Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 608, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Got Photoshop. #sorted

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 01:15 UTC as 30th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: RIP the very format that brought me out of 35mm Slide Film and into the Digital Age. I still have my E-1, and use it from time to time, though a lot less since moving to the OM-D EM-1. Olympus remains my favourite camera company, and continues to innovate so much more than the SoCaNikons of the world.

Brian

Totally. Though the OM-D EM-1 is now my go-to - the E-1, which has given me amazing pics over the past 12 years, is absolutely still worth using. Plus I have that nifty infrared remote for it - where I have to use an entire iPad on the OM-D!

Long live 4/3rds Cameras!

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 00:29 UTC

RIP the very format that brought me out of 35mm Slide Film and into the Digital Age. I still have my E-1, and use it from time to time, though a lot less since moving to the OM-D EM-1. Olympus remains my favourite camera company, and continues to innovate so much more than the SoCaNikons of the world.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 18:14 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

There wouldn't have been an "Azure Window" had storm action in prehistoric times, not smashed through a formerly perfect cliff outcrop! This is simply our planet reshaping itself, as it has done through all time, and will continue so to do.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 14:59 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Biowizard: However popular the 360-degree look-any-way POV photo has become, I am sick and tired of it being called "VR" (Virtual Reality). True VR puts the user in a three-dimensional space, around which he can move, change viewpoint (not just view direction), including walking around objects, looking inside objects, and quite possibly even interacting with them. To call a 360 degree image "VR" is massively to cheapen the true potential of technology.

Brian

Um - but it IS 360 degrees - horizontally and vertically. And still NOTHING to do with VR.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

creaDVty: > We are currently working on a review of the device,

DP Review's first actual review of a 360 camera? :-O I gotta see this.

The studio scene shots will be - er - interesting! Give us a chance for a good look-round the room! LOL!!

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: However popular the 360-degree look-any-way POV photo has become, I am sick and tired of it being called "VR" (Virtual Reality). True VR puts the user in a three-dimensional space, around which he can move, change viewpoint (not just view direction), including walking around objects, looking inside objects, and quite possibly even interacting with them. To call a 360 degree image "VR" is massively to cheapen the true potential of technology.

Brian

Just to elaborate - Google StreetView IS a simple form of VR. Anyone photo taken by one of its cameras, in isolation, is NOT.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 10:30 UTC

However popular the 360-degree look-any-way POV photo has become, I am sick and tired of it being called "VR" (Virtual Reality). True VR puts the user in a three-dimensional space, around which he can move, change viewpoint (not just view direction), including walking around objects, looking inside objects, and quite possibly even interacting with them. To call a 360 degree image "VR" is massively to cheapen the true potential of technology.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 10:29 UTC as 6th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Biowizard: What the fluffy bunny does "available for pre-order in May" mean?

Is the finished, production camera going to be available in May, or not?

Surely what your strapline SHOULD say, is "Ricoh will be happy to take your money from May onwards, for a camera which will (hopefully) be available at some point in the future".

Brian

My original point is more one of pure pedantry than a worry about ordering in advance (I do actually back interesting Kickstarter projects). It's the use of English: "Available to pre-order" is simply NOT logical and English. "Pre-order now" would be fine. The word, "Available", means, er, Available.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: What the fluffy bunny does "available for pre-order in May" mean?

Is the finished, production camera going to be available in May, or not?

Surely what your strapline SHOULD say, is "Ricoh will be happy to take your money from May onwards, for a camera which will (hopefully) be available at some point in the future".

Brian

Thanks racenviper - so the clock is wound forward 3 months - I still reject the concept of "available to pre-order". It's either available or it's not, and pre-order is just a Kickstarter-style attempt at cash-grabbing to cover a hole in company finances. I buy stuff once it (a) exists, (b) is in the supply chain, and most importantly (c) has been fully tested and reviewed both by the trusted press and others.

Brian

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 00:31 UTC

What the fluffy bunny does "available for pre-order in May" mean?

Is the finished, production camera going to be available in May, or not?

Surely what your strapline SHOULD say, is "Ricoh will be happy to take your money from May onwards, for a camera which will (hopefully) be available at some point in the future".

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 16:41 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

noirdesir: I know the case design shouldn't be too important but that focussing ring pattern really feels like these lenses were produced in the 1960s or 70s.

Yes but I _did_ !!!

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 10:43 UTC
In reply to:

noirdesir: I know the case design shouldn't be too important but that focussing ring pattern really feels like these lenses were produced in the 1960s or 70s.

Absolutely! CLASSIC ergonomics with MODERN glass - this would be perfection, if only I could clamp them (or their equivalents) onto my OM-D E-M1 ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 18:17 UTC

Oooh Metal-bodied Manual Prime Lenses. !!!WANT!!!

But I don't like Sony cameras, so will have to pass on this one :-(

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 18:15 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On article Kamerar Lens Zoom Kit for iPhone 7 Plus review (31 comments in total)
In reply to:

barrym1966: just stop fighting it, buy a camera, you can get really cheap pocket sized point and shoots nowadays that murder iphones..

I can shoot my Oly OM-D E-M1, even using my iPhone or iPad Pro as a viewing/framing screen if I want to, and then instantly plonk the results on social media. Plenty of cameras now from the GoPro up have WiFi links to smartphones. And nearly all of them take WAY better pics than a native smartphone.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 10:55 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Yeuck! Gives me the heebie-jeebies just looking at that picture! Surely any power user can simply remember their important keyboard short cuts, without making the keyboard look like a toy from a kindergarten Lego playgroup? Not to mention, that's the evil British layout with a misly thin, vertical "Return" key, rather than the sensible, wide, US version.

Brian

Well despite living in the UK all my life, I've always used the US keyboard layout, even when it has meant importing my laptop computers from US online stores. At least Apple gives me the choice direct from their UK website.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2017 at 10:37 UTC

Yeuck! Gives me the heebie-jeebies just looking at that picture! Surely any power user can simply remember their important keyboard short cuts, without making the keyboard look like a toy from a kindergarten Lego playgroup? Not to mention, that's the evil British layout with a misly thin, vertical "Return" key, rather than the sensible, wide, US version.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 09:58 UTC as 8th comment | 3 replies
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I'll believe this when Google provides a web page where I can upload an arbitrary 8*8 pixel photo reduction, and get something back that vaguely resembles my original photo. Until then, it's unproven snake oil.

Brian

Dear s1oth1ovechunk, you really do underestimate my knowledge in this area, as someone who has been working in AI for about 35 years. And yes, I fully understand the sensation of seeing hairs on a dog that is 100 yards way, because you already know what the dog looks like. The question isn't one of can you "convincingly" fill in missing detail (obviously you can, even with a pencil on a printout), but whether the "original" can somehow be recreated. And it is HERE that Google is using its vast library of indexed images.

When I "pixelate" something in an image I am uploading, I generally convince myself I can still recognise the faces I've blocked, or read the car registration numbers. Because I know what they are. But no-one else can recognise or read them - unless they've previously seen similar images. Just like your dog analogy.

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 12:05 UTC
On article Google AI adds detail to low-resolution images (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom Holly: Seems fundamentally dishonest. You can't just insert another face that just happens to fit the 8x8 mosaic and pass it off as "enhanced detail"...

Perhaps I should mention I have been working in AI since the 1980s (Imperial College, London). Of course I was over-simplifying my previous comment, because I didn't want to "lose" the general audience. And yes, we do a lot of work with Neural Nets in Prolog - my personal discipline being Logic Programming, and my company being named after it ... (WIN-PROLOG, LPA, ...).

Brian

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Truly telecentric, the individual apperture of each store is somewhat irrelevent. Assuming the insides of each straw are not too shiny, then 100% of the light dead ahead is what will land on the piece of film/paper at the other end, and very little else. Brilliant idea!

Brian

Thanks muchly! :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 17:18 UTC
Total: 608, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »