...and just like that Instagram lost the one thing that made them stand out a little bit.
McCool69: I am slightly amused at the amount of people that seem to think the point of this is to make an exact measurement of how much Instagram degrades an image.
Of course it isn't - it is first and foremost an art project that also points out something that a lot of people (I'm talking non-photographers and casual users here...) are not aware of.
I think it is an excellent idea that gives the artist tons of exposure. Would have loved to come up with it myself.
I am sure several artists have explored the core of this idea through the years - including the guy in the photo who did the same with sound. Can't say that I have seen it done digitally on a platform that millions use every day though.
ARTASHES: As I can see what he is doing is reposting the screenshots and not downloaded ones, so making screenshot of a screenshot again and again will cause this degradation with or without instagram.
photoaddict: I am aware of that. The vast majority of screenshots I get sent from iPhones though (I have done quite a bit of testing when it comes to mobile layouts for a web site the last few months) arrive as thrashed jpg's. Probably because people let Apple do the thinking for them and the photos get automatically processed/resized in the mailing process.
As you will see from my first answer to artashes my point was indeed that (done properly) the local saving of the file would not be a part of the image degradation.
I am slightly amused at the amount of people that seem to think the point of this is to make an exact measurement of how much Instagram degrades an image.
...unless you view it in a web browser and saves the file (and not screenshot) from there. Then you'll have the exact file Instagram presents to the world.
That depends on the platform though - and how the screenshot is made. iPhone tends to (in its default setting) horribly compress screenshots, Android does not. I guess he has done it this way since the Instagram app itself does not allow you to save the photos.
A cool experiment though - the best solution to reallly see how much the compression on Instagram's part messes up a photo over time would have been to save the photo from a web browser before uploading it again, but I guess that was not his main point with this exercise.
DanteRecknagel: Dear technologists... No one is going to watch movies like this. Not even if we had the helmets to do so. Think about it... Where would the set materials and the lights go? Or are we going to have entire film crews move around in a tiny circle like a 300 leg mass carrying lights and boom mics?
I really don't think traditional movies is the primary use for this technology. It could probably bring a whole new level to things like sporting events or concert movies though.
Just look at the huge amount of material that pops up on sites like youtube and Vimoe these days - a lot of it shot with a single camera without any extra gear would get in the way no matter what direction you point the camera in.
SantaFeBill: This seems a most strange camera: It's billed as an action camera, but the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 sec. My D200 goes to 1/8000. I know, smaller sensor in the D200, so less distance to travel, but still ... . Then, you've just introduced your top of the line xxx FX model, the D810, and now you introduce a less expensive camera with AF _improved_ over your top of the line one? Didn't the developers of the one talk to the developers of the other?And the F6 (obviously full-frame :-) ) will flash sync at 1/250, according to its specs on Nikon U.S., although to me the difference between 1/200 and 1/250 sync wouldn't be in itself a deal breaker. But note that the F6 will do 8fps with the battery pack (moving film!). So I don't understand why the D750 'action camera' doesn't have the same frame rate.
>> My D200 goes to 1/8000
Yes, but with this camera you can have a lower ISO setting, so your need for shooting wide open in bright daylight (which I guess is your main concern) is well taken care of. Other than that the difference between 2000, 4000 and 8000 is largely academical - if you need to freeze something extremely fast then flash will be a much better option anyway.
Finally a FX camera with a tiltable screen. Now we just have to wait for the barrage of comments about how it 'will break off in the field' and so on from the traditionalists who does not like this and also dislike cameras that can be used for video.
Personally I have been waiting for that feature in FX for years - not just for video use, but for the immense improvement it is if you want to take photos at a high or very low angle without rolling around in the dirt or shooting blind.
This will very likely be my next camera. I do not dare to buy it until it has been on market a few months though, the total lack of quality control with the D600 still makes me shiver with fear and anger.
Some good general tips here - considering how a lot of cameras belonging to casual photographers actually look, any kind of actual thinking about how you treat your gear willl help a lot.
I have seen camera bodies with a few thousand shutter actuations look like they have been in war zones for years,and even seen people shoving DSLRs with the external flash attached and no lens cap into handbags containing half-eaten sandwiches, sticky candy wrappers and shoes used on a sandy beach 5 minutes ago.
Some people simply don't care at all - but of course complain loudly if the camera for some reason does not work like it should due to their negilgence.
Looks like a nice device which will appeal to quite a few people.
I am blown away by all the people wanting features in this thin 'phonecamera' that are barely available in compact cameras that are 3x as thick though. Do you really think those cameras have the size they have just to make them easier to hold?
Optics/sensor size is limited by physical factors. That's why we don't have 200mm f/2 lenses that weigh 50 grams, are 4 cm long and cost 100 bucks. So judge devices like this from what is actually possible and not pure 'what if' fantasies. Please.
Bugs Bunny: XP is gone, Long live the Mac OS Microsoft had that os for more than 10 yearsA lot of people do not trust Microsoft OS.Apple is years ahead.
You seem to think that OS X today is extremely different from when it was introduced in 2002. Well, it isn't.
Windows has evolved way more the last 10 years than OS X has.
The only reason XP has been supported for such a long time is that the customers demand it. Microsoft has a very different philosophy than Apple when it comes to upgrades and backwards compatibility. Try running software that is more than a couple of years old on a brand new Mac and you will see what I mean; most of the time it simply doesn't work, forcing you to upgrade.
John M Roberts: There will be many non professional shooters that will feel, “what the heck, I might make some money if I just invest in the join up fee. I’m not getting anything right now anyway.”
30% of a sale does not justify what work I put forth into creating my library of images. I put out all the expenses, time and effort to gather images with the speculation that the effort will pay off. The agency takes none of that gamble. Their gamble begins after selection. How cushy they can also charge for a contract. They are feeding off of the large arena of photographers that are not gambling their livelihood on photography.
It seems this trend of devaluing what the image creator receives for their work will be difficult to reverse mainly due to supply and demand yet I would encourage photographers not to settle for such a percentage.
>> 30% of a sale does not justify..
Well, then you should of course sell your images yourself and keep 100% of the price. Personally I care more about the amount of money I actually get than the percentage. Then again; if you already have an easy time selling your photos by yourself there is no reason to join an agency like this.
What you 'pay for' via their cut is of course not the cost of keeping their servers online. You pay for the reach they have - in other words for 'getting inside the store'. Which in most cases is 1000x more exposure and lots more sales than you can ever dream of getting if you do everything yourself.
They also handle the boring stuff - like sending invoices, follow up that people actually pay and even more important in this day and age: Track down sites that use your photos without permission - and make them pay.
It all boils down to the size of the total cake and the size of your slice. A huge slice of the total means nothing if the cake is tiny.
How much money you are left with at the end of the day is of course way more important than the percentage. I would rather have 25% of a large cake than 75% of a muffin.
Some of the major players (I am lucky enough to have 100+ photos with Getty Images) does a lot of work for their share and is in my opinion well worth it. I made more from my first 2-3 sales via Getty (I got in early through their co-operation with Flickr) than I had made from other services in total the previous years.
What you 'pay for' via their share is not only marketing and outreach but also payment collection and even more important: systems that chase down sites that use photos without permission. It seems that some people think this type of companies only receives your photo and then sits down and waits. That is simply not true.
brn: Unlike many posting here, I don't hate HDR. However, in these "photos" it's abused. Looks like something you'd see in a video game.
I totally agree - way too heavy use of HDR. You could almost take a photo of any old bedroom with old wallpaper and make it look like it has been abandoned for 30 years if you process the photos this much.
JEROME NOLAS: Come on guys! This is a great camera!
That depends on what your 'real world' is. Not everyone shoots portraits and only use f4 or larger apertures. I used to do lots of landscape and long exposures - until I 'upgraded' to the D600 that is, which is indeed useless for my type of photographye unless you want to spend half an hour cloning every shot.
Thatcannonguy: Oh, if only i could make a phone call with my shoes, could drive to work in my fridge and cook on my bicycle... Where is all this going to ?
Oh, and don't forget; every picture taken and uploaded can be used by Google for advertisement without the 'owner's' consent.
Do you need to 'root' this thing too to get rid of Samesung's shell ?
>>> Oh, and don't forget; every picture taken and uploaded can be used by Google for advertisement without the 'owner's' consent.
Don't be ridiculous. Google has no more rights to use anything uploaded, shared or sent from this device than from any other device connected to the internet.
Durandalfr: LOL, people spit on the nokia 808 for having a small bump on the back and not being as flat as GS3, how people cannot put such a big phone into their pocket and blahblahblah. Now you have an hybrid phone/camera with an ugly degigne and miraculously, maybe because it's samsung's, pocket can now contain that king of design. People are brainless.
It is quite strange how people behave around new things like this.
The average dpr-reader obviously goes everywhere with10 pounds of DSLR equipment (including a couple of f/1.4-lenses) on their back. And they fail to understand that this camera is not aimed at that kind of buyers at all.
DPReview007: OK, so this one was clearly designed by marketing people, not photographers. It was designed to sell, not to take great photos. Two astounding choices:- they crammed 16 Megapixels on a 28mm2 sensor... Ahhhmmm- they crammed a 10x zoom into it...
It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Let's hope Nokia, Sony and Google Nexus (i.e. Nikon) will make more intelligent choices when they show their hands later this summer / year.
Thankfully, 2013 will be the year of the real camera phone finally.
>> It'll basically give you the same image quality as a crappy little "super zoom" compact...
Yep, and all of those 'crappy little ' compact cameras are far better than any cell phone camera today - by a large margin.
This is not meant to be a super duper camera, but a good compact camera with lots of extra capabilities. And I am sure it will do a great job within that space. After all it has a sensor size that is very common in compact cameras today and that does faaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaar better in low light conditions than your cell phone camera.
Have no fear though; in a couple of years this merging of technologies will reach DSLRs as well. Personally I can't wait; dragging along a portable PC to upload event photos more or less as things happen is a pain in the a. I would much rater just do it right from the camera after some cropping and basic adjustments.
grahamdyke: This is genuinly gona kill the compact camera market for the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic cos they don't make phones, Sony may be ok if they can get it in gear!
I would have bought one if it came out 3 months ago, but just jumped on the TZ40. I had to replace my broken TZ7 and my current Samsung Galaxy Ace Mk1 could really do with a refresh. Would have been perfect...
I agree - I think this is highly useful for a lot of people.
Even though lots of people ridicule this now (probably the same group of people that hated it when DSLRs started offering great video capabilities) it is surely something that will be considered as standard features in a few years.