOBE ?
Right! You can't figure it out so it MUST be Adobe's fault! What are they DOING?
Thank God. Their site was the WORST. I haven't tried the new site but anything has to be better.
PatrickVienna: I wish Curt Cobain was alive, he was going to show does bad people from Petzval...wanting money so they can make money- to , you know, share the magick of the thin can lenses...pffff...he was such a nice guy.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?! I have re-read your rant three times and you make no sense whatsoever.
That is one seriously ugly camera.
Nice light and color.
This would be perfect is that lady's head wasn't in the foreground.