The Squire: DO any pro photogs make use of green-screen for otherwise traditional still portraits? Or is it unnecessary because for stills it's easy enough to deal with the background in PS?
Pro movie/video use the green screen because it gives them the freedom to do literally anything they want to do later, during editing. Because editing is cheaper than filming.
For stills, the equation is simply different.
Or from different perspective. The stills shooting session is often less than 1000 shots. For film shooting, 1000 exposures, at 25fps, is just a 40 seconds.
ThePhilips: In FireFox, the list/scroll bar on the left is "truncated": it spans beyond the bottom margin of the window. (Only top of the last entry is visible. The bottom arrow of the scroll bar is not visible.)
You can try to reproduce it: in A7R2 gallery expand Apertures and ISOs, in browser activate the "Zoom Text Only" (View > Zoom) and then press Ctrl-+ few times.
Oh snap. On the right. Yes, the sidebar on the right.
In FireFox, the list/scroll bar on the left is "truncated": it spans beyond the bottom margin of the window. (Only top of the last entry is visible. The bottom arrow of the scroll bar is not visible.)
ThePhilips: I've seen better shots on Instagram. Because most Instagram images fill more of my display.
But these puny tiny images are barely 0.5MP...
There are no "scapes" in these landscapes.
> Have you tried to click on these images?
Even on my 24" screen (full HD, 2.3MP), which is rather modest by the modern standard, don't fill even a quarter of the screen.
I'd call the photog a crook. They boast huge expensive gear, using advanced/etc technics. But when it comes to the results, all you get is this thumbnail-sized excuse of a photograph instead.
P.S. One of my employer went though a number of such crooks for the official events. On one event, the official photographs were so bad, that they had to collect our amateur photos for the official marketing material. Another of the crooks openly demanded much much higher prices for the RAW full-sized photos. I'd say, the thumbnail mafia should burn in hell.
I've seen better shots on Instagram. Because most Instagram images fill more of my display.
Mike FL: "12.3% increase in net sales year-on-year" is almost having NO increasing "year-on-year".
Olympus reported in Yen, but Yen lost 14% "year-on-year" as seem from below:
In the other words, if Olympus is using USD for reporting, it will be "2% *decrease* in net sales year-on-year".
Yes, that's right, decreasing instead of increasing.
@Mike, so what were the recent Sony, Canon, Nikon and Pentax numbers?
Do I understand you right: any of them reporting less than 14% growth has effectively lost market??
Just a Photographer: Now all mirrorless camera manufacturers are profitable.Sony, Fuji and now Olympus all presented black figures recently for their imaging business.
While Nikon and Canon are suffering. Its not that these DSLR manufacturers make losses on selling systems, but they do loose heavily in profitability and marketshare over the recent years.
Times are changing.
The Panasonic's division as a whole grows. But what area precisely is responsible for the growth is impossible to say. Only the "Communication Business" was losing money. But as far as I understood, the division as a whole is (despite being profitable) is in red. But the official statement is that they have used this division to write off the losses made by disbanding the plasma TV business and the red comes from this one off event. This financial stuff is way above my head.
P.S. If you are going to look at the report yourself, search for "AVC Networks Company" - that's the division containing the camera business.
@FantasticMrFox: "I was under the impression that Panasonic's camera division is still deep in the red?"
We can't know it. Imaging is part of another larger division. Pana publishes only details about the division as a whole, but no separate numbers for the camera division.
P.S. http://www.panasonic.com/global/corporate/ir/annual.htmlThe report for the FY 2015 should be published this month.
groucher: Interesting samples but I have to ask - why so much CA in some modern lenses? Optically (i.e. ignoring their autofocus and VR capabilities) some of the lenses in this test are nowhere near as good as my 40 to 55 year old pre-AI Nikkors. We seem to be going backwards although I suppose it's possible to mess around with PT Tools to reduce the problem.
> why so much CA in some modern lenses?
Because the CA is easy to correct in PP (done already in-camera), and it makes the lens design simpler.
justmeMN: Camera companies want everyone to buy expensive high-margin cameras, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority of camera buyers have a different idea.
Best seller unfortunately doesn't always means "best profit margin". Most of the time it is actually the opposite.
Mirrorless market - as a whole - still lacks the volumes to exploit the economy of scales. Considering the overall downturn of the industry, push for high margin products is expected, and is actually already on-going for number of years now: more of expensive FF DSLRs, more of expensive Sony FF MILC, more of expensive Fuji X MILC, more of expensive m43 cameras. All manufacturers look for the high margins to survive the downturn.
"But we have never topped the gross lens-interchangeable camera market on a yearly basis."
In other words, the budget cuts are coming to the camera division, and they forced to increase profits.
Very very nice images. A great addition to the Fuji X system.
Though it reinforces the "too expensive" moniker. But with this kind of IQ and rendering, the price is actually quite acceptable.
(Not targeted directly at the PhotoKeeper, but to the clouds companies in general.)
Literally all of cloud storage services have few - IMO critical - problems at the moment, which are the reasons why I'm not even trying them.
1. Geographical location of where the data is stored. Location plays huge role, since the local laws of where the data actually stored are what keeps the data protected. (Similar and related lesser problem: physical security of the data centers.) Ideally, the storage should reside in the same country/legal zone where I do.
2. As few past fiascoes had shown, some cloud services save on the storage costs, and have only limited internal back-ups and employ cheap RAID configurations.
3. Very rudimentary download options, making it often next to impossible to retrieve your data in full. Mass upload options are diverse - but download often is file-by-file.
arhmatic: Manufacturers needs to stop this thin device craze forever.
Image quality is more important. Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day... Phones are uncomfortably thin to hold.
Samsung, apple and the rest, please stop this.
"Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day..."
Let me guess: you are huge fan of Google and use the pure unaltered vanilla Android OS?
Pixels of that size filling up a FF sensor... Some landscapers' head would simply explode at the idea.
P.S. 36mm x 24mm = 36000 x 24000 = 864MP. Shy of a gigapixel resolution.
ThePhilips: > 2.26 megapixel CMOS sensor> 0.0005 lux> $30,000
So deeply niche product that it's not even funny.
But the comments below, people /explaining/ why they need the 0.0005 lux, ARE funny.
You do not need such sensitivity to shot people. Mostly because people don't do anything in such dark conditions - because they can't see a darn thing. A major safety hazard, and everybody's getting sleepy and mellow. A sure downer for a reality show.
And turnover of the nature documentaries... Let's just say: nobody ever became rich by shooting the documentaries.
It is niche product. If price goes down, the number of applications would definitely increase: the security applications alone are huge potential market. But it would still stay a niche product: because nothing interesting happens in the darkness.
Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Wildlife, documentary and reality TV crews will be standing in lines with cash in their hands to get this camera. And once you start seen inexplicably good looking night shots, you'll know it was shot with this baby. Also, rest assured that this will be used in Hollywood productions BIG time. Upscaling 1080 to 2K or even 4K in cinema is pretty common, especially if you have high-quality source material.
> reality TV crews
The end is nigh.
bovverwonder: Who cares about this camera? These comments are a lot more interesting.
Not after reading the comments!
stratplaya: So where's the video proof?
> the announced camera has much improved low light specs.
Not by much. Not by magnitude. The first example in the video, the starlight, has luminosity of 0.0001 lux.
Ulfric M Douglas: No panorama mode ... touristic fail.
But at least it has the MicroSD slot.