 |
Greg Lovern
Lives in
Bellevue, WA, United States
Joined on
May 4, 2004
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Greg Lovern: When wonderful old works, who's current copyright holder can't be located and may not even know that they inherited the copyright, can't be published without risking multi-million dollar settlements, the culture is impoverished. That's how it is today now that the copyright law pendulum has swing far, far over to the side of protecting creators.
It's possible to provide reasonable protection to new creators without disappearing the works of wonderful old creators who's current copyright holder can't be found. But finding that balance requires that new creators be required to put some minimal effort into registering their works.
Works can be registered in aggregate, as in a large set of photographs or the entire contents of a magazine.
JSWilson:
In the UK and Commonwealth countries, if you want to republish some wonderful 70-year old creative work that you believe is a dear part of your country's history that is in danger of being forgotten, but whose creator is long dead and you were unable to find who is the current copyright owner, what is the risk of going ahead and republishing it? If a copyright owner turns up and sues you for all they can, how much can they get from you? Can they get only the amount of money you made selling the republished work, or can they get much, much, much more, enough to put you in bankruptcy? Further, if an unscrupulous person lies and claims they own the copyright, is the burden of proof on you to prove that they do not own the copyright? There may be no record of the transfer of ownership of the copyright.
Greg Lovern: When wonderful old works, who's current copyright holder can't be located and may not even know that they inherited the copyright, can't be published without risking multi-million dollar settlements, the culture is impoverished. That's how it is today now that the copyright law pendulum has swing far, far over to the side of protecting creators.
It's possible to provide reasonable protection to new creators without disappearing the works of wonderful old creators who's current copyright holder can't be found. But finding that balance requires that new creators be required to put some minimal effort into registering their works.
Works can be registered in aggregate, as in a large set of photographs or the entire contents of a magazine.
(Continued)
The requirement to register creative works to get copyright protection worked fine for a long time. The notion that copyright protection should never require the slightest effort of any kind on the part of the creator, and that it should last forever, is a recent invention that would startle the creators of 100 years ago.
At the turn of the 20th Century, creators got only 14 years of protection -- IF they registered, with the option of another 14 years if they registered again during the 14th year. No one is arguing that we should go back to that, but the self-righteous expectation that absolutely no effort at all should be required is unreasonable and ultimately causes cultural amnesia about many wonderful old creators who can't be republished without fear of multi-million dollar settlements.
Be reasonable. I register my works with the copyright office. I'm not excited about the fee but it didn't kill me.
When wonderful old works, who's current copyright holder can't be located and may not even know that they inherited the copyright, can't be published without risking multi-million dollar settlements, the culture is impoverished. That's how it is today now that the copyright law pendulum has swing far, far over to the side of protecting creators.
It's possible to provide reasonable protection to new creators without disappearing the works of wonderful old creators who's current copyright holder can't be found. But finding that balance requires that new creators be required to put some minimal effort into registering their works.
Works can be registered in aggregate, as in a large set of photographs or the entire contents of a magazine.
Steen Bay: Increasing the saturation capasity by resetting the pixels is in practice the same as lowering the sensors base ISO. A 1/2.3" sensor could have the same IQ at ISO 3 as a FF camera has at ISO 100, but the downside is that shooting at ISO 3 most often will require a rather long/slow shutterspeed, so it'll only work with static scenes/subjects.
How do you figure that resetting a pixel during exposure, to allow collecting more photons without blowing out to white, is the same as lowering the base ISO and so would require much longer shutter speeds?
Compare two otherwise identical cameras taking the same shot with the same settings; one camera has this technology and the other does not.
In the camera without this technology, some highlights are blown to white. In the camera with this technology, with the same shutter speed and other settings, more photons are collected in the highlights, each photosite collecting a slightly different number of photons than the next, so the highlights are not blown to white.
Where is the longer shutter speed in that scenario?
offertonhatter: As a K-5 owner for neigh on 2 years now, I was intrigued by the mark2.
From comparing RAW files between the mk1 mk2 and mk2s (plus the K30) it seems that Pentax keep improving on a winning formula. Take the (arguably) the best current APS-C sensor, and find ways of getting the best out of an already excellent sensor.
Now the MK2 does improve the IQ over the mk1. It appears just a little bit sharper. The mk2s - WOW! The detail is excellent, even up to ISO3200 and beyond.
Will I get either mk2 when I have already have a mk1. Well if it was a change, possibly not, but the mk2s does give you more detail. But as I do have a need for dual cameras for a lot of work, then yes, I would, retiring the K20D in the process.
It will be very interesting what the FF Pentax will be like when it is out in the next 12-18 months, especially if they get the same out of the FF 24MP sensor.
Kudos to Pentax, you have pulled yet another excellent camera(s) out of the bag.
> As a K-5 owner for neigh on 2 years now <
For nigh on 2 years now, I've been neighing like a horse! I need a doctor! :-)
PicOne: So.. produce a sensor and leave off the anti-aliasing filter, and you can charge more? How does this make sense?
> It has a filter that resharpens and image after it has been blurred? Can you back this up with a link because that doesn't sound possible to me... <
Here's your link:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/3
And here they show the effect, which is very, very small:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/27
justmeMN: I have a Pentax Film SLR. It's disappointing to see the company sold, then sold again. Now, they are owned by a copier company. Who will own them next...?
Ricoh is a serious camera company. Hoya never wanted Pentax's camera division, and was always looking for a buyer. Ricoh bought them because it wants them -- in fact, it put them in charge of their own cameras! I expect Pentax to be with Ricoh long-term.
Griffo59: I remember when Pentax was a manufacturer of serious photographic tools.
What happened?
What is unserious about it? Oh, the faux Ferrari side intake vents (is this a mid-engine DSLR??), and other sports car styling cues?
Well, aside from esthetics, it does seem to be quite serious.
spidermoon: Almost perfect, but the lack of external mic and hdmi is a major backdraw. The camera is weather seal, have ibis, the video mode can use manual control, with choice of 30p/25p/24p, so it's a great camera for outdoor footage, but you are stuck to internal mono recording.
Hopefully, they kept the unique horizon auto adujstement, so even if the camera if not perfectly aligned, the sr mechanism provide correct level. I can't see where is the button for DOF preview ? On pentax camera it's around the on/off button. And finally they remove the lock dial button :) It's the most irritaging thing on my K7, you needs two hands to turn the dial. And they move the view button to the right, a better place than the left one.
What?!? No external microphone on an entry-level DSLR?? And no HDMI either!! "Major backdraw" indeed!! How do they expect to sell this POS?!?
;-)
Guidenet: Actually, I like the looks a lot. I also like it takes KA lenses. I wish it would allow stop down metering and the use of older lenses, but I like the looks.
The problem is that there is no viewfinder and no way I can see of adding one. You'd have thought they would have at least added an accessory port in case they wanted to add one. Without getting over-flamed, serious photography requires something other than Liveview for use most of the time. You also have to be able to track at least moving children. Without this ability, you are only appealing to point and shoot upgraders.
Secondly, I don't see an easy way change the things that need to be changed quickly. There's only one dial for aperture and shutter speed. Not much else not in menus.
What's Ricoh doing to Pentax? First we get a couple of "Toy" lenses for the Q, and now we get the actual Toy, by Fisher Price.
I'd have forgiven all the rest had they just not failed to have a viewfinder. Foolishness!
Ricoh had nothing to do with the Q or the K-01. You can thank Hoya for the Q and the K-01. We'll have to wait for Photokina in September, at the earliest, before we know anything about products that have anything to do with the Ricoh ownership.
Greg Lovern: Clearly this was developed with limited resources under Hoya's thumb. It may appeal to the form-before-function crowd who buy fashion statements not photographic tools, but it will have very little appeal to enthusiasts.
Just wait to see what Ricoh can do with Pentax; we haven't seen any results of Ricoh's ownership yet. I predict that this September at Photokina a K-mount module for the GXR will be announced, and once that product is released, I think we'll soon see a quiet end to the K-01.
Richard -- Okay, what Pentax can do with Ricoh's resources and indulgence. However you parse it, Pentax's future is so bright I gotta wear shades! :-)
Clearly this was developed with limited resources under Hoya's thumb. It may appeal to the form-before-function crowd who buy fashion statements not photographic tools, but it will have very little appeal to enthusiasts.
Just wait to see what Ricoh can do with Pentax; we haven't seen any results of Ricoh's ownership yet. I predict that this September at Photokina a K-mount module for the GXR will be announced, and once that product is released, I think we'll soon see a quiet end to the K-01.
This is not good news for Bibble users. I've been using Bibble since 2005.
If Corel turns out to be good for Bibble users, it will be a first for Corel. I have no confidence that Corel's ownership will result in a product as good as Bibble. Look what they did to Quattro Pro. Look what they did to <fill in the blank>.
I'll probably continue to use Bibble until someday down the line when I have a camera it doesn't support. Then it will be time to look for a replacement, and I doubt Corel's offering will be among the finalists.
Greg
I understand that Nikon is aiming these at compact camera upgraders, but I wonder how many people want a bounce flash unit but don't want a PASM dial.
Greg
Marty4650: How did they make an 18X zoom this small? This camera looks around the same size as my 10X Panasonic TZ5. Is the sensor even smaller in this camera?
The sensor size is 1/2.33", same as the Panasonic TZ5:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/pentax/compacts/pentax_optiorz18