|
neo_nights
Lives in
Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil
Works as a
Student
Has a website at
http://neonights.zenfolio.com
Joined on
Oct 10, 2007
About me:
Plan? To take over the world! |
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |
| Early ascent, Pyrenees by Dan Paris from Into the sun | Azure Kingfisher by Denjw from A big year - birds 2020 | Glas of water by RicksSony from black and white | Mount Taranaki Sunrise by NZ Scott from My best photo of the week. | lunch by Trevor Carpenter from Reptiles |
mandm: And also announced today...
Snap lost nearly $40 million on unsold Spectacles
by Nick Statt@nickstatt Nov 7, 2017
Amazon Prime Price 129.99
Snap Inc. had a pretty abysmal past few months, reporting today that its fiscal third quarter 2017 earnings came in under Wall Street expectations. The news sent its stock plummeting nearly 20 percent. In its statement was a tiny nugget of news regarding the company’s Spectacles, the camera-equipped sunglasses it sells both online and in pop-up vending machines around the world. Snap says it lost nearly $40 million on the device, “primarily related to excess inventory reserves and inventory purchase commitment cancellation charges.”
Customers simply didn’t buy as many units as Snap thought they would, while a significant number of customers returned them. Snapchat was stuck with hundreds of thousands of unsold Spectacles, after selling just over 150,000 units by CEO Evan Spiegel’s own admission last month.
"Announced today" ?
That was news two weeks ago here at DPR!
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4242568761/report-snapchat-has-hundreds-of-thousands-of-unsold-spectacles-sitting-in-storage
JoaoPedroAB: Hi, I do enjoy your reports. However, I am a big fan of Jpeg files and according several tests, rarely the Raw ones deliver better results. Then, I think that is somewhat unfair that you present Jpeg ('directly from the camera') and Raw ('treated to taste'). It induces the readers that Raw is much better than Jpeg, which is not the case for the majority of photos. In the actual pictures presented in your report, I would say that Jpegs 'treated to taste' would deliver equivalent results as Raws treated the same way. It is minor criticism: I do like your work.
I'm sorry, but you have been runing the wrong tests if you don't think RAW gives better results than JPEG.
Don't get me wrong: I've always been more of a JPEG shooter (for many reasons) but when there was a specific picture I really liked and wanted it to shine even more, I'd develop the RAW file for better results.
The problem is when people take bad pictures in RAW thinking "I'll fix it in PP later" when a properly taken JPEG can work wonders.
As amazing as it seems... its images still look like a watercolor paiting
Azathothh: Uh didn't they say they didn't test medium format cameras?
I don't know. Ask them. I think it's the Illuminati.
DxO Mark: the site everyone loves to hate.
:p
Azathothh: Uh didn't they say they didn't test medium format cameras?
Have you read the text?
"(...) company promised to start reviewing medium format cameras again very soon. Today, they fulfilled that promise (...)"
Akpinxit: Couple years ago Adobe was developing shake-hand photo fix , the results were impressive indeed , only ... that after some time Adobe has admitted that presentation was done by reverse effect (post - the "corrected" image was actually the "pre" ) .
Since when it is hard for me to take word from Adobe .
Exactly!! I remember that!
This is why I don't go "WOW" anymore with their new and shiny features, like that new super-auto-fill thing.
Who knows if those exemples weren't 'reversed'?
Like cropedview said, your comment should be pinned!
David Elliott Lewis: How to lie with photo technology. I object to image filling methods, whether AI based or not. Once, you start removing objects from a photo, you are creating a lie. If you want to create art, then do so and say so to your viewers.
The power of photography loses something important when viewers cannot trust that what they see is real. Thumbs down to Adobe's Project 'Deep Fill'.
I think the biggest concern of people is not really people who want to make "Art" and edit it like many other photographers already did back then or, even more, painters (they could always easily add/remove features from the scene they were portraying).
The issue here, IMHO, is to create fake NEWS picture, for example. Even more than it has always been. Or pictures that wins prizes and such.
Situations were one would expect to see a real thing and instead is getting a completely manipulated image.
The worst part is: they want to simulate the "film experience" but giving an image quality of a 1/3.2" sensor... yeah, right.
Like I predicted: when I saw it was a Kickstarter thing, I already knew it had 99.99% chance to s*ck!
Why do people get so angry about that?
If you can afford a Pentax 645z (or any medium format, for that matter) and you KNOW it's better than a fullframe (image quality wise), then just buy the thing, use it and be happy with it.
Who cares whether DXO mentioned or not the camera? If they put it and removed it later?
Why does that affect your life so much?!?
(unknown member): Is this better than the D850? The D850 scored a 100 on DXO Mark, so that means it's the best camera on the market and it has more megapixels at 45mp. This only has 35.4mp and it doesn't even come with a lens.
I think not many people are aware that pancho_rivera is a troll hahahah
neo_nights: Is this new "computational photography" thing a fancy word for "water-colour pictures"?
I mean... on a screen, Instagram size, the pictures look really great for a smartphone. But if you see 100%, it's a watercolour mess!!
There's still a lot of things a small sensor CAN'T do, doesn't matter how good the processing, algorithms and whatnot are.
@BillyBobSenna - No. What I am saying is that I was expecting better image quality. Have smartphones improved a lot? Yes. Do they keep improving? Yes.
But, for image quality alone, doesn't matter how much the technology progress, there'll be always a limit called: sensor size.
And if one expects pure image quality, a smartphone can't beat a larger sensor. I'm just stating the obvious.
(the same way an APS-C can't beat a 35mm fullframe sensor. The same way a 35mm sensor can't beat a medium format one)
(unknown member): I just bought a D850 to take pictures of my kids. What does the PASM stand for? I also bought the 24-120mm D lens with it I got on discount, but pictures don't seem very sharp?
@aokhrimers - Just check the guy's posting history. I think he's kind of a troll...
neo_nights: Is this new "computational photography" thing a fancy word for "water-colour pictures"?
I mean... on a screen, Instagram size, the pictures look really great for a smartphone. But if you see 100%, it's a watercolour mess!!
There's still a lot of things a small sensor CAN'T do, doesn't matter how good the processing, algorithms and whatnot are.
@Markosz: Yes, I agree completely! I do give credit where it's due.
But the way some people say/think that smartphones can substitute cameras with bigger sensor... well, it's far from it.
@Vallhall: No, I don't NEED. But what if I want to crop a bit? Those pictures are great for viewing them at a certain distance/resolution.
I'm not talking about 200% pixelpeeping here. Just see the image in its full 100% size. It's horrible!
@BillyBobeSenna: Well, I never said that the current smartphones aren't impacting dSLRs sales. I know they are. For many many many reasons (and some reasons dSRLS --especially MILCs-- it's amazing how 'big cameras' still struggle, like offering an easy, instant way to transfer/share your pics, like a smartphone does).
What I'm saying here is that I was expecting a much better image quality. And all I *STILL* see is a watercolor painting.
Is this new "computational photography" thing a fancy word for "water-colour pictures"?
I mean... on a screen, Instagram size, the pictures look really great for a smartphone. But if you see 100%, it's a watercolour mess!!
There's still a lot of things a small sensor CAN'T do, doesn't matter how good the processing, algorithms and whatnot are.
neo_nights: I lost my interest at "Kickstarter"
Or actually invest in a product just to see it never being delivered, or being delivered a half-baked product.
I really like Kickstarter as a concept, but after seeing so many failures and abuses from the people using it... I got a little bit skeptical. Sorry.
I lost my interest at "Kickstarter"
Oh! If I can say that I truly loved one camera, the A700 would be it!
I was more or less an early adopter as well. Few months after its release my (by then) girlfriend's sister was in Japan and I couldn't lose the opportunity to ask her to get me the A700.
(if I was to wait it to be released in Brazil, it'd takes ages and cost me a hell lot more)
The fun thing is that Sony chose, for their domestic japanese market, offer a camera that had JAPANESE ONLY menus! No way to change it!
Yeah, I'm not Japanese myself, nor speak Japanese. I had to download the camera's manual in English and then learn where the basic settings were!
Right after I got the camera in my hands I rushed to buy a Minolta 'nifty-fifty' and the LEGENDARY Beercan!! (a lens that Sony stubbornly never released an updated version...)
It was a joy and fun camera to use!
Unfortunatelly it got stolen on a bus trip... :(
I miss it very much!
NickyB66: If it had been me with my 300mm Fujinon telephoto the officer would have thought it was a Bazooka aimed at him!
Now lenses must have orange tips like fake guns!