kelpdiver

Joined on Aug 21, 2007

Comments

Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Mike FL: "1.3 GHz dual core processor and 1GB of DDR3 memory" does not have enough processing power and memory for multi-tasking.

well for $160 that might be speedy, but striping kills the protection, and mirroring with Red drives means slower than gigabit performance. Dual drive units are just a bit limiting in these regards.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

foxyterrier: Is there any chance that Adobe Lightroom will be available in standalone in Lightroom 7?

yes, $120/year isn't awful, but LR never cost the "nearly $200" you suggested. When PS has a compelling feature over CS6, I'll thinking about it.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

WoodWorks: It appears that the panoramic Boundary Warp feature is also not available in the standalone LR 6.4 version, only with CC. At least it doesn't show up for me. Can anyone else confirm? I see no mention of this omission here or anywhere on Adobe support forum.

I'm ok with new features not being included for standalone. Continuous features was the promise for subscribing. However...I'm not convinced that Adobe is really delivering on the promise of constant feature adds for the money. Seems like they're just collecting the money. If you're paying just the $10/month, then it's not terrible, but anyone paying the $50/month - I think we did better buying every other CS version.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

Androole: It's difficult for me to find a straight low-down on the features that are really omitted in Photoshop Elements.

I have Lightroom 6, but it's hard to justify the full $1000+ price of Photoshop for a personal license when I only need to use it occasionally for my photography when doing macro stacking, panorama-stitch fixes, and astro-photography layering.

Does anyone with experience with both packages know if Elements would be suitable for those kinds of applications? Can it do layer auto-alignment and merging? Are all the blending modes still there? Proper layer masks? Does it have content-aware fill? High-pass filters? Does it accept plug-ins like Topaz DeNoise?

I hope I'm not asking obvious questions and don't want to be onerous, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find this information. Much thanks for anyone who can help.

You can't buy PS for $1000 anymore. You can subscribe for $10/month for PS CC + LR. The subscription notion is distasteful, but if the alternative is spending $99 on PSE, it should at least be considered.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2015 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

refusenik: I've always said that 16Mp is the sweet spot for sensor size. So I can upload unlimited full-res 16Mp photos to Photos. Sweet.

It's no accident however that they set to 2MP less than the common SLR resolution of the past 5 years.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2015 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

Alpha Jack: Anyone know if it will be jpeg only or will it accept RAW images?

he uploaded a 15.9MP image, so should meet the requirement.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2015 at 01:08 UTC
On article Opinion: Canon EOS 750D and 760D (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earthlight: Quote from the article:

"As far as I can remember though, Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"

But what about the 18 mp sensor they used for years in their crop bodies?

also the oddity of noting that these new rebels have an additional 2 MP than the 3 year old 5d3, forgetting the even more expensive 18MP 1Dx. Canon has quite often offered higher resolution on cheaper models.

Should have had a word count on this article. Trying too hard.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 20:18 UTC
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

kelpdiver: Noting the comments already that Canon announced this a long time ago.

The resolution given is just a stone's throw away from 15360x8640, which sampled in 2x2 pixel bins would give you rather nice 8k video. (well, the slightly smaller 2 x UHD resolution). That would be 132MP.

Obviously 9fps doesn't cut it, unless it's a gopro. But eventually eventually there will be demand for such a sensor. Good 8k is said to be as close to our own vision as it gets, or so it was claimed about the displays of the swimming at the London Olympics on such screens.

4k on the hero3 was 15fps.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 03:49 UTC
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: It is only 1.5 times the resolution of the 5DS. Explain the drama?

nonsense, zorgan. You made the first "there is only one correct definition" posting and it was the wrong one at that.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2015 at 00:38 UTC
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor (255 comments in total)

Noting the comments already that Canon announced this a long time ago.

The resolution given is just a stone's throw away from 15360x8640, which sampled in 2x2 pixel bins would give you rather nice 8k video. (well, the slightly smaller 2 x UHD resolution). That would be 132MP.

Obviously 9fps doesn't cut it, unless it's a gopro. But eventually eventually there will be demand for such a sensor. Good 8k is said to be as close to our own vision as it gets, or so it was claimed about the displays of the swimming at the London Olympics on such screens.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 00:15 UTC as 11th comment | 4 replies
On article CP+ 2015: Canon shows off prototype 120MP CMOS sensor (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: It is only 1.5 times the resolution of the 5DS. Explain the drama?

@zorgan - sorry, you're wrong. If you want to pass a "there's only one meaning" type declaration, then linear resolution is the winner. Ultimately you want to print or display an image and dpi doesn't care about the square, it cares about the actual resolution.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

Wild Shooter: Can you believe a 50MP camera that doesn't do 4K video?

the resolution for this sensor is wrong for 4k - a little bit too wide, but way too tall. You want to be able to use every 2x2 array of sensor pixels to be one pixel in the 4k image, so you want a bit over 8000x4000. Otherwise, you're effectively putting in a crop factor.

The other reason of course is market segmentation.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 04:20 UTC
On article BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scales USA: I remember when jpeg replaced gif images. It was painful.

Changing over the web browser infrastructure will be much more difficult than it was in the early 1990's. It was a clear choice due to very limited bandwidth, but the image quality suffered due to artifacts.

I'd go for a new standard, but likely won't live long enough to see it.

yeah, I miss 256 color photos too!

PNG is supported by nearly all browsers with no effort on user side. It is still rarely used, because it rarely makes sense, but adding BPG would be no different....UNLESS IT HAS A CRAPPY LICENSING MODEL. Then it's DOA - virtually no one is going to use it because no free browser is going to pay to include it, and a vicious circle continues.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 07:59 UTC
On article Exposing sharks in a positive light (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

kemal erdogan: Nice shots, but all the pictures look like the ones we saw elsewhere.

In what ways these pictures are different?

K.

yes, the saving the sharks theme as been well established for a couple decades now, so no real new ground, and I suspect few new people open to conversion. That said, many of us enjoy getting these shots personally, even if it would be far cheaper to just buy one. (a week to Guadalupe Island is 2-3k)

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 02:49 UTC
On article Exposing sharks in a positive light (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

alcaher: I like the pictures, specially #5 its a nice portrait. I like alot the idea of shooting with only natural light source.

Sharks are beautiful creatures of nature and they are here for a reason. Sadly they are dissapearing. I recommend people to watch Sharkwater"docummentary, It shows the nasty things some people and fishermen are doing to the sharks in some places like where i live (Costa rica)

there's really not a lot of choice on natural light, unless you're just doing a head shot. Water limits the working distance for strobes to roughly 6ft, and white sharks are 2-3x this.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

gail: ''Canon USA no longer lists the EOS M on their website, so it seems unlikely that the lens would see distribution in the US.''

If this is true, then Canon played US photographers for fools by selling their EOSM cameras at firesale prices then abandoning us. I'm stuck with an EOSM brick and apparently won't even be able to by the telephoto lens I like to have since it apparently won't be available in the US. I've been purchasing Canon cameras for close to two decade, but I doubt I will buy another Canon. There are a lot of other fine choices out there.

I bought it at the firesale price thinking I got myself a higher quality compact camera for the same money I once spent on the S90. And it's pretty easy to order these other lenses on Ebay from japan or china.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 06:29 UTC
On article 2014-15 Waterproof Camera Roundup (255 comments in total)

If the object truly is a waterproof camera, not just something that is ok if dropped in the pool, you can take almost any Canon or Olympus model and then buy the truly "waterproof" (130+ft) housings. The housings are 150-200 over, but if you don't care about 1080p video, there's an abundance of cheap older used models whose jpg output is just as good.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 06:05 UTC as 33rd comment
On article 2014-15 Waterproof Camera Roundup (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: What's with people demanding RAW on a camera with 16 million pixels on a tiny 1/2.3" sensor? Look at the pictures, they have noise (VISIBLE IN JPEG!) even at base ISO!
What do you expect from RAW, more encoded noise? Because JPEG at max quality already encodes 12 bit/pixel, and those tiny pixels don't have even 10 bits of information (as opposed to noise) in them!
Want to correct the picture - go ahead and correct the JPEG. Same thing. RAW is not going to turn these 16 mpix into 16 mpix from D4s!
Besides, except on Oly and Pentax at the very wide end, these pixels are way smaller than Airy disks, and even then Bayer-interpolated! Downscale 4:1 and stop fooling yourself.

If you ever used these compact cameras for underwater use, and doubly more if you ever used an SLR as well, you'd know why RAW is attractive. In wider angle shots where no subject is within 5 or 6 ft of you, the end result is a blue-green mess that is extremely difficult to fix on jpg, and easy with RAW.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 05:56 UTC
Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »