Chippy99

Lives in United Kingdom Manchester, United Kingdom
Works as a Sales Rep
Joined on Oct 21, 2003

Comments

Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chippy99: Unimpressed.

It gets it wrong 100% of the time. In each case the image produced is clearly NOT the same person as in the ground truth image. So what's the point? There is no point. You might as well just pick random high-quality images of people and use those instead, since they aren't the right person either, but at least they will be detailed images.

I don't think you're understanding how this works. It's basically taking the small image and matching against Googles database of images. So any "improvement" is dependent on a similar "original" already existing. It would be no use whatsoever in trying to increase the resolution of an already high-res image.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 17:20 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (150 comments in total)

Unimpressed.

It gets it wrong 100% of the time. In each case the image produced is clearly NOT the same person as in the ground truth image. So what's the point? There is no point. You might as well just pick random high-quality images of people and use those instead, since they aren't the right person either, but at least they will be detailed images.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 08:18 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Scales USA: I've been thinking of a new phone this year, but I'm patient and will see what others offer. I have a Iphone 6+ currently, but am open to any brand. I think that Samsung will have a tough time selling a S8, too many people think the S7 exploded (It was the Galaxy Note 7) so there is the confusion factor that will make for slow sales.

I only receive Verizon out in my rural area, so a Pixel with ATT is out.

How many Note7's have exploded? None. The media constantly referred to them as explosions since it got them more clicks than just say "overheated". At worst a few did catch fire. Most just got too hot or melted. None exploded.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 09:10 UTC
In reply to:

Chippy99: Strange (and a bit disappointing) to see CA like that from in-camera jpegs. Very noticeable in the first image, for example.

Where???

"Camera Standard profile used in ACR. Exposure adjusted to taste."?

All that means is that the raw was developed in ACR as described. It doesn't say anything about the jpeg.

Unless I am missing something?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

Chippy99: Strange (and a bit disappointing) to see CA like that from in-camera jpegs. Very noticeable in the first image, for example.

How do you know?

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 17:16 UTC

Strange (and a bit disappointing) to see CA like that from in-camera jpegs. Very noticeable in the first image, for example.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 13:10 UTC as 12th comment | 4 replies
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2407 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chippy99: equivalence
noun equiv·a·lence \i-ˈkwiv-lən(t)s, -ˈkwi-və-\

1. A term used bY FF enthusiasts to justify the excessive bulk, weight and cost of their camera equipment.

2. A term used by FF enthusiasts who seek to assert some kind of superiority over cropped sensor camera users.

3. A concept in photography that no-one other than FF enthusiasts give two hoots about.

methinks thou doth protest too much ;-)

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 18:50 UTC
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2407 comments in total)

@Richard Butler: I think you need to develop a sense of humour!

And OF COURSE it can imply something about the suitability of one format over another. If your prime motivation is shallow depth of field for portraits etc, then clearly FF is better suited than M43 for example, isn't it. And likewise if you value compact telephoto lenses and lots of DOF, then FF is not the best.

Unfortunately the equivalence debate usually descends into a slanging match from different fanboy camps, from my experience.

The whole topic is a waste of time in my view. People usually have 1 system (FF, APS, M43 etc), so knowing what settings you might have needed were you shooting with another system you don't actually possess, is quite irrelevant.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 18:48 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2407 comments in total)

equivalence
noun equiv·a·lence \i-ˈkwiv-lən(t)s, -ˈkwi-və-\

1. A term used bY FF enthusiasts to justify the excessive bulk, weight and cost of their camera equipment.

2. A term used by FF enthusiasts who seek to assert some kind of superiority over cropped sensor camera users.

3. A concept in photography that no-one other than FF enthusiasts give two hoots about.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2016 at 08:07 UTC as 70th comment | 5 replies
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2128 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chippy99: Does DPReview factor in the price when assessing photographic equipment? i.e. if it was £10,000 or £50,000 would it still get a gold award? Genuinely I don't know how the review ratings work.

I mean, the 5D IV is doubtless a marvellous photographic tool, but then again, so it should be for £3,000 body only.

Personally - and everything is a personal opinion, isn't it - I can't see how this camera is 3x better than a 7D MKII.

For the price of a 5D IV body, you could have a 7D MKII and £2,000 worth of lenses. Say a 24-70 f/2.8L and a 70-200 f4L.

Money no object then fine. But for how many people is money no object? And if money is no object, surely you'd buy a 1D X Mark II ?

OK but the question stands: Are the review findings in any way considering the price? Perhaps I missed it, but I could not see in the review any comment on how much it costs and how this compares to previous EOS 5's or other camera options. Is the price considered an irrelevance?

Surely the question is not "is the 5D mk IV any good?", but "is the 5D IV any good *considering the cost*"?

And since the 5D IV is so mouth-wateringly expensive, I would have thought that at least deserved some comment?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
On article Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review (2128 comments in total)

Does DPReview factor in the price when assessing photographic equipment? i.e. if it was £10,000 or £50,000 would it still get a gold award? Genuinely I don't know how the review ratings work.

I mean, the 5D IV is doubtless a marvellous photographic tool, but then again, so it should be for £3,000 body only.

Personally - and everything is a personal opinion, isn't it - I can't see how this camera is 3x better than a 7D MKII.

For the price of a 5D IV body, you could have a 7D MKII and £2,000 worth of lenses. Say a 24-70 f/2.8L and a 70-200 f4L.

Money no object then fine. But for how many people is money no object? And if money is no object, surely you'd buy a 1D X Mark II ?

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:50 UTC as 130th comment | 3 replies
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

I notice you've chosen to increase the font size in the new theme. I like that.

But I prefer the traditional black appearance - it's easier on the eye and much better for viewing photographs.

So, black please, but with the larger font.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 08:37 UTC as 320th comment
On article Small but mighty: hands on with the Panasonic GX85/GX80 (306 comments in total)

I don't know why such a big deal is made about the lac of mic input. Anyone serious enough about video to want to use an external recorder or mic is *surely* going to want to edit videos in post. And if you do that, syncing external audio to your video track takes seconds.

A mic input is imho a completely redundant feature.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 13:25 UTC as 32nd comment | 6 replies

Thing

Of

Beauty

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 18:43 UTC as 126th comment
On article Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review (717 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chippy99: @Jeff, Jordan,

I am reliably informed that your comparison table "Compared to E-M10 and E-M5 II" contains an error in that the E-M5 II has an LCD, not an OLED viewfinder.

Cheers

Your table says the E-M5 II has an OLED EVF. Its does not.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 20:02 UTC
On article Bang for the Buck: Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Review (717 comments in total)

@Jeff, Jordan,

I am reliably informed that your comparison table "Compared to E-M10 and E-M5 II" contains an error in that the E-M5 II has an LCD, not an OLED viewfinder.

Cheers

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 08:26 UTC as 110th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

KAllen: Its a turd, what more do you need to know. How can a pro upload many TB to the cloud.Would Apple be responsible if it was hacked and stolen?

Your first three words sum it up perfectly.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 13:23 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review (490 comments in total)
In reply to:

amipal: I've been working my way through the GH-series through the years, and currently have a GH3. I've tried the equivalent Olympus cameras, and they just fall down on usability. I can alter settings on the Panasonic cameras without a second's thought, yet Oly bury things under layers of not necessarily obvious menus.

So I don't think it's a simple case of saying "If you're only interested in stills then it's not quite such a compelling proposition" - because I'd rather get 100% of my photos almost there, than a handful.

Can't agree mate. I've never owned an Olympus and yet find the EM-1 a complete doddle to use and entirely intuitive. I've never had such a high keeper rate from any camera I've owned ever, and that includes several Canon DSLR's and the occassional Leica.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 09:54 UTC
On article Readers' showcase: Landscape photography (90 comments in total)

I don't know what it is but the current trend seems to be that a landscape can't be any good unless it's completely unrealistic and over processed, with too much saturation, too much vibrancy, HDR thrown in for good measure.

These shots are all better than anything I ever produce, and they are certainly "impressive", but I am not sure I'd want any of them on my wall. What's wrong with a nice picture of how the world *actually* looks? Is the world not beautiful enough without jazzing it up with a purple sky?

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 11:41 UTC as 17th comment
On article What is equivalence and why should I care? (2407 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: Drama incoming in 3... 2...

Fair enough.

(And incidentally i note i said shallow depth of field is advantageous for landscapes and street. Of course i mean the opposite, large DoF is advantageous there. It was a slip of the tongue on my part.)

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 21:53 UTC
Total: 21, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »