Joined on Aug 21, 2007


Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

The more sensible approach would be for the UK government to assume copyright of the article on behalf of the unknown party. Fees should be charged and payable to the government at current commercial market rates for rights managed articles with no sub-licensing allowed. An additional admin charge should be payable by the user of the article (making it slightly more expensive than an article of known copyright) to encourage use of known copyright articles. Should the originator or true copyright holder of the work arise within say 20 years, all sums received for that article should be passed to them with the exception of the admin fee, otherwise the cash goes to the treasury (nice little earner!)

The government gets money.
The users get legal access to articles of unknown copyright
Photographers get protection
Photographers also benefit as there is an incentive for publications to use more recent known copyright images.

Unlikely to happen but thats what I'd like anyway.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2013 at 08:31 UTC as 9th comment
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

Simon97: This is a good camera with a larger than typical P&S sensor. Much cleaner images than the 1/1.7" sensor compacts. I think a lot of people would be happy with it. I do have some nitpicks however...

Even at low ISO with the lens zoomed, noise does show. I applaud Sony for not trying to smear it away. The lens is a bit soft off axis. Sony should have used a 15 or 16mp sensor. This way the noise and lens would not be so challenging.

Lastly, an important thing to me, is that dynamically compressed audio manufacturers use on digicams. It makes background sounds thundering loud and live music impossible to record with any quality. At least have the ability to turn it off for natural sound quality.

he is, you're talking about different things though. he's talking per unit area, you're talking per photosite, ultimately it adds up to the same effect at any given reproduction size less than 1:1 of the lower pixel count sensor as the multiple samples per unit area of the higher res sensor get "averaged" in downsizing, thus losing most of the per-pixel noise. Simples!

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 07:53 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: The best camera in its "compact" category should have had Gold Award. DPR, really? You give Silver Award to the worst modern camera in it's category (Canon Rebel T4i), and the same Silver Award to the by far the best???

how can it be "best in class" if it doesn't stand out? An oxymoron perhaps?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 07:46 UTC
On article Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 review (373 comments in total)
In reply to:

nosnoop: Richard Butler:

Could it be that the reason that you did not fall in love with RX100 is because you have no need for a *pocketable* camera in the first place?

I don't think enough credits has been given to RX100 as a break-through camera, and a very impressive technological piece. If you want a pocketable camera, then very few other cameras can touch the RX100.

But if you don't see the need for a pocketable camera, then obviously, there are a lot more choices out there; and little reason to like this camera.

Or maybe you should rename the Gold award to "I Love it" reward, and Silver reward to "I like it but I don't love it" reward; then there would be much less arguments.... :)

"I think it's also fair to say that it's probably the best in class" - Ok, so why silver, doesn't logic suggest that the top award should go to those cameras at the top of their class at time of review regardless of how narrow the margin may be?

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2012 at 07:27 UTC
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4