d3xmeister

Lives in Romania Alexandria, Romania
Works as a Radio DJ
Joined on Jan 24, 2010

Comments

Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Review: Affinity Photo 1.5.2 for desktop (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: I love that what these guys are doing. At least now we have a choice besides following the satanic-like cult of Adobe

Justy because I want to. It's a free world

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
On article Review: Affinity Photo 1.5.2 for desktop (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: I love that what these guys are doing. At least now we have a choice besides following the satanic-like cult of Adobe

I never used Lighroom. I used Photoshop. And no it is not easy at all to switch. And yes this move can be made by any company. And yes this is exactly how those satanic cults operate, the principle is identical.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 15:54 UTC
On article Review: Affinity Photo 1.5.2 for desktop (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: I love that what these guys are doing. At least now we have a choice besides following the satanic-like cult of Adobe

Unless you chosed to learn Adobe software for 15 years and now got screwed.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
On article Review: Affinity Photo 1.5.2 for desktop (293 comments in total)

I love that what these guys are doing. At least now we have a choice besides following the satanic-like cult of Adobe

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 19:02 UTC as 35th comment | 7 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon PowerShot G1 (155 comments in total)

$1100. And people are complaining the cameras today are expensive.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 18:52 UTC as 56th comment
In reply to:

mbot: Without a removable battery I will never pay such an outrageous price. A $400 Android phone does the same things, has Gorilla Glass 5, has the same size battery and has a Snapdragon 835 cpu, so why would I pay for a silly prententious outrageously overpriced sh_tty iPhone??

These manufacturers are expecting us to throw the phone away after three years when the battery is not optimal anymore, planned obscelescence - but not on my ship. I will stick with $300 Android phones - $100 a year (30¢ a day) for a phone is all I'm willing to stomach.

Bring back removable batteries and I'll happily pay $699 for a phone.

I agree and that's happening on both sides. But to be honest, I mostly see people bashing iphone buyers calling them sheeps, stupid all kind off stuff, actually this whole conversation was started from that.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
In reply to:

mbot: Without a removable battery I will never pay such an outrageous price. A $400 Android phone does the same things, has Gorilla Glass 5, has the same size battery and has a Snapdragon 835 cpu, so why would I pay for a silly prententious outrageously overpriced sh_tty iPhone??

These manufacturers are expecting us to throw the phone away after three years when the battery is not optimal anymore, planned obscelescence - but not on my ship. I will stick with $300 Android phones - $100 a year (30¢ a day) for a phone is all I'm willing to stomach.

Bring back removable batteries and I'll happily pay $699 for a phone.

The same reason some pay a ton of money for expensive sh_tty Andorid phones. It's not about the value. Some people call it the art of living.

Personally I agree with you, you can get cheap phones these days that do pretty much the same thing, while sometimes being more usable and versatile.

That said, you can't blame people for buying iphones or expensive androids. That's what they want, it is their money, why would we care ?

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

newe: Very soon Apple will have $2,000 phone. And Appsheeples will go into debt to get the phone. They'll buy it because they have nothing better to do. Should be outlawed.

Yeah, you can save tens of dollars buying a $900+ Samsung. Or better yet, for only $700, you can buy a phone with no features, made by a company who never made a phone (Essential Phone). Apple is crazy with such high prices.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 02:09 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

Interesting theory. It does make sense. Our eyes does some kind of real time HdR :) I will pay attention to this when I'm in a wide DR situatuin, and I will also compare to what my camera sees. Thanks

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 11:54 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

Well it shouldn't be dumb with all the computer power inside. I just found an explanation online for this, I don't know if it is correct or not. It's said the the camera can actually display all the information, but our displays can't handle that much. So when we are pushing the shadows by 4-5 stops, or highlights, we are actually compressing the 14-15 stops of dynamic range into 7-8 stops that our displays are capable of displaying. I don't know if it is true, it actually makes sense

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 09:01 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

Anyway I don't want to sound like I'm whining, these cameras we have are mindblowingly good, but maybe that's something the manufacturers can take into considerations for the next generations

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 08:44 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

Thanks, but again, that wasn't my dillema. Take the example above by dpreview. The camera should have been able to meter that photo so the highlights in the cloud won't be blown out, and still render details below without turning them in plain black. The sensor is clearly capable to do this. I don't see the logic. I got 14 stops of DR, but I have to underexpose like crazy to protect highlights and then push the shadows 4-5 stops to bring back the other 80% of the photo which is completely black ? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 08:35 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

All I'm saying is this. If the camera has so much DR, there should not be clipped highlights and shadows on the default rendering, jpeg or raw.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 07:52 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

I understand that, but take the photo presented above. I mean, 85% of that photo was completely dark if 4 stops of recovery were needed. The naked eye clearly sees something closer to the processed version. That's not a matter of taste anymore.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 07:12 UTC
On article Nikon D850: What we hoped for – and what we got (404 comments in total)

What I do not understand, is if there's so much DR to be able to push completely dark areas by 4-5 stops and still get very clean images, why isn't it there in the first place, in jpeg or default raw. Why do the 4-5 stops push in post is needed ?

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2017 at 06:03 UTC as 34th comment | 19 replies

These things never end with Nikon. Who the heck is running this company, a 12-year old ?

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 02:37 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Only suckers will buy this. It will be totally unusable at the longer focal lengths and will likely hit f6.3 somewhere between 150 and 200mm.

That wasn't the point, the first poster said only suckers will buy it because it will produce unusable images. Anyway, people on these forums praising high end gear usually produce worse photos than any good photographers with a point anshoot. There are exceptions of course, but the amount of lousy photographers producing sub-mediocre photos with high end gear is very highon these forums.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Only suckers will buy this. It will be totally unusable at the longer focal lengths and will likely hit f6.3 somewhere between 150 and 200mm.

The 70-200mm will look much better, which will probably be irrelevant for anybody looking at the photos displayed. DOF is a different matter.
But more importantly, the 70-200mm will look much worse if you left it at home, or if you don't have it mounted on the camera.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 13:42 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Only suckers will buy this. It will be totally unusable at the longer focal lengths and will likely hit f6.3 somewhere between 150 and 200mm.

Only snobs won't buy this, it will take amazing photos because of its versatility. Their 16-300mm is a suprinzingly good lens optically

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2017 at 02:07 UTC

I stopped buying soap shaped, heavy metal or glass phones. My only escape was these Chinese manufacturers who were still making square plastic phones. There were so much better to hold and carry, all the so called ,,flagship,, phones are a just a ,,premium,, showcase, but they are all terrible in use.

I also don't need One Milion K resolution screen. 1080p is enough on a big phone those that think they see the difference, what they see it's actually software sharpening (Samsung), or they stick their nose into the screen. Those 1080p phones are much better for battery than any flagship

For VR purposes, bigger resolution make sense. I don't need VR though.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 19:58 UTC as 12th comment
Total: 132, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »