Le Kilt

Lives in France South-West, France
Works as a Searching for Light
Joined on Mar 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 580, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Erm, is there a working prototype?
Or is it all on marketting and trust?

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 21:26 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply

The problem with all this is that it becomes obvious now that once you've got the shot, shoot the monkey!
:
:
:-O

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 08:58 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

vFunct: This is a good thing, if the court sides with the photographer at the end of all this.

The core issue that people forget is that clicking a button on a camera doesn't make you the copyright holder. A lot of pro photographers have assistants take their photos for them, and a lot of other cameras are automated or remotely triggered. The copyright holder needs to be the photographer in all those cases, and not just given to random acts of nature.

The moronic idea originally propagated by Wikipedia is that the photo was an act of nature, was was stupid. Nature can't create a photograph by itself. You have to arrange for the shot, you have to process the shot, you have to export the shot to output material, etc..

Pointing a camera and clicking a button doesn't make one a photographer. Processing, organization, etc.. are just as important.

RegisS : The guy who walks in. Unless the photographer somehow has contractual rules that apply to anybody entering the place/event. In which case the guy would still be the author of his pic, but maybe not allow to commercialise it.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: This is a good thing, if the court sides with the photographer at the end of all this.

The core issue that people forget is that clicking a button on a camera doesn't make you the copyright holder. A lot of pro photographers have assistants take their photos for them, and a lot of other cameras are automated or remotely triggered. The copyright holder needs to be the photographer in all those cases, and not just given to random acts of nature.

The moronic idea originally propagated by Wikipedia is that the photo was an act of nature, was was stupid. Nature can't create a photograph by itself. You have to arrange for the shot, you have to process the shot, you have to export the shot to output material, etc..

Pointing a camera and clicking a button doesn't make one a photographer. Processing, organization, etc.. are just as important.

Not a specialist in law, but here in France there is the copyright and the author.
If you're taking photos for someone else (e.g. particularly for a paid shoot), you're not the copyright owner, but if you're pressing the shutter release you are the author.
So whoever 'owns' the shoot, e.g. customer, bride and groom, owns the copyright, but you remain the author forever (unless by contract or agreement you retain the copyright and sell them usage rights).
I would consider the monkey as the 'author', and David Slater as the copyright owner, and PETA as people who've got it wrong.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 23:52 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

@stevo23 - My mistake, you can adjust the theoretical aperture in the software, which does adjust the DOF.
I thought I would check, as I still have a copy of the desktop software, and it still amuses me...for 30 seconds!

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 12:52 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

@PaloAltoMark LOL, I'm not sure where you get the idea I confuse DOF with shutter blur (I think you mean motion blur), I eat cameras for breakfast ;-)
Lytro not not allow you to adjust the depth of field, it only allows you to refocus the image when you visualise it with their app.
What would have been interesting is for their app to do focus stacking, which could provide a single image with greater depth of field.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 11:57 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

@stevo23 - agreed, and I think they just dreamed up the system. Technically it would be possible, but in practical terms it would need an impressive team to build it and get it working reliably, particularly dealing with those volumes without overheating. Maybe Google will have a go...

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 13:50 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

@stevo23 Figure of speech, but the bandwith needed could well exceed that for 755Mp at 300fps!

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 13:06 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

What would have been cool would have been software to extract all the different focussed planes and do automatic focus stacking for macro pics etc.

I still think the data transfer from their 755MP version will melt wires - oh, unless they're using fibre-optic coms! ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 01:27 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

What I disliked is that it wasn't just venture funding, they presold at least their first cameras to people before production using hype. I doubt any buyers realised they would only get a 1/4 MP resolution gimmick photo.
I criticised the dpreview articles at the time, as they seemed very good-willed and un-critical for a photographer's website :-/
I haven't seen any ILLUM images, and I believe they've completely pulled the plug on them on their site. If it's really no longer possible to display them on the web in any way, they are dastardly rogues!

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 01:18 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

P.S. What's 'peak' resolution?
I couldn't recall the ILLUM resolution, if the final image we see is 4MP and of high quality it can be of use (although I wouldn't call it close to 10MP!).
If the resulting still extracted is a mediocre 4MP, it's not going to enthrall many.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 01:00 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: Lytro allowed my to make one of my few predictions that came true. When it was first announced I predicted it would fail in the marketplace. I was immediately attacked for my failure to see the possibilities, of being some kind of Luddite. To those who doubted my prescience, I told you so. ;-)

@Sezano : Agreed, something sad about someone saying "I told you so".

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 00:45 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

@xeriwthe, As Roland says, light rays are not megapixels, it's hype.

Can you imagine 755 MP at 300 fps? Ask people dealing with 4K @ 25 fps (8MP) about volumes and bandwidths. Do the maths and tell me what fast cable and server they're connecting up to, to transfer the data to... Hype! And I'm being polite. It does not exist. Maybe if Google plough in a billion dollars they can do something like that. What have Lytro ever produced? Disappointment.
Even now people are being taken in by their crap.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 00:37 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)
In reply to:

mahonj: Lytro solved a problem that no-one had.
Hence the fire sale.
It is a shame because the tech was cool, but it takes more than cool tech to build a successful company.

Plenty people have the problem of wanting to refocus a mis-focussed pic after the shot is taken.
Lytro made it possible.
But with a reolution so small (<1megapixel) you wouldn't even attempt to print it postcard size. It remained a small web-based gadget amusement for 2 minutes.
If they had produced even a 10 mega-pixel image version, that would have been amazing, but they didn't have the means.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2018 at 22:35 UTC
On article Google reportedly to acquire Lytro for $40 million (166 comments in total)

Interesting technology, but Lytro's marketting of it to grab pre-production sales was insulting.
Maybe putting in a few tens of millions could make something really amazing and useful of it. Once again, some comments show that some (not all, thankfully) have been misled about what this technology can - and can't - do :-/

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2018 at 22:22 UTC as 29th comment
On article Canon EOS M50 Review (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEngineer: My impression: The competition blows it away, so why waste your time with it?

Best touch screen with full tilt and swivel

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

Blaklynx01: Rent is for life unless you change packages at some point.

If I want to use the same Win7 64 PC for 10 yrs and upgrade nothing, then I get 10 yrs at a one-off cost. I can also run a PC 'off-line' forever and upgrade absolutely nothing (hardware and software) for years and the everything will run perfectly fine (until hardware fails and it *may* not run the software, I guess)

I don't need all the fancy stuff in software. PS CS6 and Nikon NX2 does what I need. I also use ACDSee Ultimate 10 (upgraded from Ultimate 8 2yrs later). Total cost of ACDSee? $149US for both versions. A measly $50/yr (been using for 3yrs)

If you need the latest upgrades and believe that every upgrade is useful, then more power to you. There'll be a time where you may think, "I pay every year and what am I really getting?"

Businesses want roughly 10%+ growth each yr. The $billions$ becomes ludicrous and you'll be questioning what the hell is with all the greed. It'll never be enough for them, I'm afraid.

It's outrageous, Starbucks charge $5 for a coffee?!!!
Is it rental or a one-off fee?

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2018 at 08:45 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7 III (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

Le Kilt: Sony : How come no intervalometer ???

Yes, Canon used to hold us to ransom for their expensive intervalometer until other produced them, then they gave in and added it to the firmware like they all should today.
P.S. The function has existed in some cameras over 10 years ago, so there's no excuse.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 00:48 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7 III (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

Le Kilt: Sony : How come no intervalometer ???

Sony started an Apps system with the PlayMemories system, where you can actually download apps to your telephone from the web, and add all sorts of functionalities to it. Some free and some not.
I used this on the RX-100 III and V, and it is available on several of their high end cameras like A7RII.
One of the apps you have to pay for is an intervalometer, the only way of adding this function to several of the high-end cameras. I think this is appaling and shameful of Sony.
Now they bring out cameras where you can't even add the function despite having the programs and tools available.
Shame on you Sony.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 00:27 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7 III (584 comments in total)

Sony : How come no intervalometer ???

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2018 at 20:43 UTC as 11th comment | 6 replies
Total: 580, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »