graybalanced

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 1122, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Remember, SSD's have a finite lifecycle expressed in read/write operations.

You should have read further down first. The bigger the SSD, the longer it lasts: Since there is usually so much unused space, you don't have to rewrite cells as often. And this is a really big SSD.

In addition, even the current crop of consumer-grade SSDs has been torture-tested to death, and it was found that they will all last well beyond the point where you would have upgraded to a newer/bigger one.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/consumer-ssds-benchmarked-to-death-and-last-far-longer-than-rated/

SSD read/write lifetime is simply not an issue for most users today. Especially when you compare SSD reliability to hard drives. Raising concerns about SSD read/write without talking about whether that's worse than the reliability of the alternative device (mechanical hard drives) is operating a false equivalency.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 18:40 UTC
On article Apple iPhone X review (379 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Will you update this review when Apple decides to throttle the phones performance in the future?

It wasn't phone throttling so much as battery life extending. Many more users need longer battery life than they need the phone CPU to be pegged.

The fact is that Apple is "throttling" (battery extending) the iPhone X today, since it's the OS that does it (Apple is soon adding an option for you to control it). So you should be satisfied...because this review score was already given with that behavior in place.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 00:38 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: Hmmm... Whatever the price, I’m betting it will be an awful lot of money to spend and discover I’m still crap at shooting sports.

Yeah...instead of taking one perfectly composed, perfectly timed, but slightly misfocused frame of a fast-moving player, now I'll have taken 11,000 slightly misfocused frames of a fast-moving player. :(

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

Azimuth46: It seems to me that Windows gains significant more performance than Mac in this upcoming release.

Most importantly Adobe and also DPR are concentrated on import/export times but it's not there where we must concentrate on. I know it's much easier to test import and/or export but the bottleneck is in reviewing images in Library module when you go as fast as possibile from one image to another, even with two screens (one dedicated to have the image in full screen) and you have the "Loading..." or you have the pixellating images because they are still loading!

You have to do the same in Develop Module where LR is supposed to use GPU (which one is enough when a 1080Ti isn't!), or when you are comparing images still in Dev Module. And so forth. These are the tests that count! Especially if you are working with a UHD monitor, which is more common nowadays.

Azimuth46 said "It seems to me that Windows gains significant more performance than Mac in this upcoming release."

This was at least partially explained in the story. Windows will, from a relative standpoint, appear to have more gains in this version, but it's because there has been a well known bug in the existing version where Windows Lightroom got slower and slower over time, a bug that was not on the Mac. From an absolute standpoint, it means Windows LR was hobbled before and now reaching performance parity with Mac.

Esco said " 64bit adobe software was a year or two behind PC during the CS series"

Maybe true during the CS series, but actually, one of the frustrating things about using Aperture, was that even though Aperture was Apple's own application, Lightroom came out with a 64-bit Mac version before Aperture did.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: Will this be released for a proper operating system?

@davesurrey I did say "Granted, it's from the same sources" and that I'm open to seeing others. Got any?

And you're right, none of these numbers will sway the developers, even if we throw in Google Play, because they may not care what the overall numbers are. It is very possible that what they look at are the revenue shares for *photographers* on mobile, and if it turns out that photographers spend disproportionately more on iOS than the general population, photo app developers will lean that way.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2018 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: Will this be released for a proper operating system?

@davesurrey An article came out yesterday with some actual 2017 fourth quarter numbers. Granted, it's from the same sources, but it said "revenue from app sales and subscriptions grew far faster: 20 percent over the previous year. Of a total a $17 billion spent on mobile apps, Apple accounted for $11.5 billion, leaving Google with the scraps: around $5 billion despite processing nearly one and a half times as many downloads...The high rate of bootleg apps and content shared among Android users has the side effect of causing developers to focus premium app development on iOS first, and often exclusively. "

I would certainly be open to seeing data from other sources, but if the above is true it only strengthens the story that the staggering advantage that Android has in downloads and user base is shockingly less effective at paying developers than iOS is.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/01/26/apples-ios-app-store-users-spent-115-billion-in-q4-95-more-than-google-play

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2018 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit confused. In almost all countries, US included, you get Copyright to all pictures you take. Without any registration whatsoever. I now have two questions:

1. What do this registration really do?

2. Why so extremely cheap? To me it sounds very cheap with even one dollar per picture and year, if you find that picture worth protecting. So, why only a one time fee of $55 for several hundred pictures? Sounds like a joke or a scam.

Roland Karlsson asked "What hinders me from registering someone else's photos as mine?"

Proof.

You can register anything you want, yours or not. To fill out the application, you will be submitting the images and declaring on a government form that you are the owner.

But if the real owner shows up and takes you to court in the US, and they bring the full size original raw files (which may contain the serial number of a camera only they own) for the same images and you can't, because you only downloaded small JPEGs, then you are proved in court to have lied on the official registration form and a judgment may be served against you. I don't know what the penalties for that would be, but probably something you want to avoid triggering through a false submission.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2018 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit confused. In almost all countries, US included, you get Copyright to all pictures you take. Without any registration whatsoever. I now have two questions:

1. What do this registration really do?

2. Why so extremely cheap? To me it sounds very cheap with even one dollar per picture and year, if you find that picture worth protecting. So, why only a one time fee of $55 for several hundred pictures? Sounds like a joke or a scam.

1. In the USA, without registration, the money you can get from an infringer is relatively little. If you have record of registration, your potential financial settlement is much larger. In other countries, you might be able to gain the full financial compensation without needing this proof of registration that the US requires.

2. Your question is actually backwards. It will now be less cheap. Before, you could register an unlimited number of unpublished photos with a single fee and application. Now that number is limited to 750 photos per application. But at least each image is registered separately.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: Will this be released for a proper operating system?

To the doubters, it isn't hard...just use Google, article after article backs up the evidence that developers gravitate to iOS because they are several times more likely to deliver actual revenue back to the developer. For example:

http://bgr.com/2016/07/20/ios-vs-android-developers-profits-app-store-google-play/

https://adtmag.com/articles/2015/10/19/app-store-survey.aspx

https://mashable.com/2017/03/29/apple-app-store-revenue-google-play-china/

If you want more apps, it doesn't matter how big your user base is if it isn't profitable for app makers.

Now, there have been more recent stories showing that Android is finally going to surpass iOS app revenues. But that just proves the point: All those additional users and all the additional downloads only result in revenue parity, not even close to revenue superiority proportional to the user base. App developers look at those numbers and still say "my chances of feeding my family are better on iOS."

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2018 at 01:19 UTC
In reply to:

SarahTerra: Welcome to the new world where liberal whining is how you resolve problems.

What goes around comes around....

I have never seen a level of whining and entitlement as I have from the alt-right the last few years. Just check out the attitude of their Twitter replies to half the Internet.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 00:56 UTC
In reply to:

Richard B99: This looks like a potentially interesting backup device for photographers as long as the app can view camera raw / tiff and jpeg images as well as video formats. If so, it has the off grid capability, USB for offload from cameras / cards (inc SSD used for video storage) so fast copy to your backup. And then allows fast review over wired link to any phone / tablet to review images.

Plus because it’s using a cheap spinning disk rather than SSD the whole device looks reasonable ($350 for 3Tb).

Possibly a better backup solution than the WD Passport drives noted earlier in the newsfeed which don’t have that fast 3.0 interface.

All depends on the software app...

And not new either, these have been out for years

https://www.hypershop.com/collections/digital-photography

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

G Sciorio: Based on the marketing photo, someone is going to spend thousands of dollars on that sweet setup only to shoot with an old Lumix GX1 lol or is that LX7?

If they're anything like me, the LX7 is not the primary camera, but the one that's always with them especially when the pro kit is too awkward to bring along. :)

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

graybalanced: This hasn't bothered me one bit. When my iPhones got old, the lowered battery capacity was more of a problem than performance. They made the right call.

The main problem has always been the difficulty of replacing the battery, especially by the user.

What you said is only true for Li-ion batteries that are NOT close to end of life. As they get close to the bottom, the drain behavior becomes very non-linear; the "constant draw" cannot be maintained. I have seen this with Li-ion batteries on multiple different devices like laptops and cameras. A spike in power demand can trip an immediate shutdown, and it's worse if it's cold. This goes across brands because it is because of the technology itself.

The ENTIRE POINT of what Apple did was to limit power demand spikes by the CPU so as to avoid tripping an immediate shutdown. This results in a better customer experience. Except for the .01% who somehow need 100% CPU all the time.

More explanation here:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/18/01/02/how-iphone-batteries-work-and-how-apple-manages-performance-over-time

Apple wasn't busted for anything bad except not being transparent and not allowing easy battery replacements, since installing a new battery solves the problem 100%.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 08:08 UTC

This hasn't bothered me one bit. When my iPhones got old, the lowered battery capacity was more of a problem than performance. They made the right call.

The main problem has always been the difficulty of replacing the battery, especially by the user.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2017 at 23:58 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Azathothh: Open source/free/GNU/freedom software are usually halfbaked solutions filled with problems. Reading the comments seems it's the same crap. I'll pass.

I use GIMP sometimes myself, but I agree, GIMP is hardly a convincing example of FOSS advantages. It competes with Photoshop in some areas, but in others, GIMP's continuing failure to keep up with features Photoshop implemented 15 to 20 years ago does not encourage a student to learn GIMP, on the shaky chance that GIMP might catch up to Photoshop by the time that student's own future children reach college...

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2017 at 23:08 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II Review (277 comments in total)
In reply to:

MarcMedios: Seriously... who wants a mid tele with a maxium aperture of 4.9?

This is why I have used Panasonic LX compacts. The maximum focal length might not be as long, but the lens is so much faster that cropping down to match the Canon at max focal length could produce a sharper, lower noise image than whatever dark, noisy, shaky image you'll get out of the Canon's zoom at f/4.9.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2017 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

StraightShoot: How is "creating" the perfect photo by ai any different from purchasing the ideal creation from some pro's website.
Ideally, photography should be about using one's abilities to the max and letting results taking care of itself. Just sayin.

All this feature does is move some sliders around better than it used to before. It isn't doing the bulk of the creative work.

Corollary: Anyone who feels that photography is threatened by this, needs to revisit their definition of what photography is really about. Is your photography really reduced to how you move the sliders in post?

I don't like clicking Auto, but it's obvious that this could save people a lot of time. Because not everyone is a fine art purist. Some photographers need to get through a lot of images for a job, where this feature would get the to a better starting point for the final edits.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 00:29 UTC

Most of the responses here are trying to explain the proportions of cameras in the stats. But that might not be what these numbers measure. These numbers measure the proportions of cameras *on Flickr*. And I think that makes these numbers useless for any further examination of camera usage, or why the numbers don't match sales figures. It's because the numbers are not telling the story of camera preferences. They are telling the story of Flickr.

Because let's face it, if you walk up to 100 DSLR or micro 4/3 users, especially pros, how many of them are going to say "Come see my Flickr feed, I update it weekly!" Chances are they are going to say you should check out their Instagram or Facebook feed.

What these numbers really say, is that DSLR users don't care about Flickr, and micro 4/3 users care about Flickr even less.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 00:06 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on: RAW Power for iOS (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

AstroStan: This is part of a trend to migrate deep applications to iOS. It seems Apple has seriously neglected their computer business in favor of mobile. Many Apple users have fully transitioned from desk/laptops to iPads. Many artistic power users are moving to Windows.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that "Mac OS X was fully mature at Snow Leopard (10.6.8). Later versions are not improvements."

I can think of features that work better in later versions of macOS, like Time Machine. I also know, since I have older Macs, that they run better and faster on later versions, and I see no need to to back to the limitations I experience whenever I use a Mac running 10.6.8.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 19:54 UTC
On article Hands-on: RAW Power for iOS (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thomas Rose: I do not care how great it is, I will not be using it.

Apple has a track record of introducing applications and then dropping them after a few years, or dumbing down professional applications to please their bigger market of iPhone users. They did it with word processors, with video editing and with Aperture.

Why would anyone with a business to run choose an Apple application when we have no assurance that it will continue to be available long-term.

Microsoft may be guilty of many sins, but dumping their user base by dropping important applications (or dumbing them down, or ignoring backward compatibility) is not one of them.

Thomas Rose, if the point of your post is to avoid Apple because they cancelled a product, I take it you strictly avoid any Google products, since Google has a terrible reputation for "introducing applications and then dropping them after a few years, or dumbing down professional applications"

Since Google bought Picasa and abandoned it, then bought Nik and abandoned it before selling it off, in both cases because Google was not at all interested in the "desktop power user" code of those applications, only in the pieces of the code they could use to build up the dumbed-down cloud-based Google Photos.

This doesn't even get into the hardware they killed, like Google Glass, or the much longer list of non-photographic products that Google abandoned.
https://www.lifewire.com/google-graveyard-products-1616198

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2017 at 19:52 UTC
Total: 1122, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »