desertsp

Joined on Jul 7, 2017

Comments

Total: 790, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Imager of: More fake looking photos. Great! 🤨

Imager - I think you have it backwards. This is a way to produce more REALISTIC photos.

Photos are just data, and the more input data the better the result.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 20:30 UTC

Countdown to “likes” being removed from the page instead of merely hidden....

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2019 at 03:01 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

Mike FL: "can take on a full day’s charge in ten minutes using the optional 45W charger"

That was much faster than Google phones.

Charging batteries rapidly can degrade them, that’s what I was referring to by longevity. The batteries heat up more and can be damaged as a result, meaning they won’t hold as much charge.

But....I did some googling and it turns out to not make much of a difference as long as the phone is properly designed for fast charging.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2019 at 02:07 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: "can take on a full day’s charge in ten minutes using the optional 45W charger"

That was much faster than Google phones.

What does this do to the battery’s longevity?

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

AcerK: Is it really 64MP, a single photo should take all the internal memory real estate, so what's the catch?

Don’t know why is meant by “real estate”....but an uncompressed 64MP photo with 8 bits per color channel would occupy 192 megabytes of memory (= 0.192 gigabytes).

The phone has 4 gigabytes of memory and 128 gigabytes of storage. It should have no trouble storing one unpressed photo along with other applications.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2019 at 21:39 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: Instead of making/buying custom chip I think we will see more and more camera manufacturers simply using smartphone processors. They are so far ahead now and making custom chips in even remotely recent nodes is so expensive that it simply isn't smart to still rely on them

What's easier though? Recoding a camera OS to be ARM compatible (only has to be done once), or supporting ongoing chip development?

Or how about starting from scratch with an existing OS (like Android) and building camera-specific features into it?

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2019 at 20:18 UTC

Maybe the AV software recognized the seemingly random names of the software and thinks it's a virus trying to obfuscate itself?

Compare "Lightroom" to "ViewNX-i"....which one sounds like it has something to do with photography?

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2019 at 18:31 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Thomartin: To the people raging over the lack of mech release in modern cameras,

It's fun, I like it and has some welcome vintage swagger.
That being said, I don't think there is need anymore for mechanical shutter release: we have 2s timer for the jitter, apps for the remote control, and even physical remote for the serious users. These solutions, although they might not have the cachet of the mechanical release, are objectively superior; so it makes sense most camera ditched the mechanical release. Now, don't get me wrong, I wear a mechanical watch.

Is the point of connection with the camera sturdier with a mechanical release? The USB port on my camera seems pretty fragile, like a sharp tug in the wrong direction might permanently bend the metal pins or otherwise break it. Is a threaded connection stronger?

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2019 at 00:49 UTC
In reply to:

ChrisSouth: Cannot compete with smartphone without GPS.

One has to assume that the phone to camera gps pairing is unreliable.

It seems like Canon has plenty of physical room in the camera to include a gps chip anyways. See: https://www.gpsworld.com/origingps-launches-nano-spider-for-wearables-watches/

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2019 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

Larabee119: 20k is still very cheap considering this is a great threat to aircraft's safety.

“ Pollution. Guns. Clime change. But we don't regulate those, just the things that you can "punch down" to and that don't cost anything to enact authoritarian rules over.”

Why about the EPA, background checks, and, we’ll I guess you’re right about the climate change....

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2019 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

Brotherbill: I kinda think $5000 would have been more appropriate. That would hurt, but wouldn’t destroy him.

20k isn’t going to destroy someone who was able to buy a drone. Painful yes, but ruin? Most of us here probably paid more to learn less important lessons (college education).

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2019 at 14:57 UTC

Great article - it strikes at the core of why some people buy, try, and abandon their “real” cameras. These things are clearly designed by engineers and not UIX experts...

I’m starting to wonder if cameras should begin emphasizing capturing the raw data as best as possible, and leave all other creative aspects be handled later on a device more suited to that. The sensors are very good nowadays and provide some leeway for “incorrect” exposure settings.

Such an approach could greatly simplify the UI.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2019 at 19:33 UTC as 106th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

peegee: It's not clear how you force the Pixel4 to use it's 2x tele lens to zoom with a landscape - by selecting portrait mode? That seems counter intuitive, as its not a portrait, and you don't want background de-focusing deployed, so...?

Also you want optical lens zoom first, then digital zoom, so it would be 1: Switch to portrait mode followed by (2) digital zoom 2x 4x, etc - is that right? It all seems a bit counter-intuitive, and feels like Google should add a 'zoom' selection to it's basic camera controls, precisely to solve this.

it doesn’t switch automatically as you zoom?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 19:41 UTC
In reply to:

OremLK: I'm very curious to see what happens when computational photography meets the new 1/1.33" sensors that are hitting the market. Give me 16 megapixels, a lens sharp enough to take advantage of it, and a wide and normal lens, and I'm excited to see what kind of results are possible--might actually be print-worthy.

The lens sharpness? How come?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 19:03 UTC

I’d like to see more articles like this.

Also would be interesting to see a discussion of the relative accessibility and discoverability of the more advanced features. How easy is it for people who cares about image quality, but doesn’t care for technical manuals or settings, to realize that improved quality they desire?

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2019 at 17:10 UTC as 101st comment
In reply to:

desertsp: When will there be desktop software to do this for a set of RAW stills taken by a normal camera? One click....I know it can be done manually!

"Phones also have access to gyro data and can align frames based on that and any movement is then treated as subject movement which helps algorithms a lot."

It would be nothing to encode that data into a container file format, such as HEIC. If manufactures come together to create a standard...

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 17:14 UTC

"The images are not full size, so it's hard to make any judgements about image detail or noise, but they do look quite impressive in terms of exposure and dynamic range."

Wouldn't those things depend on the lens and software processing as much, if not more than, the sensor?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 16:54 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

desertsp: When will there be desktop software to do this for a set of RAW stills taken by a normal camera? One click....I know it can be done manually!

Ah I see what you’re saying. Another factor is that stacking in the device only requires storing the final stacked output, versus having to store potentially dozens of images or hundreds of megabytes. Unless of course compression is used, maybe the device stacks the unambiguous parts of the image, but stores individual exposures for trickier areas so the user can determine how to handle them in post.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: When will there be desktop software to do this for a set of RAW stills taken by a normal camera? One click....I know it can be done manually!

“ That's all before we get into the really complex part that you *can't* replicate so easily on a PC which is the tile slicing of each frame pre-stack in order to compensate for motion, ”

I’m not sure I’m following you. Why would a more powerful PC be challenged by this if a mobile computer (smartphone) isn’t?

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2019 at 07:04 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: When will there be desktop software to do this for a set of RAW stills taken by a normal camera? One click....I know it can be done manually!

(Cont) And remember, for a lot of this stuff there is little “artistic interpretation” involved - the end goal is primarily to compensate for hardware limitations. Less noise, better dynamic range, and depth-of-field information (from which background blur can be simulated). There is likely a small set of “optimal solutions” for a given photographic scene.

That, in my mind, is why we need an end-to-end application for computational photography.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2019 at 14:17 UTC
Total: 790, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »