Glen Barrington

Glen Barrington

Lives in United States Springfield, IL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 21, 2003
About me:

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I wish this company and this camera well. But is this REALLY gonna sell in numbers large enough to last more than a year and get a few collectors excited?

It might function well enough to spur other manufacturers to explore this quasi-rangefinder focusing mechanism, (I'd love to see something like this in m43s, it could revitalize the moribund Pen line, for example); but I would be very surprised if this particular camera was in any way successful.

@JD Thomas - No, there is nothing wrong with it! In this case, the whole company, patents, and any product designs is the REAL product. I'm just saying to people not to get too excited about this 'camera', the chances of it coming to market is low while the chances of the technology getting bought by some third party is high. And what happens then, is anyone's guess.

As a conservative, you have my blessing to make as much money as you can. There is no such thing as an "obscene profit".

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 15:52 UTC
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I wish this company and this camera well. But is this REALLY gonna sell in numbers large enough to last more than a year and get a few collectors excited?

It might function well enough to spur other manufacturers to explore this quasi-rangefinder focusing mechanism, (I'd love to see something like this in m43s, it could revitalize the moribund Pen line, for example); but I would be very surprised if this particular camera was in any way successful.

Let me rephrase the question then. Will it sell in numbers large enough to actually turn a profit of any sort? I personally doubt it.

I suspect the "product" is being developed to create enough interest in the technology so that the whole thing, company and all can be sold to someone with deeper pockets.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 09:18 UTC

I wish this company and this camera well. But is this REALLY gonna sell in numbers large enough to last more than a year and get a few collectors excited?

It might function well enough to spur other manufacturers to explore this quasi-rangefinder focusing mechanism, (I'd love to see something like this in m43s, it could revitalize the moribund Pen line, for example); but I would be very surprised if this particular camera was in any way successful.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 03:07 UTC as 77th comment | 11 replies

The size puts me off. It's fine for others, but not for me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 10:45 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I wonder how this differs from Photo Plus?

I don't think you've ever used PhotoPlus!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 00:52 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: I gave the beta a try.
I actually recommend all PS users to do the same.

This Affinity Photo actually is a clone attempt of Photoshop. It does lack a few features (3D, movie editing from the Extended version, I am not sure about scripts). But it comes close, with PS plugin support (however, I didn't have much luck yet with my plugins), layer effects, loadable brushes. It even has a content aware fill.

And the user interface looks very PS like, including shortcuts.

My impression is very good. Assuming the plugin problems were just mine or will be fixed, I guess photographers would need very little beyond this a a raw converter. Perfect companion to LR. Much more than Adobe's CC photo subscription.

Well Serif's Windows product, Serif Photo Plus is also a Photoshop workalike, but it, and I assume, Affinity, are not clones in the literal sense, YOu will likely find menus slightly changed, terms used a bit differently. That sort of thing. Just enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Certainly, a PhotoPlus user can use Photoshop tutorials, apply a little thought to the situation and learn to use Photo Plus. I expect no less from Affinity.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 22:40 UTC

I wonder how this differs from Photo Plus?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 22:32 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Well it certainly makes the whole concept more usable overall, and that's a good thing! If they can get it to 1/125th or 1/250th of a second, that would make it even better!

I suspect this will be one of those technologies that will take years for the camera buying public to come to appreciate. But getting the speed up and making the tech tiny enough to cram into a phone camera would hasten that day!

The future of the 'serious enthusiasts' camera is inextricably linked to the personal communications technology as defined by the smartphone. (note: I am NOT saying we will all be using phone cameras! Don't go there!)

Marty, what I think will happen is that the smartphone will eventually be come to be seen as fully functional part of a manufacturer's Photographic system, and not just as a cheap 'good enough' camera either. The simple iphone and android apps we currently see from the likes of Olympus, Nikon, and the remaining companies are only the beginning, I think.

Some manufacturers will produce their own smartphones (Samsung, for ex.), others may choose to seek partnerships with existing smartphone manufacturers, online storage vendors, and maybe even 3rd party software publishers.

What about multishot high resolution photos where some of the processing power is shared by a Motorola smartphone, or maybe the smartphone acts as a conduit where the images are taken by the camera, sent to the phone which uploads them to a computer run by, say, ACDSee or Adobe, who merges them and either sends them merged photo Back to the phone or to an online storage site? Blue sky, I know, But . . .

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 20:27 UTC

Well it certainly makes the whole concept more usable overall, and that's a good thing! If they can get it to 1/125th or 1/250th of a second, that would make it even better!

I suspect this will be one of those technologies that will take years for the camera buying public to come to appreciate. But getting the speed up and making the tech tiny enough to cram into a phone camera would hasten that day!

The future of the 'serious enthusiasts' camera is inextricably linked to the personal communications technology as defined by the smartphone. (note: I am NOT saying we will all be using phone cameras! Don't go there!)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 14:57 UTC as 61st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

cdembrey: Times change, but Canon doesn't. At one time serious photography was done using 8x10 cameras. At one time Full Frame 35mm cameras were called miniature cameras, and pros didm't use them.

Mirrorless is just another progression of downsizing cameras, that has been going on for over 100 years. And Canon does't "get-it." They see the M3 as a camera for young women, something a "real man" wouldn't want.

So after 20 + years of using Canon, I'm switching to Sony and an adapted Tilt & Shift lens.

@rrcad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

brownie314: Lets be honest about mirrorless - we are really talking about making systems small. I don't honestly think, all other things being equal, that anyone would really care what goes on inside of a camera.
It is possible to make DSLRs small. Canon has one, Pentax has a few. But the big 2 typically think small means de-featured. So the smallest DSLRs in their catalog are typically the de-featured ones.
Canon and Nikon both have lots of experience making great bodies. Why not put that experience to use making a small DSLR that has all the features of the top end models? Add to that a great live view implementation - and boom - best of both worlds.

Well, please remember before m43s, Olympus tried that route with the E-Volt series of DSLRs. You hit a definite wall on size with a DSLR. I don't think the technology has changed THAT much in the last 5 - 6 years.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

prossi: I'd flip the whole argument around...why did sony put so much money and time to develop mirrorless cameras like the a6000??
I can understand Olympus being purely an optics company. But sony? Getting into the whole camera business, buying minolta and all that...it was not for the growth prospects that's for sure.
Sometimes I wonder if it was just for the satisfaction to drive Canon out of business...

I suspect they saw 'imaging' as a natural extension of their TV and video business they've been making professional grade video stuff for a long time. But their consumer video stuff led by their TV business collapsed. As to why they remain in the photography business, I don't know. They've been pretty innovative, even so.

But they are still "kinda, sorta" in the ebook reader business, and the smartphone business, and THAT is an even BIGGER mystery. Not everything they do makes sense to outsiders, I guess.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2015 at 01:00 UTC

To me this camera is still a stalling tactic, just like the first version.

I don't think that Canon understands that while they are STILL producing a mirrorless system aimed at the mirrorless stereotype, the mirrorless manufacturers are already starting to aim their products squarely at Canon's core customers.

Will ALL DSLR users abandon the DSLR? Of course not. But will enough DSLR users 'cross over' for Canon to feel the pain? I suspect so. Will Canon finally respond in time to this challenge? I don't know, but I do know that this time last year I was a DSLR user, I can't imagine going back to the DSLR.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 11, 2015 at 23:30 UTC as 116th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

D1N0: Doesn't seem to work with RAW files (DNG)

Few do work with raw files. My understanding is the sort of editing required to make a pano requires bit mapped editing. (ie tiff of jpgs, mostly)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2015 at 01:18 UTC
On Kodak announces IM5 Android smartphone post (47 comments in total)

Kodak name or no, this phone won't sell well in North America. But in Asia and other areas where the smartphone market hasn't been saturated? That might be different. American brands still have quite a cachet in many places.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2015 at 01:23 UTC as 3rd comment
On Flickr Wall Art removes Creative Commons prints article (44 comments in total)

Now all they got to do is make the whole site more responsive and less sluggish.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 20, 2014 at 03:36 UTC as 7th comment
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

More On: Discussion here on how to disable some of ACDSee's chronic spyware tendencies:

http://forum.acdsee.com/forum/acdsee-pro/5962-how-to-disable-acdsee-8-0-pro-spyware

I don't consider what they are doing as spyware. There has been no indications that they have done anything outside what could be considered their valid area of promised service.

However, I also see no reason why their connectivity tools need to be launched at computer boot time, or why, in order to kill those services and processes when we are done with them, we need to do it from the task manager.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 15, 2014 at 12:44 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

tex: Hmmm...

"Create, reorder, merge and manipulate layers individually"

"Manipulate individual parts of an image without affecting another area for more precise editing"

LightZone has been doing those 2 things since 2006

"Apply filters and effects to layers"

"Apply Pixel Targeting to layers"

And these 2 things since about 2009 (if I understand it correctly).

ACDsee does some things that LightZone doesn't do, of course, but those 4 above jumped out at me. BTW, LightZone has also been free and open source for 3 years now. We share a problem with ACDsee, though: reliance on another source for part of our raw demosaicing (dcraw).

@LaFonte, Yes, other editors do the same thing, but the big difference is that Lightroom doesn't do layers, and CO1 (and Aftershot Pro) only 'sorta' does layers. This is the first workflow tool with a complete layers tool set.

The ACDSee Ultimate user no longer has to leave their preferred user interface to do far more complex editing than is possible in other workflow tools.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 20:46 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lanidrac: Why can't they just stay with being a good photo viewer instead of this editing nonsense? ACDSee is becoming useless bloatware. Sad.

Adapt or die applies to businesses and products as well as people. Viewers are now given away for free.

This is hardly bloatware. Bloatware implies that it's full of stuff people won't use. This is a quality product that will only get better with time.

On the other hand it's OK to prefer something else.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 04:03 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: I used to use ACDsee since 2.x as my default picture viewer on windows, because it was blazing fast, compared to all the others....but unfortunately, i think even the "Ultimate" Edition of ACDsee 8 can't really compete with the now "old" 2012 CS6 Release of Photoshop. I tested a couple days the trial from CC, but it's soo slow & bloated, on my older selfmade Quadcore PC, and i really don't need the new features from CC, also i don't want to have a abo.

I only think - compared to Lightroom 5.x, ACDsee 8 Ultimate is simply way too expensive - 149 $. For instance, there is Corel's Aftershot Pro 2.x, which is way fast, and even the completely FREE RawTherapee, as a good RAW Converter tool...and dozens of others.

Well, if all you need is raw development with minor bit mapped editing, and Photo management. ACDSee Pro 8 is still an active product and for sale. It's about $50 USD cheaper than Ultimate. It is comparable to the functionality found in the products you mentioned.

I've become a big fan of the Lighting equalizer and the Pixel targeting found in ACDSee Pro 8

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:13 UTC
Total: 173, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »