SRT201: Brilliant! Positively Brilliant! It must have taken a minute of more to compose and shoot!
It looks like he was kidding around and went for a giant tricycle effect.
I'm sure there are those who spend hours analyzing how the photo presents a deep and insightful commentary on Western society. :-)
Can you show us one of yours that has more resonance? None of the 16 in your gallery evoke anything for me, despite you having a D800 and a bunch of expensive lenses. It's not art if it doesn't make anyone feel anything.
Revenant: Like Chuck Lantz wrote below, "limited edition" means that that particular edition consists of a determined number of copies. It doesn't say anything about the number of copies in other editions of the same work. As long as the medium or presentation is different, it's a new edition.For example, many novels are published both in limited, numbered or lettered, editions, and unlimited mass-market editions. And it's quite common for artists to make limited print runs on large format fine art paper, and then sell cheaper prints of the same image as an unlimited edition.
Francis Carver: Wow, one thousand dollars for THIS 8-bit color fidelity little display? Wacom seems to be in denial, not wanting to recognize products from Apple and the host of tablets and touchscreen maker offerings. Predatory pricing in this product segment is over once and for all, I believe.
DPR Quote of the year - "Not Francis, perhaps, but sensible people".
thx1138: Fuji X100s is a lot more appealing and please $450 for the OVF option. If I buy one of their $18000 800 f/5.6 VR's will they throw this in for free?
Yeah, if you had $1100 for a camera like this I can't think of any reason for this over the X100s. Can anyone? (serious question)
gl2k: Today it's not about the sensor, it's all about the body that makes the difference. Dunno about DR but regarding noise the 5200 plays in the same league as the D800.
It doesn't f****** matter. Any decent camera will take great photos with a solid photographer behind it.
fyngyrz: "Requires OSX 10.7.5"
This is Apple "Abandonware."
The latest version of Lightroom (4.3) and Lightroom's latest update (7.3) works in earlier versions of OSX, and adds RAW support to Lightroom for cameras not supported in Aperture by virtue of Apple's arbitrarily locking these updates the later release of OSX. One of these is Canon's EOS 6D.
Just beware when you buy software from Apple. Taking advantage of a simple application upgrade may require you to change your entire OS.
...and this from a fellow who really likes Aperture, and has bought V1, V2 and V3. :(
So upgrade a test workstation and see what happens. 10.8.x is among the best Mac OS releases I've seen myself, and I've been around since 7.x. It's solid, it's fast, seems pretty robust and secure to date. Obviously it depends on what you run, but there's very little reason not to go to the latest release. Fear of the past is not really one of them, just test and mitigate going forward, no?
sadwitch: I for one think that RAW is not necessary. A great jpeg engine is more important in these type of cameras. For those who needs RAW, they will not be considering these category of camera's anyway and for those who are, they will not be bothered or tinkering with RAW files.
I'm confused, I think you meant "tkbslc:". I agree that RAW is the way to go.
RAW is pretty much necessary with the XZ-1, due to the noise reduction issue. I've also found RAW handy on the S90, and don't find it any more work at all. Which RAW software are you using?
AngryCorgi: A rebadged XZ-2 without the hotshoe or accessory port? What is Pentax thinking?? "Nobody wants to use flashes on this thing and nobody wants EVFs eitehr...people love the size though so let's keep it chunky and add some extra weight by using brass peices that we'll paint...just what everyone wants: all the weight and bulk but no more nonsense extras!!!"
Either way, it's a damn fine lens and the highlight of both cameras, so it's really a non-issue isn't it?
vFunct: Basically some of the dullest, most horrible, over-processed imagery in the world.
Nobody in 500px will ever be represented by a real art gallery.
"Nobody in 500px will ever be represented by a real art gallery."
Given that the site is called 500 *pixels* I'm guessing that it's not really a goal.
SantaFeBill: Just curious - Why is the site referred to as '500px'? The posted logo is _clearly_ '5' plus the infinity symbol, so why is it not '5infinity'? Is 'px' mathematical shorthand for the infinity symbol?And where do the two '0's' after the '5' come from?
In short, how do you get from '5infinity' to '500px'?
Buhl213: When one buys X-trans or Foveon equipment, it is because it is deemed superior to common mass-marked targeted Bayer-alternatives by the consumer, right? Why can this consumer not understand that it is an informed choice he/she makes, a choice that also excludes the "normal" software-support from software-vendors who has chosen to target the 70-80% of the most common marketplace within the photography-segment with the best ROI (same software, same demosaiching, same filter-mechanisms, a new table to describe a new lens) ?
I see no economic reason that these SW-vendors should support less common technologies unless directly paid to do so, and hence the camera-vendors have to make it a competitive technology (in terms of quantity, not quality), or seek alternatives (e.g. paying SilkyPix or SPP-developers to do the job).
In other words: STOP WHINING. Go take some pictures - and let the Sonikonicus-users enjoy their support, they need it, they bought inferior & conform technologies ;)
I just found that Smart Converter is a nice free tool to do the job too (opening .mts files). Simply select Other > Quicktime for the conversion and you'll get a quickly wrapped file with no video conversion (so no quality loss) and directly openable in pretty much anything.
You still likely wouldn't call that native, but given that it's free and the video isn't converted it's close enough for me. Given that it's not really very long since Win added AVCHD support themselves, it likely won't be long before it's supported on Macs too. Either way, it's not actually needed in the field with the available options for 99.9% of files, so it's just semantics really.
Stephen123: I'm curious to know why OpenCl is Windows only. Is the Mac OpenCl still not stable?
Yes please, interested here.
"Macs will play AVCHD(aka MTS) files with some additional files, also from the camera. Looks like one needs the entire Private Folder from the camera's flash card. Glad there's the work around, still wouldn't call it native playback."
How, you are wrong here. It's time to move on. An MTS file does not an AVCHD file make. The spec of the AVCHD file includes "some additional files". A properly formed AVCHD file, includes those things. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AVCHD_actual_file_structure.svg
Your PDF analogy is flawed, it's more akin to: if you hand someone a bunch of JPEG files that you had in a PDF file, but don't give them the PDF file itself. It's not the same thing, you haven't given them the whole file.
Do I wish that there was direct support for playing .mts stream files (which is outside the AVCHD spec)? Sure. Does that amount to not having native AVCHD support? No.
Brond1: I'm whining!!! Why can't Apple see supporting Fuji as opportunity to lure people away from other products. What happened to being innovative and supporting innovation?
OK, here's how it looks like the situation is. Macs running 10.8.x can play (yes, natively) AVCHD files if they contain all of the folder structure (/PRIVATE/AVCHD/BDMV/STREAM, etc).
For example, I downloaded this sample: http://hownowvideo.com/downloads/panasonic_AG-HMC150.zipand it played without any problems - and should for you too How (just double click on PRIVATE and it should play in QT Player). The AVCHD files from my Sony A35 have this structure too, and work directly in QT Player.
If you just have the .mts stream file by itself, that will not play directly, and will have to be converted before use.
Below are the media formats and codecs that QuickTime Player can play back in Mac OS X v10.6.x or later:
AVCHD (OS X Mountain Lion only)
"So clearly some form of conversion needs to done with AVCHD files on a Mac."
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there are different kinds of AVCHD files?
Before we argue about it pointlessly any more, perhaps looking at was does and doesn't work would be prudent?
The AVCHD files I have produced and used work for me on my Mac without any conversion at all. BUT, they are not MTS files - which don't seem to work here (at least the two I downloaded from that site above). That said, it could be a simple configuration issue, so please let me look into it further before sinking to "I told you so".
AVCHD does work on Mac, I use AVCHD files here directly, so I know they work (without conversion) - but that may be qualified to particular types of AVCHD files. I don't know yet.
"Here's an Ehow link, updated in April 2012"
Now I now you aren't bothering to read anything I'm writing, and your only purpose is either to spread misinformation, or just have an argument. Multiples times, I've said the AVCHD support was released in JUNE. Why bring up an external article from 3 months before that?
Macs now play AVCHD videos without any problems (and without the need to add third party software to do it - which still doesn't mean they couldn't before, they could with those programs), you are wrong. They do not need to be converted to another format, they work natively, within the OS.
Your point was:"Um, you do realize that you can't play (yes that's simply play) AVCHD video files on a Mac."
Which is completely and utterly false. And yes, I do understand what "natively" means. I am using no special player software, no external app - Quicktime Player comes with the OS. I opened the file from the Finder, directly from the SD card in the camera. Can't get much more native than that.
The point is - AVCHD files work without any problems on Macs, just not yours apparently.
"specialized player software"
Did you even look at the screenshot I posted above, directly from Quicktime Player? It's not specialized player software, it comes with the OS.
"In this thread I was never commenting on Aperture or iPhoto, I was making a point about Macs in general and AVCHD files, and that point remains completely valid."
No, in fact, it doesn't. Quite the opposite. This thread is about the Apple RAW Update, used by iPhoto & Aperture. So it does support AVCHD files if you are using this software (you know, the one that the thread is about). Natively, and in-app. If you can be bothered doing what you describe as hours of research into something that you say is incredibly important to you, you'd think that forking out $10 for iPhoto would be worth your time to completely solve your issue.
Unless it's just for argument's sake?