Reactive

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

Comments

Total: 136, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

brownie314: Yes, yes - it was pointless, it was a waste of time, money, equipment, talent.......yet- here we are talking about it....

For all the wrong reasons; i.e it's crap.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 06:38 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

CreeDo: I'm surprised anyone even thinks the obviously-CG car was a photo taken in a studio.

Look at all the jaggies... even a camera with no AA filter isn't going to give you per-pixel sharpness to the point where you see stairstep aliasing on every visible diagonal line and curve on the car.

Nevermind that the driver looks like a mannequin and you won't get anywhere near that sharpness through all the atmospheric haze.

Agree. I've been using 3D modelling software for many years and this Bentley just screamed 'fake!' as soon as I saw it.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 06:36 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: Man that's an ugly car -even the paintjob...

Agree. In the late 70's and early 80's appalling two-tone paint jobs like that were the height of fashion, on cheap family Ford models especially. I guess the decrepid old men who actually own Bentleys will still think it's fashionable.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2016 at 06:32 UTC
On article Bentley creates a 53 billion pixel car commercial (189 comments in total)

That is so obviously a 3D render that has been dropped into the bridge image, what was the point of the exercise? The bridge is blurred but the B on each wheel hub is pin sharp and the right way up. The hideous 2-tone Ford Cortina paint job also looks fake, as does the hard shadow around the car.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 12:00 UTC as 78th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Reactive: I don't think Fuji will ever satisfy everyone while they make such clunky old-fashioned looking cameras. It's a sad fact that despite how technologically advanced they make the insides, they won't sell in large numbers while they look like something your grandfather used when you were a kid. And the name Fujifilm is defunct - cameras don't use film now, and the name belongs on cheap compact cameras of the film era.

Design is everything. These cameras are not aimed at professionals who will overlook any appearance because of the proven tech inside. Unfortunately it's sad but true that many buyers will prefer the sleek modern appearance of a Canikon, or possibly a Sony because they're a respectable name they think they can trust. I'm not saying that the Fuji cameras are bad (far from it) but they have an uphill struggle to make their brand seem as attractive as Canikon, especially when their products look anything but modern.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 15:13 UTC

Bargain! I can see these selling in the tens of thous... OK, tens. I hope Google buy all of them so they can update the lousy out-dated low level imagery in so much of Google Maps /Earth. Google will be the only people able or willing to afford the insurance policy for it.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34 UTC as 4th comment

I don't think Fuji will ever satisfy everyone while they make such clunky old-fashioned looking cameras. It's a sad fact that despite how technologically advanced they make the insides, they won't sell in large numbers while they look like something your grandfather used when you were a kid. And the name Fujifilm is defunct - cameras don't use film now, and the name belongs on cheap compact cameras of the film era.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 12:26 UTC as 28th comment | 13 replies
In reply to:

kombizz0: I enjoyed this article. I am looking forward to see this mobile phone in my local shop in order to hold it and use the above features. If the price is right, I do not mind to buy it for my second mobile phone beside my Samsung one.

I think once you buy a Moto-G you'll wonder why you ever spent so much more on an equivalent (or inferior) model from a different brand.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 12:02 UTC

We have three Moto Gs in my family. They've all been very cheap, fast, and 100% reliable, even after one or two Android updates. They really demonstrate the utter stupidity of more expensive models, especially the iPhones owned by some of my children's friends. My daughter's 1st gen Moto G has taken some amazing pictures of our black and white cat sitting by a window, with all of the deep blacks and bright whites nicely captured.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 11:55 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

I'd still love to know how my 3rd party Meike battery grip ended up as such an immaculately perfect replica of the Canon original. And I mean *perfect replica*, all apart from the badge.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:21 UTC as 11th comment

All of these shots, apart from the two by the window, have a strangely flat and artificial look to them, like they've all been thoroughly processed somehow. Not the best way to judge a camera's abilities?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:13 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply

I hardly care about the specs anymore. Every time I look at a micro SD card I still can't believe it can hold even 1 GB, let alone 256! But then I grew up in an era of 1.44MB floppy disks that took a minute to fill up ;-)

Shall we stop whining about speeds and capacities?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 09:25 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies

I wonder how long the roll-out is going to take, and how much of the earth the update covers? Only the bits which had bad cloud cover? The imagery of my house is at least 4 years out of date, because the extension we had built still doesn't show up on Earth.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 12:49 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Random Photographer: It costs GBP. 160 (~$200 USD) to get rid of the Leica logo... Let that sink in.

Porsche and other similar manufacturers have been pulling this exact stunt for many years. The most stripped-out lightweight model costs $xx,000 MORE than the full-spec model, because of course.... it's 'exclusive'. Until I read this thread I had no idea Leica charged for not buying the red dot. I'm now even more incredulous at the (potential) stupidity within the Leica customer base.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 11:45 UTC

Ah come on, this must be a joke? Pay an eye-watering price for a digital camera that doesn't do colour... but you can have the outside in colour instead?
There must be some b*&$/#^s with a sick sense of humour at Leica.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2016 at 18:12 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
On article Patents hint at camera on future Apple Watch (34 comments in total)
In reply to:

Reactive: 'Smart' watches are silly redundant products sold to silly people, and with a camera to drain the pathetic battery they'd become even more silly. I'll be interested when they have at least 1 month of battery life and can operate entirely independently as a phone without the close proximity of an expensive smartphone... which already does everything the watch can do, but much better.

Before very long, all those crazy expensive Apple watches will be hiding at the back of people's closets, their puny batteries lasting only 2 hours after being crippled by daily charging. Early adopter smartwatch owners are like those cool dudes in the 1970s who bought LED watches (yes LED, not LCD), had to press a button to see the time, and suffered crap battery life. History repeats itself...

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 19:07 UTC
On article Patents hint at camera on future Apple Watch (34 comments in total)

'Smart' watches are silly redundant products sold to silly people, and with a camera to drain the pathetic battery they'd become even more silly. I'll be interested when they have at least 1 month of battery life and can operate entirely independently as a phone without the close proximity of an expensive smartphone... which already does everything the watch can do, but much better.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2016 at 15:49 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (457 comments in total)

Whatever this 'game changer' is, it won't be changing the game for 99.9% of us on this forum, that's for sure.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:48 UTC as 108th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

miles green: Grrrr, yet another lens that doesn't come in Pentax K-mount....

It's OK, one of those Chinese mount-adapter companies is sure to bring out just the part you need.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 12:13 UTC

I bet over at Leica they're crying their eyes out...
"Dammit guys, why didn't we think up such a beautifully impractical product like that? We're losing the race! Come on, let's go and finish that $15,000 ultra-violet-only SLR with the shutter release on the base plate. That'll sell loads."

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2016 at 12:10 UTC as 32nd comment
Total: 136, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »