Najinsky

Joined on Feb 21, 2006

Comments

Total: 480, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (149 comments in total)

8 bit RGB x 8 x 8 =
256 x 256 x 256 x 8 x 8 =
~1 billion source combinations

Given there are 7b people on the planet it's already down to1 in 7 accuracy at best.

And that's assuming the source is a simple face portrait. It could be a full body shot, in an infinite number of poses. Or a cat. Or a bowl of fruit, or a fish bowl, with one fish, or two, or seven, or a mountain, or a field, or a flower, or a mountain surrounded by fields of flowers, or a picture of mar, or the Milky Way, or or or...

The kind of accuracy that gets plumbers shot on subways by anti terrorist squads...

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 19:13 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: This has the potential to be a polarising issue between enthusiasts and imaging professionals.

IPs have to eat many costs associated with providing their service, of which this is just one. The costs are factored into their pricing and so increases get passed onto their customers and for the most part they are not unduly impacted. However, customers can also shop around for a better deal, so if IPs are forced to raise their prices, it can impact their competitiveness in an already competitive field.

But a bigger impact is for enthusiasts, who are currently seeing price hikes come at them from every angle, and who don't have a way to offset those costs as it is primarily a hobby. I think it's feasible more and more enthusiasts may seek alternatives.

Personally, I've gradually been weaning myself off adobe products for many years. Their offerings border on cumbersome and overkill for me. And they are so slow to move. Lightroom still doesn't have full support for exploiting GPUs.

Yes, for sure, some have, but others are thriving too. It's not unique to imaging. One way to keep relevant is to have what is in demand. Another is to do what others do but do it well and keep your customers happy. Some thrive, some survive, some fall by the wayside.

Thinking you own the game is a common mistake. You always need to keep an eye on the rear view. Adobe have been thinking they own the game for a long long time, love em or hate em they have proved resilient, who knows if they are in end game or new era territory, but it has the feeling like it might be one or the other.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: The £ has been this rate against the dollar before.

Ergo, in between then and now, the £ strengthened.

But good luck trying to find a corresponding Adobe announcement where they reduce the price for UK buyers due to the stronger £.

@Eamon

Yes, for physical products like cameras that a retailer has already bought stock of, a rebate is a sensible way to deal with a price cut, but not so much with digital downloads.

And there is also the balancing act of trying to encourage new sales with a discount, while not upsetting recent purchasers who paid a higher price.

Discounts are trickier for sure. But the comment isn't really about price rises, it more about blaming/Justifying that rise on exchange rates that can fluctuate in both directions, especially for a digital download.

And then there is the second half to the 'story' which is this price rise, which is apparently due to exchange rates, just happens to coincide with the retirement of the non-cloud version....

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 18:28 UTC

This has the potential to be a polarising issue between enthusiasts and imaging professionals.

IPs have to eat many costs associated with providing their service, of which this is just one. The costs are factored into their pricing and so increases get passed onto their customers and for the most part they are not unduly impacted. However, customers can also shop around for a better deal, so if IPs are forced to raise their prices, it can impact their competitiveness in an already competitive field.

But a bigger impact is for enthusiasts, who are currently seeing price hikes come at them from every angle, and who don't have a way to offset those costs as it is primarily a hobby. I think it's feasible more and more enthusiasts may seek alternatives.

Personally, I've gradually been weaning myself off adobe products for many years. Their offerings border on cumbersome and overkill for me. And they are so slow to move. Lightroom still doesn't have full support for exploiting GPUs.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 17:05 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: The £ has been this rate against the dollar before.

Ergo, in between then and now, the £ strengthened.

But good luck trying to find a corresponding Adobe announcement where they reduce the price for UK buyers due to the stronger £.

The pound previously dropped below 1.40 around 2009, but admittedly you have to go back somewhat further for when It went below 1.30.

But exchange rates are often little more than a convenient patsy, even more so with digital and cloud products.

There can be a kind of 'country tax' due to local regulations but for the most part that has already been included in the existing RRP.

I have a gut feeling this may be more related to America pulling out of TPP, which was a much darker thing than it's marketing blurb conveyed, but I haven't spent any time contemplating what the connections to that may have been, particularly given the UK/Europes geography in relation to that. But it's a complicated world!

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 16:10 UTC

The £ has been this rate against the dollar before.

Ergo, in between then and now, the £ strengthened.

But good luck trying to find a corresponding Adobe announcement where they reduce the price for UK buyers due to the stronger £.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 12:40 UTC as 57th comment | 8 replies
On article Hasselblad CEO Oosting to leave next week (164 comments in total)

I'm a little concerned by this story.

The X1D is a very interesting camera. The sample image quality is absolutely stunning, the design appears simple, beautiful, elegant and hopefully will be ergonomically successful too. It's a little pricey for my hobby, but my interest is such that I would consider returning to work for a few months to fund the purchase.

But abrupt management shake-ups while needing to raise finance and significantly ramp up production more commonly lead to disasters than success stories. The fear on one side is that of lengthy delays with poor information disclosure, while on the other is the fear of the kind of short-cuts and compromises that can impact QA, reliability and performance.

Wish I'd gone to photokina and pre-ordered on first day!

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2017 at 16:24 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies

DPR: "It has a pentaprism viewfinder with 'nearly' 100% coverage and a 0.63x equivalent magnification"

Press release: "With a nearly 100-percent field of view and magnification of approximately 0.95 times, it provides a wide, bright image field for easy focusing and framing."

Is crop factor/equivalence being applied to viewfinders now?

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 03:02 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies

Nice App. Especially useful is the combined serial number and report as stolen feature. If more people used that it would become harder and riskier to buy and use stolen gear, which in turn could reduce the incentive for gear theft. A long way off perhaps, but the ease and convenience this app offers is just the kind of thing to kickstart the process.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 10:23 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

LLM208: If Jared intends to not release an Android-compatible version of this app, he will be missing out on a lot of business, like Camera+ has, and the opportunity to truly be competitive with an existing dual-OS app (Lenstag). For now, I will use Lenstag, which is essentially the same thing, though there is some promise with the features MyGearVault has incorporated so far.

I'm an App developer. The biggest issue with developing for Android is there is not one Android.

Not only are there multiple active versions, but a plethora of diffent device capabilities, sizes and graphical front ends, collectively this is called Android fragmentation.

A few years back when the app industry attempted some metrics, a commonly accepted metric was 10-20 times the development effort for initial release and maintenance up to first major upgrade. However, with some scaling back of the supported targets and using more efficient IDEs, the generally accepted figure is now 2-3 times more development effort per release.

This extra effort is a major factor in why solo and small team app developers focus on IOS first, especially for free apps.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 10:06 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Perhaps I'm alone in this, I often am, but my mind can't resist to draw parallels with what is happening here on DPR in their quest/side effect of forcing/encouraging manufacturers to add every latest feature under the sun to their product or suffer the consequences of a low review score. The result, cameras that overheat, and/or have additional heat management systems contributing to the larger and more expensive bodies.

Kudos to Canon for still knowing how/when to buck the trend and make a great stills compact that doesn't try to do too much, and does what it does very well, in the most part.

Kudos to me for taking a phone topic back to cameras ;)

It makes little sense viewing today as distinct from the past. We are here because of how we got here.

In body film stabilisation was not practical at the time of film, so stabilisation was added to lenses. Canon introduced the first interchangeable lens with IS in 1995. It was specifically to address slow shutter speeds due small apertures at the tele end of zoom lenses. As it added to cost and design complexity, it was only to those lenses where it was most useful. As Canon moved to digital, they didn't need to address stabilisation again because it was already taken care of by the lenses.

Much later in the day, Olympus developed the fantastic 5 axis IBIS (which spread to Sony) and Pentax it's SR. Panasonic and Fuji went for lens based IS, but Panasonic is now changing too.

Canon had the least reason to adapt, but the benefits are evident for all to see so adapt they will. And, probably, like most things Canon, in their own time but done well.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 06:03 UTC

Perhaps I'm alone in this, I often am, but my mind can't resist to draw parallels with what is happening here on DPR in their quest/side effect of forcing/encouraging manufacturers to add every latest feature under the sun to their product or suffer the consequences of a low review score. The result, cameras that overheat, and/or have additional heat management systems contributing to the larger and more expensive bodies.

Kudos to Canon for still knowing how/when to buck the trend and make a great stills compact that doesn't try to do too much, and does what it does very well, in the most part.

Kudos to me for taking a phone topic back to cameras ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 15:18 UTC as 5th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

@Lan: It's DPR's job to try, and they love their job. It's our job to let them know how well we think they are doing, and we love our job too ;-)

@rrccad: Thanks for the confirmation

@Jeff: Thanks, look forward to seeing more tele shots when you get the chance.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 08:32 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: It is good that Canon joined mirrorless in a more serious way, finally. But there was no fanfare, they've come to the party very late. I hope the thing sells and I hope they don't treat it like the insane uncle, the way Nikon created and treated the 1 series, hiding it away at photo shows, sticking it FAR from the DSLR's on the store shelves, at least the ones I'd seen.

Here in Asia the EOS M line has sold in line with target expectations, and when you walk around the camera stores in the bricks and mortar outlets it's very easy to see why. Canon are so far ahead of the competition in terms of size and quality of their retail presence, it can make it very hard not to buy a Canon, even if you had no intention to.

I'd need more than two hands to count the times I almost bought an M camera, even though I had gone into the store to buy an FE or M43 lens!

I don't know how it will pan out with the higher price of the M5, but last time I was in a large mall (about 4 months I guess) it looked like Nikon had left the camera business and the only one trying to mount a challenge to Canon were Olympus, taking a very similar approach in their retail approach but on a much smaller scale.

Given Olympus went big, pro and expensive with the E-M1.2 my gut feel is Canon will sell a lot of M5s, here in Asia at least.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 07:27 UTC
In reply to:

Mateus1: I expected better colours than Panasonic but they are even worse, and far behind Fuji, Panasonic, Sony.

IQ dissapointed.

@julienA

Yes and No. Sensors record the response of filtered light. The 'red' channel is the response from the light that passed through a 'red' portion of the CFA.

With a manufacturer like Canon that 'makes' their own sensors, the red filter could be filtering a slightly different wavelength of red than other sensors.

Indeed when I switched from the original 5D to the Mk2, myself and many others noticed a real difference in the rendering in various circumstances. There have been many discussions about it, like this one:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1013683/2&year=2011#9643240

There is also the potential for slight differences from the IR filter, and some crosstalk due to pixel design.

Raw processors need a matrix that describe the colour response for each channel to work out the colours. Some use values from the maker, some make their own, and some let you choose different options.

In this way, there really can be makers colour signature, but it can be optional too.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

Final point. If these M lenses are not automatically software corrected, Canon has done a truly exceptional job on them. The 11-22 is excellent, the 22/2 is excellent, the 28mm is very good and the 15-45 is very good. Yet they are all compact, light and very reasonably priced.

Based on these samples, we can now also see the 18-150 is also very nice, at least up to 62mm anyway :-p

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

... continued.

For M43 cameras, these lens corrections again get automatically corrected by ACR/LR and virtually all major raw software products, although there are now some others that let you see the uncorrected version (if you really want to!)

When DPR test a M43 lens, they usually mention the uncorrected performance as well. However, for sample galleries, they use ACR/Lightroom, so this essentially means that for M43 cameras, and any other cameras/lenses where automatic software correction is supported, such as the LX3 and most subsequent premium compacts, those galleries are possibly benefiting from software corrected images.

It's a tricky situation, and not one of DPR's making, but as M5 is competing more against M43 cameras, it would be interesting to know if these compact M lenses are also designed for software correction, and if it is automatically being applied.

Another case is Sony's 16-50 pancake zoom. This is hugely distorted and requires correction for normal use.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 19:13 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

@lan "Lens samples are traditionally posted without correction to show how the lens performs, rather than how the camera's JPEG engine performs."

It got more complicated than that when Panasonic introduced the raw capable LX3 in 2008. For a simpler design, the lens was designed to be software corrected using data supplied in the raw files.

The first version of ACR to support LX3 did not support these corrections and raw images from the camera looked dreadful with huge distortions. Panasonic lobbied Adobe, arguing the correction data was part of the raw file and must be atomically applied during raw conversion. Eventually adobe cooperated and since then corrections have been applied automatically in the background during raw conversion with no user control, so most users are unaware it is happening.

Later that year, Panasonic introduced the first M43 camera, the G1 and part of the M43 spec was the use of software corrections for lenses, again to keep lens design compact...

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 18:59 UTC

Very poor gallery.

First, it's an 18-150 lens, yet only two shots are over 50mm; one at 62/f11 and one at 150/f9.

The 150 f9 shot has nothing in sharp focus, is this a photographer choice or is the lens really that soft at 150 f/9? If it's really that soft there is no point having the lens go to 150 as an upsampled 100mm would look better. Well, that could be the case for this type of zoom, but in this case we have to guess because there is no 100mm shot, or 80mm, or 135mm, etc.

Also, to keep lenses compact and easier to design, software corrections are allowed for. This happens automatically during raw conversion for many cameras. For example, M43 images carry image correction data in the image file which is applied automatically by most major converters. How does it work with EOS-M, as some of these images would clearly benefit from some basic CA and diffraction compensation.

Guys, you know I love you, but I find this content quite sub-par on several levels.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 15:58 UTC as 31st comment | 9 replies

Mhmm, with those totems, could make for an excellent retro gaming table. Robotron anyone? Air Hockey?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
Total: 480, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »