falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 1168, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Eventually, an MF camera emerges which isn't equivalent to an FF.
Equivalent iso 22 may yield a new kind of medium format feel again.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 20:27 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

David Elliott Lewis: Trading off resolution for depth - 3D imaging at the expense of resolution. In reading about their backlit light field LCD tech, technology they are rightfully afraid to demonstrate, I learned that they divide their image into 64 separate smaller images. Each image copy, displaying from a different angle, only contains 1/64th the amount of visual information. In other words, this display will create the illusion of 3 dimensions at the expense of an extreme reduction in detail and resolution.

You can expect a "Star Wars" level of detail - 1977 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope hologram level of detail. Remember that film and its low resolution hologram of Princess Leia? That appears to be what this Red Hydrogen phone display shows.

@Vlad, what I am saying here is that we all are speculating. And what you said isn't contradicting this. This could be total crap or gorgeous as hell.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

David Elliott Lewis: Trading off resolution for depth - 3D imaging at the expense of resolution. In reading about their backlit light field LCD tech, technology they are rightfully afraid to demonstrate, I learned that they divide their image into 64 separate smaller images. Each image copy, displaying from a different angle, only contains 1/64th the amount of visual information. In other words, this display will create the illusion of 3 dimensions at the expense of an extreme reduction in detail and resolution.

You can expect a "Star Wars" level of detail - 1977 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope hologram level of detail. Remember that film and its low resolution hologram of Princess Leia? That appears to be what this Red Hydrogen phone display shows.

Wearing googles of whatever type will never become mainstream.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 14:46 UTC

Single lens VR cams are useful, if they capture 180° in front of the camera, like an ordinary fish eye camera does. Even better with two front facing lenses for 3D VR. That's an upcoming format (180° VR).

This camera though makes no sense. It must be placed on the floor and the resulting VR content puts the viewer into a frogs perpective when wearing VR glasses. Odd.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 14:26 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

EskeRahn: How does 2880x2880 come to be labelled 4K. Sure it is the same in the smallest direction as 4K 16:9, but...

...And I guess ɸ2880 might be more accurate than 2880x2880

Assuming 2880px Ø for 240° fish eye, it is 5' (arc minutes) resolution. Human eye is 1' (5x better).

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

David Elliott Lewis: Trading off resolution for depth - 3D imaging at the expense of resolution. In reading about their backlit light field LCD tech, technology they are rightfully afraid to demonstrate, I learned that they divide their image into 64 separate smaller images. Each image copy, displaying from a different angle, only contains 1/64th the amount of visual information. In other words, this display will create the illusion of 3 dimensions at the expense of an extreme reduction in detail and resolution.

You can expect a "Star Wars" level of detail - 1977 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope hologram level of detail. Remember that film and its low resolution hologram of Princess Leia? That appears to be what this Red Hydrogen phone display shows.

@Vlad, well, the demo in the video doesn't impress. I own a Mopic3D screen protector for my iPhone to display my 3D content, photo and video, to friends (glasses-free 3D and it works!). They are all blown away too. Still, it is a gimmicky solution for 3D, not ready for mainstream deployment.

Currently, almost everybody is impressed by glasses-free 3D, even if the implementation lacks compared to what would be theoretically possible.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 02:20 UTC
In reply to:

David Elliott Lewis: Trading off resolution for depth - 3D imaging at the expense of resolution. In reading about their backlit light field LCD tech, technology they are rightfully afraid to demonstrate, I learned that they divide their image into 64 separate smaller images. Each image copy, displaying from a different angle, only contains 1/64th the amount of visual information. In other words, this display will create the illusion of 3 dimensions at the expense of an extreme reduction in detail and resolution.

You can expect a "Star Wars" level of detail - 1977 Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope hologram level of detail. Remember that film and its low resolution hologram of Princess Leia? That appears to be what this Red Hydrogen phone display shows.

Yes, but this trade off can be a no brainer. If the initial resolution is high, well beyond retina. What would to be expected for anything carrying the term holographic or nano.

The displayed image wouldn't be the asset (captured photo) but a synthezized ultra-def image, e.g. from a stereo pair of photos.

What we need to judge is the spatial frequency of this Leia diffraction plate in the Red phone. And that hasn't been disclosed this far.

The real bummer for me is the approach: It uses a lighting plate, not applicable to oled displays. It may soon be a thing of the past.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: Whenever PS CC announces a new tool we can expect the following comments:
1. The tool is crap.
2. The tool is available elsewhere at a better price
3. The tool has been available elsewhere and works better
4. This is the just the sort of bone Adobe throws our way to justify its outrageous subscription fees.

I cannot comment on number one since I haven't tried the tool. I cannot comment on comments numbers 2-4 because I don't use other software.

I can comment on number four, the longest-standing complaint. I just looked over my history of using PS. I cannot trace it back to my first purchases of PS 5 but I did find the following regarding upgrades I purchased for later versions.
1. $217 in 3/09 for CS4
2. $221 in 3/10 for CS5
3. $221 in 8/12 for CS6

When I started my subscription the price per month with tax was $10.59, or $127.08 a year. That is a fair price, consistent with earlier expenditures and frankly for a much better deal that includes LR and some Cloud storage.

Most creative assets work with CS3 or later (cf. envato market). No need for CC. Newer raw formats are easily supported via LR6 with PS/CS integration.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2017 at 10:37 UTC
In reply to:

JoaoPedroAB: Even liking and following most of technical discussions, I have a question. Maybe someone can help: why seems to be impossible using regular lenses (Nikons, Canons EF) with mirroless cameras directly? And, for instance, we would have the next Nikon D6 with dozens os lenses already in the market? Thanks in advance.

@JoaoPedroAB
You are right, current lenses should work on mirrorless.
But both designs presented here are IMPOSSIBLE with the F mount, so both lenses would add to the artistic arsenal of a photographer.

Moreover, specific designs may (or may not) be faster to auto-focus (smaller focus lens group) and/or smaller in size than their F-mount counterparts.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Goodman: Whenever PS CC announces a new tool we can expect the following comments:
1. The tool is crap.
2. The tool is available elsewhere at a better price
3. The tool has been available elsewhere and works better
4. This is the just the sort of bone Adobe throws our way to justify its outrageous subscription fees.

I cannot comment on number one since I haven't tried the tool. I cannot comment on comments numbers 2-4 because I don't use other software.

I can comment on number four, the longest-standing complaint. I just looked over my history of using PS. I cannot trace it back to my first purchases of PS 5 but I did find the following regarding upgrades I purchased for later versions.
1. $217 in 3/09 for CS4
2. $221 in 3/10 for CS5
3. $221 in 8/12 for CS6

When I started my subscription the price per month with tax was $10.59, or $127.08 a year. That is a fair price, consistent with earlier expenditures and frankly for a much better deal that includes LR and some Cloud storage.

@Tom
> the longest-standing complaint
The longest standing complaint isn't the subscription fee per se. But that the subscription is locking you in with no control whatsoever what the subscription fee will be in the future. Esp. after all perpetual licensed copies ceased to work.

E.g., the photographer subscription is a special, possibly limited-time offer with today $20 being the normal subscription for a single CC program ...

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Affinity Photo, and now Pixelmator Pro. While CC has become an almost static target (per this sneak preview) easy to hit. Air is getting thinner for Adobe every month. As it appears they lost all their innovative force in the engineering department.

Chris, thanks for your reasonable comment.

I see Adobe prevail and be profitable in the mid term. Because of their strong market position. However, it will be easy for Adobe to take that money for granted. It won't be the first market leader we see going into obsolescence within the software industry.

So, it may be a good strategy for any design company to grow a second leg early. Especially as all the innovation happens there. I have seen amazing results from some AI start ups which mimic artistic styles in their editing software, or automate parts of portrait retouching etc. At some moment in time, Adobe software will be left behind. As Adobe Premiere struggles with 4k editing, it can already be seen today.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 15:05 UTC

Affinity Photo, and now Pixelmator Pro. While CC has become an almost static target (per this sneak preview) easy to hit. Air is getting thinner for Adobe every month. As it appears they lost all their innovative force in the engineering department.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 09:02 UTC as 11th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mmarian: This seems to me like a very minor upgrade. Does it deserve so much publicity and fanfare? I do not think so. I have been CC subscriber for a few year, the price is going up every year, not much improvements to show for....

@T3
> but that's the new business model
that's the business model some large software companies try to impose on us. We, the market, can still decline their "offer", even if they try to enforce it (like Adobe does). The more who decline it, the sooner this crazy software rental hype will disappear.

I am more than happy with CS6 and LR6, even on newest OS.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Artificial Intelligence cannot produce Creativity.

.

Technically speaking, AI can be just as creative (or dumb) as a human. Some day at least. OTOH, any AUTO function, even a camera's auto exposure, can be considered AI. So, there really is a huge grey area and in the end, creativity is always judged by us humans.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 10:53 UTC

I wonder if the person behind 'Eduardo' is going to post a comment here. Chances are he's a DPR reader and it may be tempting to do ...

Come on, reply to me ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 10:41 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

It is hard to be police officer somewhere where the richest can buy entire countries and the poorest starve, some even to death. Stories like this may help to realize that we got a problem.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2017 at 08:07 UTC as 31st comment

Overall, I very much like this video and the circular motion around the sun's circimference. But the effective resolution is FullHD at best, no need to make this 4k. A better use of 4k would have been a wider angle, also better capturing the moment, I guess.

Moreover, I heard the corona was much wider than captured in this video. An s-log video color-graded to show it all would have been appreciated (by me).

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 16:10 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
On article Capturing the same sunset, 2 years apart (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin JC: The title: "Capturing the same sunset, 2 years apart" is inaccurate. It is NOT the same sunset. They are different sunsets taken from approximately the same place, with approximately the same lens FL.

To be honest, it is "die selbe Sonne" rather than "die gleiche Sonne". If it is "der gleiche Sonnenuntergang" could be debated. I guess it is the same debate if it is "the same sunset".

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 15:58 UTC
On article Capturing the same sunset, 2 years apart (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

Martin JC: The title: "Capturing the same sunset, 2 years apart" is inaccurate. It is NOT the same sunset. They are different sunsets taken from approximately the same place, with approximately the same lens FL.

In German, we have to words in this situation (der selbe ..., der gleiche ...). Here, "der gleiche" would apply. I am not sure though how you could replace the word "same" in English language here. Still seems like an accurate title to me.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 09:37 UTC

In this size class of drones and so far, Spark is the only one producing wobble-free (ie., usable) footage. All others are toys. W/o a gimbal, I am sceptical Lily can change this.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 08:21 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 1168, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »