wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 719, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jackspra: Sample gallery needed soon as possible.

how is that going to work, holographic and all? Or did I miss a note of sarcasm in your post?

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 21:53 UTC
In reply to:

Beckler8: What are the chances the "holographic" display will be a huge disappointment? I'm thinking about 90%. I'd certainly like to be wrong tho...

nearer 100%, since the one thing it won't be is what they have billed it as - holographic!

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 21:52 UTC
In reply to:

physguy88: Excited to see this.

The display is made by a company called Leia Inc. it uses nanophotonics technology (this is a new subfield of applied physics that has blossomed in the past decade) to project dozens of different images in different angles. As a result, from any perspective within a wide zone in front of the display, your eyes will see two different, perspective correct, stereoscopic images, no goggles needed. For example, you can look at a vase from one side of your screen, and it gives you one stereoscopic picture, and then you look at it from the other side and it will show you the other side of the vase.

This gives you the illusion that your phone is a window to a real hologram that sits just behind the glass.

I'm not sure about the camera module. The way it's worded, it could be that you could attach this phone to a red camera as a controller rather than a small camera that attaches to the phone.

Thanks for that. So, stereoscopic, not holographic. Whilst there is no denying the magnitude of what they might have achieved, I can never understand why the marketing people undermine it by talking it up to fail.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

Tiefenunschärfe: @Samsung: We want bigger smartphone sensors, not faster ones.

You can have bigger sensors. The lens might be a problem, it would have to stick quite out some way. Meanwhile, we could play with super slo-mo.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2018 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Wow.... I give him a lot of credit. He took it apart, put it back together, and it STILL WORKED! I know I wouldn't dare take apart a $5,000 camera, because I know I would never be able to put it back together again.

But it does illustrate how complex these devices are and why they cost so much. A lot of engineering genius went into it.

I just hope he didn't void his warranty by taking it apart. That could be a very expensive mistake.

"As soon as you take a screw out of any electronic device, warranty is voided."
Says who? The manufacturer? Sure, they'd like you to believe that. Unfortunately for them, they don't write statute law. Always remember "Your statutory rights are not affected" by anything the manufacturer says.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 21:15 UTC
On article Canon launches refillable ink printers in the UK (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

virtualreality: Nice move, but Epson has large (eco)tanks for years.

@Keith Cooper
Epson also have 5-ink tank printers such as ET-7700. Commodoty? Well, not my idea of commodity price anyway!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:10 UTC
On article Canon launches refillable ink printers in the UK (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Keith Cooper: At four inks it's not a solution for those wanting top quality photo printing.
Great for home snaps, but not yet anything for the more advanced market

Now, bring out a PRO-1/10/100 update (all ageing models) with refillable tanks, and that will definitely stir some interest...

Epson do an A4 and an A3 EcoTank model with 5 inks. Not tried them. They are ET-7700 and ET-7750. Does anyine have any experience of these? I am looking for just such a printer, but at the price asked I want someone else to try it out first!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 21:09 UTC
On article Canon launches refillable ink printers in the UK (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: Good to see that Epson's InkTank idea has forced Canon to copy. A recent Digital Camera magazine (UK edition) tested various printers and stated the ink price to be £1.45/ml, which is much more expensive than many top-branded perfumes. But the rival Epson printer was £500+, which negated any savings from using its large ink tanks! My Canon MG6650 has proven to be an ink-wasting monster, and I can't wait until it goes wrong so I can stop feeding it. If Canon can keep these new printers sensibly priced, and the inks too, they'll have some winners.

@gesture
If you want 5 inks and ethernet check the Epson EcoTank ET-7700 or ET-7750

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: Is it only me had a poor experience with LG products?

Yes

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Brilliant. Hard to pick one but probably the owl, it made me laugh out loud.

which owl?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

herbymel: Have to remember this for next year...I've got some better ones then what is presented here.

THAN

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 16:49 UTC

I know two people whose mobiles died spontaneously (one down the toilet, the other plain old age). One had all the photos stored on the SD card, the other went with internal storage. Both suffered the cost of a new mobile phone. One kept all her photos, the other lost them all.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 20:43 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

LeeS: Not confidence inspiring that the authors of the press release use the term "depth of focus" when they really mean "depth of field".

D logH - that needs an edit somewhere! I think the second focus should be a field.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 18:20 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: who exactly needs hair-thin depth of focus? Even with my Olympus MFT 45/1.8 I can decide, which eye is sharp and wich is not even when one eye is only 1 cm behind/in front of the other ......

we humans are crazy ... we need more and more and more and more (and higher and higher and higher or faster and faster and faster) and nowbody asks about the sense .....

With hair-thin depth of focus it is only possible to capture completly flat subjects ......

Nobody.
I think they are erroneously using depth of focus (the zone of acceptable sharpness around the film plane) interchangeably with depth of field (the zone of acceptable sharpness around the object). I can't see an advantage to razor thin depth of focus - it can only serve to exacerbate deleterious effects of any curvature of the plane of focus etc.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

wetsleet: A "large 6-inch display"? Is that bigger than a regular 6-inch display?

Actually, I think I have found the answer, thanks in part to Yassine. It's so obvious! The size (area) of a "6 inch" display depends on the H:W ratio. The higher the ratio, the smaller the area for the same (6 inch) diagonal. So in this case it is actually a "small" 6-inch display, at least compared to 16:9 ratio 6-inch screen.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2017 at 20:31 UTC
In reply to:

XEddieX: After my Note4 finally died last week I just couldn't fathom buying and eye watering $800-1k phone. They are just getting so expensive now. I know they have some nice features, but I just don't see the value anymore. I stuck with with the Samsung S7 Edge. Plenty fast still, good size battery, great feeling materials and still takes great pictures. Oh and it still has a 3.5 audio jack (and yes I use it plenty of times per week). Guess spec wars are just not that appealing to me anymore.

I made the same reckoning as you, so when my Note 4 died I got it fixed. Even though it was over 2 years old and I love a decent excuse to buy a new shiny toy, I just could not muster the excitement. (Samsung did the decent thing and fixed it for free, after a bit of prodding).

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 17:28 UTC

A "large 6-inch display"? Is that bigger than a regular 6-inch display?

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 17:24 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

filmrescue: When I'm photographing women, I'm hyper conscious of and respectful of her space. If going to touch her at all to move her into a pose, I ask and let her know what I'm trying to achieve and I touch nowhere "out of bounds" or even near to that. Why are people defending this clown here. Not only do models need to be treat with respect simply from the standpoint of decency, Richardson only makes all of our jobs more difficult when gaining the trust of a model. Terry Richardson is amongst the worst of humanity. To hell with him.

@ptox you misunderstand me. I was agreeing that claims need to be proved. If someone claims women made up a story of sexual assault against them, then that needs proof. Likewise if a woman makes a claim of sexial assault against her, that also needs proof. You can't have an asymmetry of standards. Seems obvious, but there is so much commentry about how "the victim should be believed", when the "victim" is what needs to be proved.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

filmrescue: When I'm photographing women, I'm hyper conscious of and respectful of her space. If going to touch her at all to move her into a pose, I ask and let her know what I'm trying to achieve and I touch nowhere "out of bounds" or even near to that. Why are people defending this clown here. Not only do models need to be treat with respect simply from the standpoint of decency, Richardson only makes all of our jobs more difficult when gaining the trust of a model. Terry Richardson is amongst the worst of humanity. To hell with him.

@ptox
"prove it"
Cuts both ways.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

NDT0001: What a joke this is. His entire career is based upon on this type of conduct. And now all of a sudden the fashion industry is running for cover to avoid guilt by association? He never made any attempts to hide his methods and results yet he’s been hired by these publications for years. In a lot of ways I applauded him for at least being transparent about his position. On the other hand you have The magazines and blogs who feed off his perversity and now wish to take the moral high ground only because it may affect their readership. No prospective model can ever claim that they didn’t know what kind of material he produces and the methods he uses to achieve it no matter how young or naive.

@fatdeeman
"If you do a google image search for "Terry Richardson" you will not see much in the way of pornography in the results. Go try it now."

Uh, I just did what you advised. Maybe your threshold is higher than mine, but what I saw was definitely pornographic. Fluids, organs, the whole 9 yards. OK, I used Duckduckgo. And yeah, you have to remove "safesearch", obviously.

"It doesn't really matter how famous his sexual photos are, it doesn't make it ok to sexually exploit people!"

I'm guessing now, but I'm assuming these photos ARE the sexual exploitation.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 23:20 UTC
Total: 719, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »