vroy: This is not IR. IR is black and white. What is warm is white. What is cold is dark. The horses on one of the photos have warm blood and should be white. On all those photos you see colours in place of different greys.
IR (or, rather, near infra red) has little to do with the temperature. You are thinking about thermal imaging. A lot of IR photographic techniques use a mixture of near infrared and parts of visible spectrum mapped to different (admittedly, false) colors.IR light behaves quite differently when it comes to atmospheric effects often making it quite suitable for landscapes and cityscapes.
mikeyL: I think it would be a nice image - if it was in focus. Always seemed blurry to me, even on top quality monitors...
It did look somewhat out of focus but it could be just a very aggressive compression. It could also be intentional - highly detailed background makes icons and particularly text labels much harder to read. As for top quality monitors - that image is what - 1024x768? In that case the better monitor you have the worse it will look.
ProfHankD: Hooray! I love fisheyes and the world could use another circular 185-degree choice, especially one with a modest price, really close focus, and good IQ.
"Lensbaby deliberately designed the internal lens barrel of the Circular Fisheye to be reflective" -- BOOO! HISS! This is a very bad idea if the reflections can ever intrude on the active image circle... which at least one of the sample shots (skiing) seems to show.
I will reserve my judgement until I see a sample or samples. There is only one circular fisheye lens for crop cameras out there (Sigma 4.5) and it is quite expensive for its purpose. The edge of the circle would always be of rather poor quality due to extreme distortions so some artistic effect there may actually be an improvement.Edit: there are samples on the site. Not a full size yet but it does look interesting enough.
DarylK: IMHO, for true "retakes" they should have stayed away from infrared...shoot color and convert to B&W or shoot in B&W natively for more meaningful direct comparision. It is stated that IR was used to be able to show more distant detail - I think the old B&W shots are more effective at this. Just my opinion.
I've done some experiments with IR and found that landscape b&w IR often looks very close to old photographs. Maybe not the same distribution of halftones but very similar combination of crispness and glow.It is quite possible that the old b&w film was somewhat sensitive to near infrared so there may be some justification there but not necessarily as intended. I am not sure why they had to use color IR, it's just too distracting.
Combatmedic870: We need Fuji's!!!
People were able to reverse engineer the process to large extent. As a matter of fact, I've been using one of these custom made profiles. The problem is that Adobe did not publish the spec, did not encourage the manufacturers to use it, and makes breaking changes on the regular basis. It is not necessarily only Adobe's fault, some initiative should come from the manufacturers.
naththo: It is not hard to make your own profile by using sliders to compare to the JPEG colours straight out of your camera.
That would work if the color response was linear or at least regular. It is not. It may be close to that in the middle of gamut but the closer you get to the edge the more warped it may become.
What we need is an open API so every camera manufacturer can provide their own profiles with cameras. In principle, it is not anymore complex than dealing with printer/paper profiles. Simpler, actually.
This finally fixed my favorite (not!) problem with rendering of blues (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42354760).
AngryCorgi: "Polaroid surprised us at CES with semi-functional mockups of three new interchangeable lens cameras."
From what I read, the cameras themselves were entirely non-functional. The only thing that worked is the Android OS on one of them, but no indication that it was anything more than a plastic fake model with a cheap android phone pcb and screen glued in to look legit.
So, smoke and mirrors. I still want to hear Polaroid's justification for putting the sensor with the lens. So far the experience with every interchangeable lens system was that the lenses have much better longevity than the body. Constant sensor tech improvements were one of the main factors, especially paired with the slow pace of the mature high-end optics industry and the prices of good quality glass.
justmeMN: The Canon PowerShot N reminds me of a Seinfeld quote:
"Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."
Well, somebody had to try that. Odd that it had to be Canon, this thing is more in Casio or Samsung line. There were a lot of complaints lately that Canon is falling behind and does not really innovate. They've heard the message but they still need to work on the understanding of it.
j2l3m7: Sigma USB dock sounds very interesting.
Interesting, maybe. I don't like that it mentions "new lenses" only, would be nice if they cared for older ones as well. It also looks like it is only for a single mount which in case of Sigma does not make much sense - might as well do it through their cameras. Finally, with the size of FF lenses, why not just a micro USB port on the lens itself?
malabraxis: I wonder what the cost will be for the circular polariser? Using a polariser on ultra-wide lenses is not always a good idea as the sky will look weirdly unbalanced, and I fail to understand the UV filter as most lenses do a pretty good job from their coating. Most camera's use built-in filters anyway. Anyway, how is this better than HDR sofware?If you use filters a lot, then fine, but too expensive and cumbersom for the most of us.
Using polarizer on ultrawide (and even on wide) is generally a bad idea as the polarization angle would vary too much across the frame. This thing would be great for grad ND. Don't dismiss UV blockers either -- it is true that those are useless or even harmful in 90% of situations but if you go high in the mountains they may become a necessity. It all sounds like this system is a good match for landscape photography.
Mark Roberts: Has anyone been ASKING for a middle ground, or is this just a push for another proprietary standard that Adobe can license?
Let's see if it ends up like TIFF - in the years past you could get Aldus TIFF, Kodak TIFF, Adobe TIFF, whoever TIFF... The format allowed to put pretty much anything in so no single app could open every TIFF file. DNG is a little better defined but it still allows a lot of leeway which may be abused by manufacturers. After that happens it is quite pointless -- you get the same proprietary data in a different container. Not even that different considering that DNG is largely a subset of TIFF. BTW, from what I can tell, Canon, Olympus, and Panasonic (probably others as well) RAW files are actually TIFFs -- Canon even left the "version number" field at 42. If you have Canon CR2 and ACDSee installed, try renaming one of .CR2 to .TIF and opening with ACDSee. The result is rather interesting.
dengx: Somehow I don't think it is a good news.
One saving grace - the quality and depth of current versions are so high that it will take years before they become obsolete. Most likely the worst problem will be Photoshop compatibility. Well, I already have three different versions of Photoshop installed at the same time because of that.There will be something equal or better in years -- maybe Topaz will turn from surreal effects towards more realistic and subtle ones, maybe onOne fills some gaps, maybe even something completely new.
I am with you on that. It would be very very sad if Color Efex and Viveza become watered down plugins in Picasa and the way how things go with these purchases it will happen.Why did Google by Nik? Topaz made more sense - they even have "I am feeling lucky" button.
Lens support for OM-D is still spotty, there are only 8 lenses in the first batch, from the looks of it. Even 12-50 did not make a cut and for this particular lens a good profile can make a big difference. At least, 20/1.7 and 45/1.8 are there, that should make a lot of people happy. Oly 14-150 and 40-150 also got into the first batch.
Alberto Tanikawa: I've got it installed, and I must say I'm impressed. One thing that got me really excited was the history panel, in which you can go back to the merge settings, choose a different level of ghost reduction, re-merge/align the hdr, then go back to the adjustments you had performed previously. It saves time not having to readjust everything for the new hdr image, but its gpu optimization also makes image scrolling/zooming/setting-adjusting faster (and I only have a lowly Nvidia 8800GT, gotta try it on my other computer with GTX 295). The ghost reduction is better than the first one also. I had a series of images shot at Penn Station in NYC, and version 2 got rid of more moving people/vehicles than the original! I'm now revisiting previous images I had worked on with the original version. :)
It seems to be an improvement overall although it appears to come with some cost. The preset format changed completely and old presets cannot be imported anymore. Pity, I liked those from Photographer's Guide. Not as quirky as extra presets (total of 4) on Nik's site, some very useful for realistic HDR.
dgeugene1: I am always fascinated by new software that will unleash my unlimited "creative potential". Sadly, I am usually not creative enough to take advantage of it.
This new program looks like a complicated and expensive way to do what I already do with HDRtist.
Some of the samples I saw on their site still show a "glow" around contrasty objects. This is a problem I have had with various HDR programs.
Does anyone know how to avoid this?
There is some executable in "Program Files/Nik Software/HDR Efex Pro 2" (on Windows, at least) that works as standalone. For some reason they have decided not to make it too obvious.The standalone version can only import JPG which limits its usefulness quite a bit. The plugin version uses Photoshop import so it is much better in this respect.I had some issues with the version 1 standalone that it crashed importing some large JPGs. Did not bother to investigate any further as the plugin did not have this problem.
Some Nik presets still have that glow, others don't. It is not completely consistent from picture to picture, you would have to experiment to see which preset works the best. Even the previous version usually allowed to find something that worked well. I had much better luck creating realistic rendering with Nik than with any other HDR tool.BTW, there are extra presets downloadable from Nik's site and from a few other locations.One of the listed changes is improved ghost removal. IMHO, that was the weakest part of HDR Efex -- I had a few cases when I just could not get a usable final image because of ghost removal artifacts. Photomatix had much better implementation. Let's see if it changed.
John: better look closely Sean, the alpha lens is much larger than this one. Still works well but is twice the size. I have this model for my m4/3 Panasonic and it works quite well.
Valentinian: fish eye is fish eys, no matter what crop factor it is. This particular announcement does not mention m4/3. There is Samyang m43 7.5/3.5, would not mind getting to 6mm though - if you go extreme might as well go all way. 2.8 is not really that necessary for fisheye, DoF is nearly meaningless at those focal distances, nice nevertheless.