qom1215: What is the display made of, plastic? Is it going to scratch easily?
They do it with a cling film, is very delicate, best not to touch it!
peevee1: It is the first Samsung Android phone which I actually like. The shape means that it will be much more natural in the pocket around my leg, in my hand or around my face - not a flat slab, and for a phone that big it matters a lot.Back looks like leather (although knowing Samsung they probably saved 25 cents and it is actually not a real leather) - also much smarter decision then their usual plastic or even painted metal or glass, making a case basically unnecessary, saving on total weight and size.Looking for time/weather by pushing on it slightly instead of picking it up and turning up is handy.Now, bring it to T-Mobile, in pure Google (Nexus) form. Screen might be little smaller to.
... yes, and maybe even cook better and with more uniformity your biological cells with the radio frequency, really nice!
Part 2 of 2:
So what are the other targhets, the purposes for these new cool curved shape? Swinging the microchips of the phone, the picture of the baby in the cradle?
Once upon a time the spherical surface of cathode-ray TVs tube, then came the cylindrical Sony Trinitron, and finally all the current flat devices, with fast amazing quality increases.
And now what do they do? They bend the screens to make them concave?It's ok for a big TV, but for a phone? ... no please, if they are not flat and with no antislip on the back.Ergonomics please, more brains, long experience, and less child-engineers, too much games-oriented!
Part 1 of 2:
This is a good technological exercise an end in itself that brings little or nothing useful in a mobile.It would be nice to those in the habit to keep it in the pocket of jeens, on the nice bum of the girls, or on the front side for the boys, doing roll eyes girls in amazement, thinking about a so large size. If the glass could become sufficiently reflective, it might be of usefull to women (but not only to them) to sure to still have a good makeup ... with the help of a sort of live-view enlarger monitor!
That said, just to say something hilarious though certainly not new, in practical use in the hand, it may be fine, but if used leaving him leaning on a table (or down on the floor in Japan) this becomes surely a definite annoying torment, unless to insert it in a case that makes flat the back and non-slip also.
KrisAK: Please consider a RAW workflow for non-Adobe supported cameras (yes, I'm thinking Foveon.)
I've read R Butler's comments about the need for "like-for-like", but I’m still puzzled: this tool allows me to make comparisons between a FF mirrored Canon, an APS-C Translucent-Mirror Sony, a mirrorless micro 4/3’s, and a Fuji X-Trans. Those very different hardware technologies are considered "like-for-like." But if a camera's RAW files don't pop open in Adobe, it's considered too exotic to shoot.
Why the emphasis on software? By all means, standardize methods where possible, but please don't ignore the outliers.
Try to use the Iridient Developer to develop the Sigma Foveon files, forget Jpg from Sigma cameras.Iridient Developer can open also all, or almost all bayer sensor files. At the present it can not compete for ease of use with converters made by Adobe, but I think, in some respects, it's much better, functional, rich and faster than the SIGMA Photo Pro converter.
Inside DPReview test you could post a new experimental set to contain the convertions performed with alternative software, in which to put therefore Foveon along with some of the Bayer cameras and others that will be realized in future, without necessarily having to go crazy with grueling, rigorous methodologies.
An outside border test, without blinders, outside the usual constraining rails.
Are these rays by God? Or rather by a meteor or a fake alien ship?
Sdaniella: mimicking fake analog optical lens flare?lol.
ridiculous. as bad as seeing it replicated in non-photographic paintings or graphic illustrations [ditto: fake 'patterned' bokeh of OOF images]
i see it in many modern movies which use CGI animation, even if it is a 'full animation (like the recent: The Croods - 3D, which otherwise all else was visually exquisite to watch), it's just as absurd. why highlight a flaw of analog optics [the bane to any photographer] in a 'digital virtual world' makes absolutely no sense except for it's sentimental 'hey look, we can fake pretending we have a real optical lens involved!' rather than a virtual (mathematically calculated image of a light source (sun, spot-lights, what have you) shining into a 'virtual camera')
next, they'll have 'fake bad sky polarization' effect on wide angle shots, or 'fake digital rainbows', which were so often misapplied INCORRECTLY via optical filters in the film days.
:-) I would like to have this, is it possible that they are able to do it?
The ZERO stitching ERROR composition, full resolution and optimized version is ready, I have just posted it here, in 2 versions, one wider and one cropped:
Sebastian Z: After so many months in space, those wheels are so clean...no dust at all, makes you wonder do they have rover washing stations on mars, or that thing just drives in somebody's living room with fake background...
"not dust at all"? No Sebastian Z. There is some dust and veil of dust everywhere, and some very little stones too.Also the MAHLI camera have already some dust on the front lens, not much, but begin to became a little disturbing.
Claudio NC: I have posted my version of this panorama in Flickr, here:
I have not had more than 1 hour of time to do this composition, I could have done better using missing shots. The single shots posted by NASA-JPL have not all the same exposure and there are also abnormal reflections in the upper part of the rover that I have not removed.But look at the parts of the rover in the lower left.The stitching defects are much less obvious, you can make the comparison with the NASA version.
I have already seen the SOL 85 images, need really only 1 pict to fill the left side made with SOL 84. The NASA version have filled that part with another picture, that is not from that location and the color fusion also demonstrate the bad made insertion!
John_Spencer: One remarkable thing that no-one has commented on- there are no foreground/background mismatches due to parallax. That means that the arm was manipulated to point the camera in 55 different directions while keeping the optical center of the camera in the same 3-dimensional location. Quite a technical tour de force! I can never get that right with Photosynth...
Absolutely not true!Look more carefully the image at full resolution.There are many stitching errors everywhere, but particulary on the rover itself. I have already commented this and made my quick verision of this composition in Flickr, yesterday: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpi-costerni/8148100978/in/photostream/lightbox/
I have posted my version of this panorama in Flickr, here:
bimmerman: Wait a minute, did they say zoom type is extending??? Meaning the length of the lens changes when zoomed??? Oh no!!! say it ain't so Nikon. Why can't they make one like Canon? This is going to be a dust pump!!!
just look at the picture of this lens to understand immediately that it has rotary controls for zoom and focus and therefore is not a pump.Less exclamation-question points, bimmerman, please use more your eyes and thought control!
Edmond Leung: I am living in Hong Kong but never heard this brand.Nowadays, manufacturing industry in Hong Kong is rare. I think it is made in China but the company is registered in Hong Kong.Don't expect too much from the products made in China.
Hong Kong is already part of China, but the people in Hong Kong (even the people in Mainland China too!) will not buy the products from China if they have money in their pocket.
obviously here we were not talking about products (electronics, optical, mechanical, etc.) built and only built in China, so built-produced-assembled, according to standards and controls imposed by companies in the rest of the world, this seemed obvious.The distinction between something like Motorola, HP, Apple, Cosina for Zeiss, etc, etc, etc (on one side) and all Chinese industries, with Chinese engineers and Chinese (copied) know-how (the other side), it should be quite evident in this speech.
Gully Foyle: I'd get a Voigtländer instead.
I have 2 Voigtländer: 28/1,9 Ultron Aspherical_M39 180/4 Apo-Lanthar_PK
The 180mm seem to be very good on all the APS-C frame already at f/4, full open. The Voigtländer 28mm is good, but not more then good, at least my copy is so. The Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 is better, give better details (more details and less fuzzy), particullary around the borders of the frame. Tested on Sony NEX-7 and Olympus OM-D EM-5.
Edmond, thank you for writing this clarification, I was not aware that people in Hong Kong prefer not buy the products from China, this say a lot.
3 years ago I had purchased, for Sony NEX, a cheap lens marked with this name, right now I do not remember the focal length, maybe it was about 25 ... 30mm, perhaps was f/1.4.
But the build quality was very poor, although new, the blades of the diaphragm, made of gray iron, semi-gloss (so too reflective) were partially already rusted.The optical performance just as ridiculous, with only the center of the frame, just mediocre, also at f/8. Was good perhaps to do dreamy images, almost all blurred, but really nothing more, as Jun2, have said here up, a toy lens.I sent it back and they were sorry that I have not appreciated their lens...
Now this brand seems to be the same, but the quality is like that of one of the most big and famous, really light-years of difference.
olddutch: The Nex-5N is a marvelous small camera, easy to use and handle. Can make excellent pictures, but not with its standard 18-55mm kitlens. That lens adds an gray haze to all pictures I made with it, and that haze appears very difficult to remove. Therefor I bought a FD-Nex lens adaptor from a china site and now have my first Canon 50mm F1.8 (!) kitlens, a prime from 1976, mounted on the Nex-5N body. The Nex-5N is very well equipped to manually focus this odd combination, which I call my Casonyon camera. The resulting pictures are marvelous and more important: without a haze!Sony should learn how to make quality lenzes for its Nex camera's!
Take a Canon FD 50/1.4 which is much better than the f /1.8.
The haze you say is not normal, something in your Sony lens is defective. Take a look if there is haze in the optic using the narrow beam of a strong flashlight. Look from the front, put the light on the back, close to the lens mount.
Surely Sony will soon learn to make quality lenses, because Zeiss will ask for your precious consultation.
Sosua: Hmmm... these examples are not great.
If you really want an extended DR image, better off getting a Nikon, expose for the highlights then do some moderate shadow pulling.
You won't encounter the dramatic shift in tones to balance our at the edge of light and dark.
I just had a look at your site, sincerely images are really poor, not for landscapes that are obviously beautiful, but the color rendering of the tones too unnatural, areas that are artificially too bright or too saturated and also too desaturated depending on the colors. Ugly shades/nuances.
Really poor, you can easily see, at first glance, right from the small low-resolution previews of the galleries.To forget.Excuse me for my criticism, but that's what I think.
ennemkay: hmm, yeah i strongly prefer hdr photography that looks realistic. the extreme form of hdr, as in the havana photo above, is clearly computer-generated to anyone who's looking at it, which puts it in a totally separate category from every other type of photography we generally discuss on these forums. hdr for the sole purpose of increasing dynamic range to eliminate the appearance of highlight and shadow clipping is something i'm far more interested in, personally.
gilo: I find all these images pretty uninspiring. What's the nice thing about losing all the shadows and having everything displayed flatly in front of you? It's like when a child plays with the ipad and has fun taking distorted pictures. at the beginning it's fun but at the end he outgrows it. Similarly, I am just waiting for the time digital photography will be finally relegated to mobile phone snapping and real photography will go back to film.
Pretty uninspiring? ...You are too kind. These are really ugly, almost horrible!
Which definition could we give to something that is the opposite of Fine Art?