CNY_AP: Seems like they are simply copying the human eye which is a good idea.
Yes it does :)
And I hate to say it but it does much much more than that really it does, everything you experience as a living individual is processed by your brain, lens corrections of your eye and all.
The human eye is a very poor quality optical device, it works within its limits, when it achieves reasonable focus it provides the best signal it can to the digitizer we call the Retina, after that everything is signal processing in the best parallel processor there we know of, the human brain. When the optics of the eye are below par (for an eye) the signal processor struggles and that's why you need glasses. :)
Artistico: I wonder when Nokia will realise that they have to go Android to get more sales, though. The main reason they are losing market shares is first hanging onto the archaic Symbian platform and then going Windows Mobile at a time when all the other major players were under the Android umbrella or iOS. Result: No one bothers making apps for Windows Mobile because the market is too small to be worth the effort. In this day and age, it doesn't matter how good your phone's camera is if you cannot get the apps you are used to on your new phone.
I'd be happy to get a Nokia again, as I really like their cameras and having one would be like bringing a cheapish compact everywhere - but only if they switch to Android. Otherwise it's too much of a compromise for me, and for many others.
Nokia did not go to Windows mobile, that platform is dead apart from the industrial mobile scanner device market, they went to Windows Phone which is brand new, rather nice operating system.Regards 'apps' how many do people 'really use' the main useful functional areas of a mobile device are very well covered in Windows Phone.And the 1020 is in fact a very nice device in practical usability terms.
Just the most breathtaking wonderful thing to see, that work is such a gift to all of us.
wetsleet: "The composite image is made up of 55 high-resolution images, taken using its MAHLI [2MP CCD] camera"
So how does a 2MP camera take a high resolution image?
55 times 2MP minus a bit for overlap is pretty high resolution don't you think?
2 MP is pretty high resolution for individual shots, WUXGA is 1920x1200 which is higher than a High Def television, WUXGA resolution is about 2.3 MP standard HDTV is barely over 2MP
Have you actually looked at the fully composed image?
JOrtiz: Unbealibable - meaning: I do not believe it. There is nothing (and I hope, nobody) holding the camera.
Why the 'hope' ?
55 pictures taken from different angles and stitched together by an agency that has more computing power than any of us are likely to ever see and you are surprised that they can compose a wonderful image like this?
If you look about 25% from the left from the top left and about 53% down you will see where the composite fails and metal dissolves into sand, taking the arm with it, it's not really possible to do perfect stitching except in extremely controlled conditions.
This is real, anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get a proper education.
Eleson: Who's footprints is it on the left? :)
I take the smiley as your true understanding of this shot ;)
Full size they look like the sample scrape pits.
John: This translates dollars to pounds as £1303.00 body only. If this priced at £2000 in the UK, then Nikon will have shot themselves in the head big time! No-one can justify a £700 price hike in the UK over the US price! Even at £1599 they would be pushing the boat out!
It's being priced at £1955 body only on a well known UK web site.
nawknai: Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
Polaroid ultra large format prints were something special, simply because of the sheer size of the medium and the quality of the dyes, it had nothing to do with retro look or bad technology.
No way was the Polaroid process 'Bad Technology' read some history. (I do appreciate that you are commenting on the impossible project but give them a chance)
If someone manages to reverse engineer the process then good on them, it's unlikely to ever be cheap but diversity is a good thing.
io_bg: It's not a DSLR because it has an electronic viewfinder. DSLRs have optical ones instead.
@ HowaboutRAW>>Sorry but the word "reflex" has a meaning, no matter what people may have thought 45 years ago. Again: Single yes, lens yes.<<
Yes the word "reflex" has a meaning, it means folded light path in the context of SLR's, always has and always will, it's got nothing to do with flappy mirrors getting out of the way.
This Sony thing appears to still implement a mirror for the purpose of folding the path of part of the light coming through the lens, so it's using a reflex mirror.
Ever hear of a Twin Lens Reflex, they didn't have moving mirrors either!
6fingers: the good: for my camera/lenses combination (D7000) CA correction is a lot better than l3. 2012 doesn't clip highlights as much. Highlights/shadows/white/black is a real step forward.I didn't notice a change in noise reduction compared to LR3, but sharpness seems better.The brush can now also change wb and shadows/h, noise, yay.
the bad: the 64bit version is twice as slow compared to 3 on a high end PC under win7 x64(on the same images of course). I hope this will change in the final product (i'm talking about working on images, not exporting speed). I shudder to think how frustrating this may be on a lesser machine.Google maps is also very slow compared to the browser equivalent. Even loading the map only layers takes some time.
On the whole, if it gets quicker, this will be amazing.
The beta will be full of debug code, same as all software betas, they are all slower than the final product.