hc44

hc44

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Feb 9, 2009

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Hey critics, they've said their prototype sensor is 128 x 128. The sample above is bigger than that and is described as a theoretical comparison.

So that ain't even it!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2013 at 14:17 UTC as 75th comment
In reply to:

Jeff Peterman: Amazing how our expectations have changed. To me, these are grainy and over saturated compared to modern digital images!

Some people prefer the noise of a vinyl record audio reproduction, though they call it "warmth".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2013 at 14:50 UTC

Would make a good wedding camera.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 14:57 UTC as 2nd comment

I suppose better than a Bushmaster, just.

(sorry, was anyone taking this seriously?)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 14:43 UTC as 30th comment

That is Robert DeNiro isn't it?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2013 at 14:33 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

They look good but that's largely due to post-processing. He limited himself when he chose the iPhone and only did it to draw attention to himself, that's not putting the customer first.

Also the whole instragram look feels like another fad - how are they going to react looking at these 20 years from now? Too bad the originals were taken with a POS (Piece Of...) camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 04:01 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On Time magazine showcases Top 10 photos of 2012 article (147 comments in total)

<whispers> "I see dead people"

"Ghosts?"

"Nah, I'm reading Time!"

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2012 at 04:21 UTC as 40th comment

My faves,

I:7, Roger Federer. Looks like an oil painting.
III:29, Space shuttle/basketball. Great juxtaposition, though prob setup. I reckon you'd be watching the space shuttle rather than play ball at a time like that.

A few too many election photos, but otherwise great.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 02:36 UTC as 4th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 preview extended article (282 comments in total)
In reply to:

starwolfy: I just Hope this camera will fail and not sale because I don't like Sony.
(a guy who remembered he bought a super small nice wow genius NEX who electronically failed after 2000 exposures -_- )

Couldn't have happened to a nicer person!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2012 at 05:56 UTC

Yes, 'self-shots' are very popular now.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2012 at 02:16 UTC as 29th comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images article (294 comments in total)
In reply to:

bradleyg5: I will get this camera and keep it in my Porsches glove box.

But disregard capitalization and full stops, they're not so important.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2012 at 13:51 UTC
On Piloting in the night in the Pilots challenge (4 comments in total)

Nice photo of course, but curious how a 1 second shutter can be utilised in a flying aircraft?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 03:23 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply

"the Leica M was created to capture fleeting moments of time and transform them into living history. "

Gosh darn it, my Sony only takes pictures!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 04:47 UTC as 59th comment
In reply to:

nofumble: Sony demise is near as they keep coming to market with these kind of products.

How many people can afford a $2800 fixed focal length camera?

They've got a few other cameras in their line-up, some quite affordable. I recommend perusing the Sony camera section of this site.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 05:57 UTC
On Just Posted - Sony NEX-F3 review article (129 comments in total)
In reply to:

IcyVeins: I think DPR loves my contributions to these review threads because in this one for example I am still singlehandedly responsible for one third of the posts, and this is only the apetizer, I guarantee you I'll be in full bwon attack mode when the RX100, NEX-5R, and NEX-6 reviews come out, I'll be ripping Canikon and Samsung to shreds for the inferiority and general ineptitude.

I'm presently researching attention deficit disorder and I love your contributions.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2012 at 04:49 UTC
In reply to:

EasyClick: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt NASA supposed to have technology decades ahead of what's available on the market? They're the guys inventing the science and breakthrough technology...By the same reasoning they should have a photo sensor that would only be available today on the market. I understand the article but I just thought otherwise... Maybe someone should send an iPhone to Mars??

Of course NASA aren't investing in semi-conductor fabrication plants just for the sake of a space camera when the part itself has wide spread use outside of space exploration and hence is already manufactured to the best quality which present progress allows. Though one can ask why they chose the 2MP version when 11MP cameras were sitting in retail stores, that's the what this discussion is mostly about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2012 at 03:54 UTC
In reply to:

Dario D: Unlike a lot of commenters, I trust that the Curiosity guys are making their camera decisions for logical reasons.

About the overall approach, though, I'm wondering if Kate Piecrust has a good point. She said:
"I also find it interesting that a Mars probe ten years from now will, based on how things are done at NASA, likely be sporting the technology available today (...)"

If that's true, NASA might want to examine that, and see if there isn't a more future-proof way to approach this stuff.

(Heck, if it could technically work, there could just be a row of slots in the next rover's arm, ready to have a bunch of top-level phones duct-taped into them. (When one dies, it gets ejected.) To keep things simple, and isolated from the rest of the bot, each phone would have its own tiny solar panel, and an antennae to send its images to the MRO/whatever. (Of course, this is all oversimplified, but I'm of the impression that simplicity is an engineer's main thing. I'd send a camera Barbie.))

You're quoting the user who doesn't get that resolution and field of view are two quite different things.

The suggestion that NASA must make all the right decisions because they're NASA made by you and others is purely an appeal to authority. Give NASA's size and bureaucracy they will sometimes make decisions which are less than ideal - why must this decision not be one of them? No one here can say so, they just assume their own ignorance is shared by others so no one else here is qualified to place a critical eye on the decision.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2012 at 03:15 UTC
In reply to:

hc44: I'm gonna go against the grain here and say it's a compromise which didn't have to be made. You shouldn't have to re-invent the whole camera because of a sensor change. A sensor can be though of in abstract terms as a plug-able component with a fixed I/O interface. Resolution can be a variable which the rest of the camera can be made to work with as a variable. A hi-res raw image can be down scaled, sometimes you send the hi sometimes the low, you have the option. The engineers shot themselves in the foot when they began the project allowing for a fixed res sensor only, and did so knowing technology advances. In the 60s the Apollo project got a man on the moon in under a decade, imagine how fast pasted their project was, but now they can't change a camera sensor in the space of 8 years.

"Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a robotic space probe mission to Mars launched by NASA on November 26, 2011"

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2012 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

hc44: I'm gonna go against the grain here and say it's a compromise which didn't have to be made. You shouldn't have to re-invent the whole camera because of a sensor change. A sensor can be though of in abstract terms as a plug-able component with a fixed I/O interface. Resolution can be a variable which the rest of the camera can be made to work with as a variable. A hi-res raw image can be down scaled, sometimes you send the hi sometimes the low, you have the option. The engineers shot themselves in the foot when they began the project allowing for a fixed res sensor only, and did so knowing technology advances. In the 60s the Apollo project got a man on the moon in under a decade, imagine how fast pasted their project was, but now they can't change a camera sensor in the space of 8 years.

"The EOS-1Ds is a full-frame 11.4 megapixel digital SLR camera body formerly made by Canon, released in the spring of 2003."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2012 at 03:31 UTC
In reply to:

Ran Plett: I just want to say one thing... They put this machine on another planet. And they are taking pictures and sending them back to this planet. From another @#$$% planet!! And some people complain about pixel count?!

Yep. You sent this $*#&$ thing to another &#&#*# planet! Another planet! And you spent $%#$@ billion dollars!!

Why the @#$# did you only put a 2 megapixel @*#&%^$ sensor on it!!???

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2012 at 02:58 UTC
Total: 59, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »