Rambalac

Lives in Japan Japan
Works as a Software developer
Joined on Mar 18, 2009

Comments

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

Phily: There is one thing in what you write which is probably unfair to the Macbook Pros and it is processing power. The Surface Book 2's i7-8650u has a passmark of 6588 and costs $3299 (with 1TB SSD and GTX 1060 ). For $2899 you get a 15'4" Macbook Pro 2.9 also Quad-Core, but with a passmark score of 9415. And they have the same memory and SSD specs but with an AMD Radeon Pro 460 GPU which is slower but this should be a wash for photo editing

You forgot about screen resolution, MacBook has it's outdated retina.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 10:03 UTC
On article Sharp's new 8K camera is $77,000 (167 comments in total)
In reply to:

BBQue: This pixel race is just silly. Unless yo own your private cinema, and even then it probably won't make any difference. If at all, super high resolution distracts from the actual film.

But 8K does look incredible on big screen.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

szhorvat: The design looks very Nikon-ish from the front and top.

I have GH3 and GH5. GH5 ergonomic is noticibly better as physically as in software even if it's heavier.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 01:55 UTC

What is Snapchat?

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2017 at 17:48 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

(unknown member): I really like my Samsung vacuum. It's good to see that they are continuing development on that front. Their Samyang lenses are really good as well. I recently purchased the Samsung 85mm 1.4 Rokinon lens and it creates beautiful photographs of my spouse!

Samyang has no any relation to Samsung

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 06:51 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: This could be almost the perfect computer, but they forgot to implement a very important feature: antireflective coating of the display. I wouldn’t want to buy a display without anti reflective coating ever again. This is where the MacBooks shine

You cannot run Mac in Windows because Apple does everything legally and technically to prevent that. Also Apple software has a lot of compatibility issues even among different MacOs versions. And Microsoft is opposite, doing everything to make Windows working everywhere.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 05:00 UTC
In reply to:

khunpapa: Another marketing hype.

The f/0.67 is theoretical good in light gathering. BUT that microlens in front of the sensor dictate how much light the sensor could get.

In summary, even you have f/0.1 lens in front of the camera, the f/1.4 microlens would allow on f/1.4 light to pass!.

This truth has been revealed years ago. Why everyone still believe in f/0.xx 'low light monster' hype????

What a nonsense.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

ottonis: Well, technology like that marks the beginning of a paradigm shift in digital photography: in a few years,when prices go down,we will probably have no need for traditional photocameras any more. Actually,the photo cameras based on this kind of technology will provide 32 MP images at 60 fps, which is basically video, but you will be able to pick one of those images for further processing and printing.
So, as I see it, the distinct feature sets of video and stills cameras will completely merge.
Moreover, these high frame rates will also allow for instantaneous merging of multiple frames, in order to improve SNR and DR - an approach already used by modern cameraphones such as the Pixel2 and others.
Great times ahead of us!!

Panasonic is already doing that. But 18mpx and 30fps.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 04:02 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: The quoted screen resolution - does it take into account the notch at the top for the face sensors, and the rounded corners? In other words, what's the actual resolution (and aspect ratio, for that matter) of largest _rectangle_ the iPhone X can display? I don't want my photos - or movies - cropped and crimped!

Brian

Yes, that including that black part. Apple user will easily adapt watching videos with black area, they just stop noticing it. If you cannot adapt you just pay for special video player which will resize video to avoid that area and add black bars above and below video.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 11:39 UTC

There is no wrong way to shoot an eclipse. There are only right way and the last one.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 11:46 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Donald B: i shoot in a studio with a live hdmi large monitor, its just a shame that you didnt show the screen lag ? my current set up has virtually no lag.

Neez, don't buy such cameras.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: Live streaming looks cool feature. Otherwise, Sony Play Memories Remote Control does it all wirelessly.

Wires better bring zebras, peaking, magnification and color controls.

Unlike Panasonic GH5 with 5GHz, Sony is only 2.4Ghz. It's almost impossible to use that range at any big event.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 11:57 UTC

Very likely it will be some cheep Chinese crap with Zenit lable, as most of modern "Russian" goods.
And as I remember Zenit trademark was sold to China.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 00:34 UTC as 88th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Alexander Raemer: If google and alike made it imposible to right click and copy, download and save as etc, it would go a long way to protect everyone's copyright...

Do you mean stop displaying pictures? To show a picture you have to download it first.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 08:38 UTC
On article Advertising vs reality: microSD memory card speed test (73 comments in total)

Test is extremely stupid and absolutely useless. Most important minimum writing speed with mostly full card is not tested. That guys are just incompetent.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2017 at 10:37 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Cary Knoop: From the article: "4:2:2 10-bit codec is 64x as much data as before"

No it isn't!

10 bit is 4 times as much data as 8 bit and 4:2:2 is 1 1/3 times as much data as 4:2:0, so it is 5 1/3 times as much not 64 times as much.

There is only one explanation - incompetence. Which itself is ok if not ignorance. 4 bit is not 16 numbers, only possiblity of 16 different numbers. Amount of data is irrelevant to processing or storing. Data can be reduced during processing but amount of processing output is the same amount if you store it. 1 bit is minimum possible amount of information (presume maximum entropy), so 4 bits is twice bigger than 2 bits by amount of data. If you cut two cakes 1kg each into 4 and 16 pieces it does not mean the second cake become 4 times bigger.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 08:19 UTC
In reply to:

Cary Knoop: From the article: "4:2:2 10-bit codec is 64x as much data as before"

No it isn't!

10 bit is 4 times as much data as 8 bit and 4:2:2 is 1 1/3 times as much data as 4:2:0, so it is 5 1/3 times as much not 64 times as much.

Wait, subtract? Indeed...
How many disks do you need to store 10Mbit of data if one disk is only 1Mbit? 9 million disks.
What is the name of uni for such idiots?

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 05:34 UTC
In reply to:

Cary Knoop: From the article: "4:2:2 10-bit codec is 64x as much data as before"

No it isn't!

10 bit is 4 times as much data as 8 bit and 4:2:2 is 1 1/3 times as much data as 4:2:0, so it is 5 1/3 times as much not 64 times as much.

How much did you pay for your PhD? Or are you female?
If you even graduated high school you would know that amount of data/information is measured by number of bits and related to maximum possible number logarithmically.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

Cary Knoop: From the article: "4:2:2 10-bit codec is 64x as much data as before"

No it isn't!

10 bit is 4 times as much data as 8 bit and 4:2:2 is 1 1/3 times as much data as 4:2:0, so it is 5 1/3 times as much not 64 times as much.

It does not. You just have no idea what is data and how to measure it.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 04:59 UTC
In reply to:

Cary Knoop: From the article: "4:2:2 10-bit codec is 64x as much data as before"

No it isn't!

10 bit is 4 times as much data as 8 bit and 4:2:2 is 1 1/3 times as much data as 4:2:0, so it is 5 1/3 times as much not 64 times as much.

10 bits of data is 10/8 times more than 8 bits. But you will learn it at school.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 04:21 UTC
Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »