Reactive

Lives in United Kingdom Cardiff, United Kingdom
Joined on May 7, 2010

Comments

Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I can't see the relevance of this article. If you are already a professional Sony user then you are happy making a living using their own lenses, and you will therefore wait for a big Sony 300mm f2 if you need that sort of length+performance. If you are already a Canikon pro drooling over the a9's 'headline' speed (but listen to all those caveats in the video!) then you are definitely not going to switch to Sony until the necessary lenses become available. Either way, the article seems like a lot of whining that trying to mix different manufacturers' technology doesn't work too well; why should it? The only conclusion is that Sony need to pull their finger out and release some very expensive glass very quickly.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 07:45 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies

I have to say these glossy marketing videos are just that - lots of empty air. I'd much rather watch those poor quality YT videos showing pilots performing virtually impossible landings in these huge machines.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 08:41 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

JackM: You're right, that was cool. Crazy steep take-off angles!

But not with hundreds of obese passengers and a full fuel load on board ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 08:38 UTC
In reply to:

Reactive: I think it's great that Fuji are doing well, but I'm sure a couple of things might help them sell even more.
a) Replace the Fujifilm name. It's from yesteryear and looks silly and old-fashioned on a modern camera.
b) Try to modernize the designs. However technically competent they are, and however good the handling, making cameras that look like antique Zenits from the 1970s can do nothing but help many potential buyers overlook Fuji and go straight to modern looking Canons and Nikons.

@LakeSuperior1: I did not suggest that dials meant antique handling; I even suggested that the old design makes for good handling... even if the camera looks like an antique. That Zenit TTL (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zenit_TTL_(front_top_angle).jpg) was clearly decades ahead of its time.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 15:09 UTC

Probably more useful and practical for an immersive experience than any VR headset will ever be. And less nauseating. All we need now is a parabolic/hemispherical monitor!

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 13:19 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply

I think it's great that Fuji are doing well, but I'm sure a couple of things might help them sell even more.
a) Replace the Fujifilm name. It's from yesteryear and looks silly and old-fashioned on a modern camera.
b) Try to modernize the designs. However technically competent they are, and however good the handling, making cameras that look like antique Zenits from the 1970s can do nothing but help many potential buyers overlook Fuji and go straight to modern looking Canons and Nikons.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 12:05 UTC as 14th comment | 20 replies
On article How water droplets came to life for a Gatorade ad (103 comments in total)

Why waste all that effort, engineering, and expense to produce an effect that could have been done in about two days by a couple of CGI artists?

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 11:53 UTC as 15th comment | 9 replies

A few years ago my wife bought a Jim Marshall branded digital radio, and it was (is) crap. The sound quality is terrible compared with any ordinary DAB radio, making me wonder why anyone is so crazy about Marshall products. So in addition to this camera's inability to record colour, I guess Leica have made it apply a fuzzy lo-fi analog blur to every shot?

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2017 at 11:41 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Reactive: Dale, there is one fundamental reality you missed, which I thought would be in reason 6, "You’re stuck in place"... Exactly. You can't move about while wearing a VR headset without crashing into your surroundings. Well you can, but only a metre or two until a) you trip over a chair, or b) the headset wire pulls tight. Obviously, VR must become wireless to give it any chance at all, but after that only people who own a football pitch or a vast unobstructed warehouse floor will be able to run about and pretend they're really IN their immersive environment, holodeck style. That's why VR will fail. Great for flight or driving simulators, or niche training applications, impractical for everything else. Only Augmented Reality will gain any mass following, when we can click a button on normal looking spectacles and get instant translations or directions overlaid on the real, hard, world around us. Oh, hang on, didn't Google think of that years ago?

It is the counter-intuitive mismatch between physical movement and visual stimulus that make VR so nauseating. From the moment we are born our brain is miraculously calibrating a perfect physical/visual feedback system, and a crappy VR headset will always stick a spanner in that finely tuned system.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 14:59 UTC

Dale, there is one fundamental reality you missed, which I thought would be in reason 6, "You’re stuck in place"... Exactly. You can't move about while wearing a VR headset without crashing into your surroundings. Well you can, but only a metre or two until a) you trip over a chair, or b) the headset wire pulls tight. Obviously, VR must become wireless to give it any chance at all, but after that only people who own a football pitch or a vast unobstructed warehouse floor will be able to run about and pretend they're really IN their immersive environment, holodeck style. That's why VR will fail. Great for flight or driving simulators, or niche training applications, impractical for everything else. Only Augmented Reality will gain any mass following, when we can click a button on normal looking spectacles and get instant translations or directions overlaid on the real, hard, world around us. Oh, hang on, didn't Google think of that years ago?

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 11:56 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies

I bet the folks at Leica are chewing their fists in anguish that they didn't think of this. It's super minimal, has all the useful features stripped off, and even comes in an 'exclusive' color. Just slap on the red dot and it's got to be worth $10,000 of any oligarch's money?

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 07:33 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

cosinaphile: yes insanely expensive port crippled no sd slot disaster ,,,, almost as bad as apple .....is this a race to the bottom for connectivity and used convienence

this machine should have sd slot two usb c 2 usb a at least

Agree. Microsoft are becoming a silly lifestyle company just like Apple; overpriced, under-specified products aimed at stupid sheep with more money than sense. There are plenty more notebook manufacturers to choose from.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 15:04 UTC

It's nice to see great 'tech' articles on DP. To the best of my knowledge, there's one useful fact missing in the explanation of the focal plane shutter. At fast shutter speeds, the second curtain starts to close before the first has finished opening, so the sensor (or film) is exposed by a moving slot of light. At the very fastest shutter speeds this slot can be very narrow.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 09:07 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article MIT previews autonomous tracking drone (10 comments in total)

If DJI they made them a bit larger, painted them matt black, and gave them a more useful battery life, they would be just like those nasty spy droids you see in Star Wars, probably around episodes 1-3. Add recognition for a particular face (already available) and it could seek out a face in a crowd, track its movements, then fly home. Cellular comms would also allow the drone to send the video home in real-time, or at least start an upload while it's flying home.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 08:33 UTC as 5th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

Argh!!! I owned an Olympus MjuII in champagne gold exactly as shown in picture 8... but sold it on eBay (years ago) for about £40, amazed that anyone would want to bid for a used film camera. We shouldn't forget that there are still many old people who have no computer, so will never want to own any sort of digital camera.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 11:49 UTC as 115th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Superka: Olympus OM-series was ignored intentionally?

Me too! My OM10 + 50mm f1.8 + manual adapter might not be worth much, but some of those OM4Ti must be.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 10:52 UTC
In reply to:

Pat Cullinan Jr: The second example looks too good to be true.

That's probably because it is. I'd like to see how it would deal with text or humans in the background, or a much more out of focus chain link fence. Reminds me very much of when Adobe acquired the rights to the Context Aware / Fill technology. Yes, it can be a useful starting point, but nowhere near as good as their examples suggested.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 10:21 UTC
On article So you think you need to buy a RED camera (12 comments in total)

What a load of pointless BS. He could have made it a lot shorter by saying only:
"Hi there guys. If you don't know what a RED is, or you're not as talented as I am, don't buy one. Bye."

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 12:13 UTC as 2nd comment

Movie Maker started off many, many, years ago as a useful little app for quick, basic, video editing under Windows XP. It was utterly destroyed with the introduction of Windows Vista, and it became a completely useless, dumb-downed turd of a clip sorter. I still have no idea why Microsoft jumped backwards and sabotaged their own app. Watching this cloying promo video, it looks like they've just polished the Vista turd - there is no evidence of a multi-track timeline. If you're over 10 years old and actually want to *edit* video, download almost anything else like DaVinci Resolve (free). If you want 3D objects integrated with your video, then download the industrial strength Blender (also free, www.blender.org), which includes a video editor.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2017 at 08:49 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

davids8560: So about when can we expect 128K video?

My pet hawk can spot a mouse moving in a field of grass from 200 meters altitude, and he's constantly complaining about that terrible 4K quality. I generally play along with him and pretend I can see the dots too.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
Total: 253, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »