Michael Foran

Joined on Sep 10, 2009

Comments

Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

The court made an error in this ruling. To define copyright in those terms is just plain illogical, and wrong. Not sure who David's lawyer was on this case but they did a terrible job presenting his case, and the rendered verdict was flat out incorrect. I feel bad for him and hope someone challenges this ruling that has the finances to back it up.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:32 UTC as 260th comment
In reply to:

fedway: So why not just shoot video instead of time lapse for sequences like the above? I don't do either so I honestly want to know. Is it the higher resolution from time lapse stills?

I answered this on another post- basically you can take exposures with a shutter speed slower than your frame rate.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: Just curious what advantages time lapse has over video?

Mainly, I think, is that it allows you to take exposures that are longer than your shutter speed. If you are shooting video at 24 FPS, the longest shutter speed you can have is 1/24th of a second. That probably isn't enough to capture the milky way, or northern lights. If you can get what you want in shutter speeds faster than your frame rate, it's probably easier to capture video and speed it up (having these custom gimbals would still be necessary though or you'll get a lot of shake). You can also capture higher resolution, which allows virtual camera moves in post.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 16:36 UTC
On article Sony a9: more speed, less dynamic range (666 comments in total)
In reply to:

GarysInSoCal: I'm starting to wonder just how much money Sony is slipping DPReview (under the table) to do 6 different front page showcase articles on this camera in less than 2 months... and OH PALEEEEEEZE... with it's crappy dynamic range... it's neither working wonders or shetting blunders... :P

I honestly don't understand the point of comments like this. You don't want to read it, don't read it. It's an important camera. It's an interesting article with information I would like to know. Go away.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

Conjure: Most of the news sites published similar pictures WITHOUT the corpse.

Is it really necessary to show the body of the victim? Is this the right way to show your condolence to his relatives?

Yes is is completely necessary. It's important to the story that the image tells. It's shocking and horrifying, but essential.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:03 UTC

It's got Pulitzer written all over it. The detail that gets me is the poor Ambassador's glasses back against the wall.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:00 UTC as 155th comment

WD has screwed me over too many times with their shoddy hardware and terrible software. I'll never buy one of their products again. They have poor QC, and if their software works at all it's a surprise. I have had a couple hard drives fail within two years of light use, a NAS that only booted once and then died, and backup software that wouldn't recognize all my WD drives. After they broke my older model WD Live with a firmware update and then refused to fix it because it was old, I swore them off for good. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 5 times, shame on me.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 14:06 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

rfsIII: Awesome. Except for the fact it's a Microsoft product which means it will come with a ton of bloatware, be taken over by ransomware as soon as it is connected to the internet, have an overly complicated and unnavigable UI, will crash at the worst possible times, and Microsoft will offer its usual "blame the user" non-support. Apple, for all its many faults at least has a base of users who are somewhat helpful.
Microsoft: Beloved by IT managers, hated by users.

Where do you buy your computers, Best Buy? Hahaha, wow dude you sound like you haven't touched a Windows computer since 1998. Time to stop trolling Usenet and get with the times grandpa.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2016 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

JRFlorendo: It's definitely price not to sell, good luck MS.

If you don't think this is a good value then you definitely aren't the demographic they are aiming towards. A 10 bit 28" touch screen monitor with a pressure sensitive stylus alone will run you almost this much (https://us-store.wacom.com/Catalog/Pen-Displays/Cintiq/Cintiq-27QHD-S01). Granted, the pen sensitivity isn't as good as a Wacom, but you are also getting an entire computer with it. And the specs are pretty decent. If you have a need for these tools like I do, this is a very compelling offer.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2016 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

Everlast66: Is the SLT mirror removable? I think this would be a very useful feature to be able remove it and use only the on-sensor 399 PDAF points and also not lose 1/3 of the light.
Not a big issue these days, but it shouldn't be that difficult to make the mirror removable.

I didn't debate that. Just correcting the incorrect statement, which is a significant error.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Everlast66: Is the SLT mirror removable? I think this would be a very useful feature to be able remove it and use only the on-sensor 399 PDAF points and also not lose 1/3 of the light.
Not a big issue these days, but it shouldn't be that difficult to make the mirror removable.

That's 1/3 of a STOP of light, not 1/3 of all available light. Big difference.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

mike lomas: $3k - similar price of a decent drone which would offer far more flexibility??

You couldn't do stop motion on a drone. Batteries wouldn't last nearly long enough. You're talking multi-hour shoots here.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

col4bin: Adobe is in my rear view mirror. After many years of using their products, I dumped them for non-subscription based software.

Do you actually like the software better, or is the subscription model the only motivating factor?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

col4bin: Adobe is in my rear view mirror. After many years of using their products, I dumped them for non-subscription based software.

So what are you using now?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: Well I'm waiting for Affinity for windows beta version to come out and then
its goodbye Adobe.
I will persevere until I'm competent with it.
I think Adobe has treated there customers very badly with this subscription
just not worth it.
It's the usual corporate GREED and profit margins that's all they care about
You the customer are just a bank number that pays and pays and pays.
but every dog gets its day ( I hope )

Tom G

How little is everyone making in their work that the cost of a Photoshop subscription is even an issue? If you place a value on your time it probably costs more for you to complain about it in the DP forums. It's the price of doing business.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

Tim McClanahan: "Face Aware Liquify" - I think that's what happened to Ramsay Bolton, isn't it?

It certainly happened to the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

Bali_Mirage: Ok......I've just updated to Photoshop CC 2015.5. Can I now delete/uninstall Photoshop CC 2015 along with Adobe Photoshop CC 2014?

Test to make sure everything works and is set up properly first.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

Gio 645: Good job Adobe! I had to reinstall On1 and Extensis Font Manager. Particleshop plugin works but Quick Launch panel doesn't. Also the Beauty Retouch 3 which is my main retouching tool, seems to be incompatible with this update!
I shouldn't have pressed the update button!

Or more accurately, you should have opened the Advanced Options and chosen not to remove the older versions. If you rely on the software for professional use, this should be the option you always choose. At a minimum, you are going to need to re-setup plug-ins and preferences not synced to the cloud. At the worst, third-party plugins will not work. For best practices, you should always allow time to setup and test without interrupting your workflow.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:14 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)

There is no way in hell I would ever risk my camera to an unauthorized app. It's just not worth the risk. However, Sony should open up the API so third party developers have a way to develop legal apps, and give authors a way to release them.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 20:52 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Sony Play Apps are garbage. They're half-baked, self-contain apps that don't integrate with the main interface of the camera. Do these people at Sony even use cameras or do they just like going over spec sheets all day?

I agree that the existing Play apps are generally half-baked. However, I don't have any issue with them being self-contained. They should be specialized for specific situations. I don't think they should alter the overall camera functionality, which I think would turn into a nightmare of bricked cameras and very expensive tech support. However, I would be happy if Sony spent as much money developing the Play apps (or opening up the API) as they did promoting them. Then we wouldn't have such an anemic selection of novelty toys, and might get some full featured add-ons that could really be useful.

*edit: spelling

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 13:02 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »