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.
Flickr - pah. Horrible user interface. I gave up looking at it when it went from a nice list of photos and the info next to each one in a paged format to being a dumb wall of pictures on one page which require forever to load.
"We have reached out to Metz"
No, you didn't. You emailed or rang them and asked them to comment. They aren't living in a tree. They aren't painted on the roof of the Sistine Chapel.
Gee - am I getting sick of this phrase...
Sounds like the work of the Devil...
It's only gold plated - cheap muck.
Give me a camera body carved out of a block of solid 24k gold.
Now that would really be worthy of being hideously wealthy, no brains and no taste.
ljclark: If this was around the first of April instead of around the first of November...
Considering how ugly the Df is anyway, this has got to be one of the best illustrations of "lipstick on a pig".
Pigs are nice and the most intelligent of farmyard animals. Please don't insult pigs by comparing them to this. And a pig certainly would be smart enough not to buy one.
bed bug: I have had the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + for a couple of months now. Thought I would list some positives and negatives.
Positives1. The gimbal works very well producing very stable images (I had the Phantom 2 Vision before and the images are not stable).2. Quite easy to learn how to fly.
Negatives1. I only get around 15minute flight time, maximum.2. There are problems with the video transmitter in the drone such that I am unable to fly the drone via the camera as the link keeps dropping out. I am battling with the service division where I bought it from trying to get this problem sorted out.3. The gimbal/camera unit is very flimsy, in a very minor crash, the camera unit was ripped off the gimbal. Unfortunately both need to be replaced which is around 2/3rds the cost of a new drone (ridiculous!!!).4. The gimbal & camera is one unit, if one is damaged then the whole unit needs replaced.5. DJI serivce is non-existent, I have been trying 2 months to have the camera repaired, cont...
Topples over on landing? Not had that - but I use down throttle to turn it off as the other way with both sticks is prone to causing a topple-over. BTW, it's better to hover it and catch it instead of landing it - easy to do so long as it's not blowing a gale.
I would also not recommend carbon-fibre blades from the reading and viewing I've done. They shatter on impact and there is no real advantage weight-wise - you might get 20 seconds more flight time.
Also, you can tilt the camera with the V2+ by tilting the controller if you switch the app to that mode - no need to take hands off anything.