This article is nothing short of pretentious twaddle.
For a format to be successful it needs to be popular and be accepted by its users.
I really don't see DRM JPEG as being accepted by the majority of users and thus it will not be popular.
Most people are happy with JPEG as it is. Including DRM will add no value and, from the point of view of the consumer, actually take away value.
So many idiots on here. What's worse is that some of you call yourselves "photographers", yet you seem to have very little understanding of either photography or science judging from the ill-informed, naive, and quite frankly ludicrous comments that are posted on dpreview any time that photos from the Moon are shown.
I'd ignore anything Flickr puts forth.
The day they replaced the old way of displaying the photos with that hideous "infinitely scrollable" page of images is the day I realised they don't have a clue.
I normally dislike this technique, but these are a fairly good example of what can be done without giving it the Photomatix look.
However, I wish people would stop calling this technique "HDR". these are not HDR images. They're tone-mapped. The technique is tone mapping. HDR is just a file in the intermediate process, and unless you have some special technology that we don't currently have for displaying the full dynamic range, then you cannot display it.
Marcus Sundman: Since there is only 1 direction of polarization recorded per pixel you effectively lose half of your resolution, which also means 50% less light. Plus everything else that you lose because of the passthrough.
Let's say you're taking a photo of water. Half of your pixels will capture the horizontally oscillating photons (the reflection) and half of your pixels will capture the vertically oscillating photons (from under the surface). Now you will throw away the former, which is half of the pixels. Hence, half of your resolution is gone and half of your light.
Maybe you need to re-read the article?
doctor digi: I'm sure some will love these.
I found them very boring. Seen it done so many times before. I think there is one shot that I thought worthy of more than a few seconds glance.
Sorry to appear so negative, but really, I have seen this kind of thing done so much better.
I never said it was.
I'm sure some will love these.
Taylor Swift is no different to any other celebrity (no matter how much she tries to spin it the other way): when it's something that will being them more money they are all for it, but if it goes against them in any way they bleat about how unfair it is and how they are standing up for "the little people".
Rappacious hypocrites, the lot of them.
What next? 100,000 pictures of the same person making up a demonstration???
Oh, hang on - got carried away by the comments about the 70,000 picture mountain image...
But seriously - not a bad effort. Not realistic in the pose department, but then, it isn't a real orchestra anyway - just a bit of fun.
rallyfan: I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Hasselblad.
The Yanks pretended to use them when they faked the moon landings.
Then more recently the company decided to rebadge Sony stuff with wood grips and added a bunch of zeros to the price tag.
This looks really promising for anyone interested in violating people's privacy rights.
You'd think that on a photography forum, of all places, people would have an ounce of common sense when it comes to photography.
SnakePlissken: you are refering to Reseau marks. As anyone who has actually used a camera will know, overexposed areas will cause fine detail to disappear. Parts of the crosses appear to be "behind" objects because they cross into overexposed areas.
Do you really think that people creating fake pictures are going to leave behind such obvious manipulation? And what would be the point anyway - the marks are inside the camera!
You also need to do some research (and look at the actual photos taken - they are on-line). Most are cropped, not straight and incorrectly exposed. The ones people normally see were the ones released by the PR department that have had all these things corrected to make them look nice to the public.
doctor digi: When it was done by a single person and the result was achievable on normal hardware, then it was meaningful.
Now it's just numbers. It's been done better and with fewer pictures.
What next? 100,000 pictures with a 1000mm lens? It's jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned.
Congratulations on all the effort though. However, it's about as much effort and as exciting as photographing every dashed white centreline on a 1000Km section of highway. (now there's a project for someone).
No, I'm talking about when the first Gigapixel pictures were made about 10 years ago. They were shot by hand and stitched by hand. They were the first of their type. That was achieving something. Everything after that point is, well frankly, meh.
When it was done by a single person and the result was achievable on normal hardware, then it was meaningful.
Hmm. No mention of the Xiaomi Mi4.
doctor digi: Nice video - but you wouldn't be able to legally fly it in so many of those locations.
I have a P2+ and I think I will sell it. Soon the forces of darkness will arrive, here in Europe and in the US, and flying these will be confined to special flight parks and be made illegal elsewhere without a very expensive licence and pro training.
These are the golden days. Unfortunately there are too many idiots out there and it will only require the downing of one passenger plane by engine ingestation of a 'copter to seal the fate of this hobby.
The world isn't just America, you know.
Nice video - but you wouldn't be able to legally fly it in so many of those locations.
Impressive results. I'm amazed that this could be produced with a phone camera.
I love the warm look, soft shadows, and the single catchlight in the eyes.
I was thinking of going to Kickstarter for my idea of "Room Light", but it seems someone beat me to it...
Hubertus Bigend: This is the most straightforward version of how capitalism has, in the end, always worked: profits privatized, losses socialized. In the so-called 'social web' of the 21st century, socializing losses is just much quicker and much more obvious than it used to be. While Ada backers now pay for what would have been Triggertrap's own enterprise risk in the economy of the 20th century, Triggertrap continues to make profits with their existing products. Nice.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
ANY investor in something cutting edge, no matter whether it is "crowd funded" or by some other means, is at risk of failure.
"socialising losses" - don't make me laugh.
Boss of Sony: Love these images. If only photography had been invented centuries earlier. Or even millennia earlier. Wouldn't you love to see photos of the pyramids being built, Jesus being crucified, Buddha meditating, medieval villages during the Black Death, primitive humans fighting woolly mammoth, Macchu Picchu in all its glory, mad medieval Europeans burning witches at the stake, etc etc.
Unlike you, I wasn't making it up. A little research on Google will show you that photography in the 1600s very nearly did come about.
Photography was very nearly invented in the 1600s when it was shown silver nitrate darkend by exposure to light, not heat. With the invention of the telescope early in that century driving better lens making, it so nearly all came together. But sadly it didn't.