HB1969

Lives in somewhere on earth (mostly)
Joined on Jul 27, 2012

Comments

Total: 468, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Nikon announces development of D850 (524 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: Lo and behold! Two people have already "had it!"

and 2 people already own it...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

HB1969: I've been looking at that photo of the eclipse on the boat and I can't, for the life of me, work out what that light on the horizon is. Was there a city in the distance? Was the sky edited in from a sunrise/set image? Is it lightning from a storm? Would lightning light up the whole horizon like that?

I understand what you're saying but I'd thought of that already and still can't get my head around it. The umbra of the eclipse is roughly 200km - well beyond the distance you'd be able to see to the horizon. If you were standing right in the middle of the umbra, I can't see how you'd see a 360degree sunrise/sunset as you say (almost 100km from center of the shadow vs 5km visibility to the horizon). Perhaps the photographer was close to the edge of the umbra or totality was nearing its end....but that's still not taking into account the penumbra which is another hundred km or more of "lighter" shadow.
Maybe I need to go eclipse chasing and see for myself ;) The next eclipse where I live is not until 2028 :(

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 06:37 UTC

I've been looking at that photo of the eclipse on the boat and I can't, for the life of me, work out what that light on the horizon is. Was there a city in the distance? Was the sky edited in from a sunrise/set image? Is it lightning from a storm? Would lightning light up the whole horizon like that?

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 06:04 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

jpeterg: I was wondering what "video" or "examples" some people were talking about in this comment section since I didn't get to see any. I then repeated the text and the second time, I got to see an instructional video, too. Looks like they present the test both with and without the video to discern what difference it makes whether or not the subject has been shown the possible alterations.

Yes I can confirm that they change the alterations the second time around. They also change the order of the images and ones that had no alterations the first time around, had alterations the second time around and visa versa.

edit: "Looks like they present the test both with and without the video to discern what difference it makes whether or not the subject has been shown the possible alterations."
That's clever from a research point of view. The video can be seen as "priming" the testee.
I saw the vid the first time around and not the second. I thought it was because I did the test on two different devices (tablet and computer) that the different browser might have affected the playing of the video.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

net1994: 8 out of 10! It's all about the shadows.

I identified many images that had objects/animals added, others were the direction or number of the shadows were changed as well as objects that were bent or curved that should have been straight.
(ps I did the test twice...there were different manipulations on the same images the second time around)

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 23:43 UTC
In reply to:

HB1969: I got 8/10. I incorrectly identified an image that wasn't altered and maked it as altered (I thought the leaves in the background had been cloned) and incorrectly marked one image as not altered when it was (though I was only 10% confident that it wasn't altered).

Bah! I got 8/10 again.
They change the alterations for some of the images (eg there was a bird added in one that wasn't there the first time I did the test)

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

Toselli: I'd like to know how much the test varies after dpreview publicized it to us, that I think we are not the average people as far as those things are concerned!

Yes they'll be able to separate the data based on photography interest (personal or professional) as well as education level of the testees and male/female differences (if there are any) based on the preliminary questions.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 22:55 UTC
In reply to:

tko: Stupid. They didn't define digital manipulated. All photos are altered. For brightness, shadows, WB, etc. The camera can do it automatically, the raw program can do it automatically. You are SUPPOSED to manipulate them. And duh, a good enough manipulation can't be detected except at the pixel level.

What did they prove? Nothing.

The alterations they were testing for weren't those you're stating. They are when things have been added or changed (eg including objects that weren't there to begin with etc). Most of the alterations were pretty poor quality and obvious yet a significant proportion of average people got it wrong according to the initial study. I expect photographers to pick them pretty quickly.
Read the article
"It is crucial that images used as evidence in courts—and those used in journalism—are better monitored, to ensure they are accurate and truthful, as faked images in these contexts could lead to dire consequences and miscarriages of justice."
Changing WB, shadows etc... isn't going to have "dire consequences" for anything. Adding or deleting something on the otherhand....

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

Saint 112: I got 9 out of 10. I would like to know which one I failed.
Nick

It tells you at the end. I got the 1st and 8th ones wrong

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 22:41 UTC

I got 8/10. I incorrectly identified an image that wasn't altered and maked it as altered (I thought the leaves in the background had been cloned) and incorrectly marked one image as not altered when it was (though I was only 10% confident that it wasn't altered).

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 22:40 UTC as 117th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

venice: Amazing camera. We have a SX-70, Instax Mini and, now, the SQ10.
The SQ10 is, by far, the most fun and easiest to use with the best IQ.
My family and friends consider it a big step forward in usability and results.

I love passing this camera around and letting everyone take shots. Then we pass it around again, look at the images and pick which ones to print. Then we can print as many copies of each image as we want - people LOVE this.

For us, this revolutionizes instant photography.

Most fun ever.

-Bill

I was very luke warm on the idea of a hybrid digital/film instant camera but I guess in that circumstance it makes sense. I'm hoping the next version has a better system for printing images from a camera or phone.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 02:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-A3 Review (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

BBQue: "It sits above the entry-level X-A10 but considerably below the X-E2S."

Is a 16MB X-Trans sensor superior to a 24MP Bayer?

"What's your definition of "organic" in this context? I thought that label applies to food :)"
Well, to a chemist, organic means compounds of carbon. Benzene, Strychnine, many neurotoxins (eg botulinum toxin) etc, are all organic. I'd rather not have those in my food ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 10:49 UTC

PIXELATED not GRAINY
(not shouting, just captialising for emphasis)

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2017 at 22:42 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: "Aaah... I love the smell of Silver Halide in the morning... [in my bathroom]..."

*wait*

There must be a better way to develop these rolls... Please Mr. Scientist, come up with an eco-friendly solution!

.

@CameraLabTester
Try Caffenol developer. All you need is instant coffee, washing powder and citric acid.
http://www.caffenol.org/
other alternative developers include Beerol, Beetrootol, Wineol...

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

Raist3d: Compelling case? Are you kidding me? First my respects/ it's a cool tech demo. No, it's not a good representation f a good game. In fact it's quite horrible as a mario game. Just watching the video makes me dizzy.

This is a game experience that was designed for a 2d screen with tight controls and action. Of course it won't translate to AR when trying to do a direct translation of the game like this

You need a good game designer to create a new version that makes sense.

Also dpreview- please. Play Mario and understand video games / video game design a little better.

"You need a good game designer to create a new version that makes sense."

I think you've missed the point entirely. This is an example of how AR COULD be used. The game they used to demonstrate it is arbitrary. Of course any future use of the tech would mean designing new games.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 03:09 UTC
On article Now we know: Sony a9 is sharper than we thought (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: There is a much simple answer to this problem. Shoot the camera like your readers would—use the manufacturers autofocus system for the test scene. If the results are sharp; GOLD! If the images are soft; that's the way the cookie crumbles and better luck next time.
Retesting a camera isn't fair to you or the readers. It wastes your valuable time and gives readers a false sense of what the cameras are capable of. None of us have all day to focus one photo and neither do you.

@SmilerGrogan: To rephrase what Rishi has said...the studio scene is there to test the SENSOR, not the lens. That's why they manual focus and check for maximum sharpness, why they use the same equivalent focal length, why they pick the lens (out of all posible choises) that produces the sharpest image and so on... it's to take variables due to lens OUT of the equation. If you start using AF, then you don't know whether an image is soft because of AF mis-focus or poor resolution of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 02:43 UTC
In reply to:

Frank_BR: What is the point of this "experiment"? It's a technical Tour de Force so pointless as using a cannon to kill a mosquito.

the purpose of the experiment is to make an ad for a bottled water company. Did you not watch the video?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

mick232: Awesome. But is it weather sealed?

no it lets the water in

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

PaulDavis: I saw a his video the other day on Vimeo and thought it was all digital animation. Such a great video.

in what way?

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: the wood equivalent , sort of .... of a brain scan, somehow lately in America I feel the planks of highly figured wood possesses a higher IQ

a fantastic effort

"the wood equivalent , sort of .... of a brain scan,"
I was about to post something similar but you beat me to it.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2017 at 23:39 UTC
Total: 468, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »