Andrew53
Lives in
Udon Thani, Thailand
Works as a
Retired
Joined on
Dec 4, 2011
About me:
More money than brains. |
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Old Mate by old shutter bugger from People Photography 2022 | under construction by hozho from Under Construction | Date by CarlosU from I get a Long | Anna's Hummingbird-5575 by vbuhay from Color me Wild - Shades of Green | Bursting with Joy by TaoVerit from Montage | Pileated Woodpecker in Flight by Fotorequest from A Big Year - Birds 2022 |
Ze De Boni: Fake image! The description of the algorithm for processing the signals received by the radio-telescopes into an acceptable image can be read as a confession of a fraud.
They input a predicted image that is how one would expect to get, based on the theoretical thought . Then the basic task of the processing software is to recognize one, among an infinitude that were formed with the same instruments, which fits the model. Quite a tricky illusionism! It is more an imaginary image, carefully artificially colored to impact our senses, rather than the true reality, which we still cannot know how it would appear in an unbiased research. It works for delight of laypeople, for publicity and for promotion of huge investment in research facilities and employees. But it has the same value as many other astronomy "artist's impressions".
EDITED
You are mistake, or taking a very narrow view of the entire processing. First of all the link you provided is not the scientific paper, it is a popular description without the actual algorithm. Secondly, as a popular description you have mistaken the selection process as being arbitrary. It is not. Some pictures "looking" better than others is not an arbitrary process. Some pictures are not physically possible or physically unlikely or physically likely. A more accurate description would probably read something like: Final image selection candidates are based on likelihood of fitting physical situations consistent with other observations and well established principles of physics. This is not arbitrary but leverages hundreds of years of science. It may be possible to construct an almost random "image" which will give the same observation, but highly unlikely given our knowledge of gravity and the fact the telescope was pointed at a known object. IOW a non-linear constraint.
Many comments here have assumed that MSN has improperly used the images. However, the original MSN article is attributed to the Washington Post and MSN probably licensed the entire article from them. The MSN article even shows the copyright as being owned by the Washington Post.
Since we don't know and the arrangement between MSN and the Washington Post or the arrangement between the Photographer and the the Washington Post it is certainly too early to put the blame on MSN.
Many parks around the world limit the number of visitors to protect nature. I live in SE Asia and there are many such parks especially marine parks.
Asking people not to geo-tag seems to me to be a reasonable request that might avoid more drastic solutions to rapidly shrinking and degrading natural habitat.
santamonica812: "...For context of how much adult content there is on Tumblr, former Tumblr CEO David Karp said in June 2012 that roughly two to four percent of the content on Tumblr was related to pornography. A year later, in May 2013, web analytics firm SimilarGroup came out with its own analysis claiming 22,775 of the 200,000 most-visited Tumblr domains were pornographic in nature — roughly 11.4 percent. The discrepancies between those two statistics is stark, but..."
No, the discrepancy is NOT stark. It's not much of anything, since the two statistics are measuring two independent things. If Karp has said, "Only 2-4% of the most popular sites relate to porn.", then you'd be comparing apples to apples. But Karp was talking about total content on the site, and the second statistic was talking only about the most popular domains.
Now, I have no idea if both statistics are correct, or both are incorrect, or whatever. Just making the point that the differences are meaningless.
[cont]
"Lies, damned lies and statistics."
NYT Headline: "Drug on fast track approval because a 50% improvement in efficacy". It went from 94% with the old drug to 96% with the new drug, or essentially NO CHANGE with the margin of error in the study. And this was the NYT.
Completely agree with you. People need to know more about statistics, their use and their abuse.
I just want to say that anything that brings a wider range of digital range finders compatible with the M-mount is a good thing. I would love to see an even cheaper knock-off, Leica made or not.
I'm most hyped about the new smaller 24-105 and 50mm f1.2 - my two favorite lenses of all time but smaller and lighter.
Body looks OK but I do wish it had IBIS.
entoman: The RF mount is rumoured to be virtually identical to the existing EF mount, but able to detect whether an RF or EF lens is mounted, and switch protocols automatically. If true, this will be wonderful news for Canon users, who will be able to use our existing L glass *without* an adaptor.
A lot of people seem content to use adaptors, but for me, anything that introduces extra "play" or potential extra entry points for moisture or dust, is not a good thing.
Canon rumors show pictures with an adapter to EF lenses. Flange distance for RF is rumored to be 20mm. EF lenses have a flange distance of 44mm. Most likely an adapter is required unless Canon has some novel way of overcoming the focusing issues.
Leica M is about 27mm, so adapters to use Lecia glass will be available shortly.
epambos: Since I am invested in the EF lens system, I guess I have to wait whether the Canon full frame ILC with an adapter, is a better (video) option than the Sony A7 III with a similar adapter...
Telephoto lenses are large, so using an adapter isn't a big deal. Ultra-wide zooms also tend to be large so using an adapter isn't a big deal. Really fast zooms tend to be large so using an adapter isn't a big deal.
Seems to me that people won't be giving up too many EF lenses if they move to mirrorless. Just a couple of primes and the travel zoom.....
I guess it has a potato-crop sensor.
nekrosoft13: before class action lawsuits, Apple kept saying there is no issue.
After class action lawsuits, now they are offering replacement....
Funny how Apple cult operates.
The Davinator typed:
"Hmmm...like Ford...like GM, like Samsung, like IBM, etc, etc, etc. No cult at all...just notmal business."
Samsung, acknowledges, recalls or replaces faulty phones within a couple of months of the problem being found.
Apple, denys, waffles, claims user error, waits four years and three class action lawsuits before it says "some models" are affected.
Yep, exactly the same business practice.....
Arastoo Vaziri: Nice try, DPR, but only phone shooters with no experience of an half-decent camera will be convinced.
And stop trying to fool people with that ridiculous "computational photography" concept. It doesn't work anymore.
What you say may be mostly true for mobile phone cameras, but take a 1" sensor, give it a good fast lens, add a little processing magic and it might be difficult to see any difference with a FF or MF even when printed 20" wide.
Andrew53: I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
Processing is a necessary procedure to convert the imperfect captured data into an imperfect representation on some media, such as screen or paper.
Post processing is an alternative that augments or bypasses what occurred in the camera, scanner, lab or film. The processing (post or otherwise) can be done to try and reproduce an objective reality or not.
My objective (most of the time) is to show what I saw. Not to change it into something that wasn't there. That may, or may not be your objective.
Andrew53: I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
So, spin (lying) is OK as long as there is buck to be made? I am not unaware of how the world works. I don't have to like it.
I know art really has no boundaries, but I am glad my objective is to get a picture of what I saw.
Great, another 5 hours search for that stupid non-standard cable.
Michiel953: “Bringing iconic black & white photography to life.”. That’s where it all goes wrong.
Normally I would mostly be in agreement with the sentiments expressed.
However,....
B+W is an abstraction of the real world and in my view there is an argument that war should be seen in full color so we all know the horror of it. Art may be art, but violent death is not.
The colorized civil war photograph brings that war out of the quaint, nostalgic past and into a stark, horrible reality.
Since I'm not going to CC, it means I'm stuck with Lightroom 6. Probably means I won't upgrade my cameras. Probably means no point in coming to DP Review any more.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, DP Review et all should all take note. Maybe time to stop cooperating with Adobe. DP Review could start by switching RAW converters.
I took a similar shot with HDR. Posted in my gallery. I think mine is better.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5257930274/photos/3687355/2017-08-21-hdr_eclipse-0069
Of course, getting the aircraft in the photo was just luck. The HDR, however, I spent months planning.
I made a short time lapse of the HDR as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8twysjdzw
(unknown member): Any ultra wide angle lens with an aperture above 2.8 can be a waste of money. I say that because the bokeh you get with that aperture in such a focal length is narrow and not that interesting or useful (except in macro shots). But, in a medium format, it would make much more of a difference, since its equivalence would produce the bokeh of a 21mm, and thus, a more useful (or impressive) bokeh for shots other than macro. I saw that they have an ƒ/4 version, but I don't know how if it is as good or how better it is. It has a 1:1 macro feature and shift capabilities.
Hmmm, weddings? Unique shots during the reception? No need to worry about high ISO or focus? Just wait, I think I talked myself into buying one.
ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.
This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)
6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.
If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.
Your right some people are clueless. I was complaining about pulling up the shadows too much.