falconeyes

falconeyes

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

Comments

Total: 743, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Affinity moves at 10x the speed of Adobe and Adobe by now, should already see them in their rear mirror.
I guess, their is little hope to accelerate their misleaded truck. The logical concusion is that Adobe truck will try to kill the Affinity sports car when it is passing by ... I am optimistic though, Affinity seems to have a rather versatile driver :)

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 17:47 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

FuhTeng: Lack of concern for safe flight rules (hello photos 3 and 5!) makes me sad. Don't fly over people! Whether it's a law or not, please don't put the pursuit of your photos above the safety of the hapless people below.

That being said, 1 and 4 are my favorites. Wow.

+1
And I wonder if photos of a beach full of people from above is what the future should bring us. That's too Paparazzi (aka street candids) for my taste.
I very much like the first two photos though.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2666 comments in total)
In reply to:

jacek2008: Sorry DPR, but your bicycle test is just plain stupid. How can you compare AFC between cameras when shooting on the street with (available natural) DIFFERENT lightning every time? In D500 bicycle test there was a bright sunny day. The guy riding bicycle is far more better lightened that the one in k-1 test. So the AF in d500 had an much easier job to keep tracking a high contrast bright subject. The question is how would K-1 do in the exact same scenario as d500 or how would d500 do in k-1 lightning scenario. I believe the top Nikons AF is better than Pentax, but please guys a test done like this is totally flawed. Far from professional job. Just develop an proper and fair AFC test under artificial conditions to test all cameras the same and judge on that.

There are no proper and fair AFC tests (at least no published ones).

One of the biggest problems is that you need to cover a fixed time span where the amount of magnification changes by a fixed ratio. This fails because different cameras use different buffer depths and different frame rates.

Comparisons based on percentage of keepers are a joke.

And therefore, all AFC tests are anecdotical by definition (ATM) and the reader has to apply proper interpretation skills. I am fine with that.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 09:19 UTC

And of course, this is no first.
Functions to not print money scans comes to mind.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:46 UTC as 119th comment | 1 reply

Is the tape / filter glass to block the phone's infrared receiver a part of Apple's patent?

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:41 UTC as 120th comment | 2 replies

The more of this is happening, the faster the Cloud hype will cease.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 07:38 UTC as 18th comment
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (816 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: Nice body. But the MF problem of lack of fast or affordable lenses persists, i.e., this will remain a niche product although I applaud them to be first for a possible new trend.

2695$ for a 70mm/2.5 equivalent when a very good 85mm/1.8 equivalent (for full frame) is 500$? In theory, MF lenses (with the same equivalent properties) should be cheaper (they are easier to make) but so far, nobody delivers on this technical promise.

The economy of scale argument is chicken and egg.

An affordable mirrorless MF (with reasonable lens options) could become a very well selling camera. But you need to bet to be successful, and to have good pricing for body AND lens from the very beginning.

Obviously, Hasselblad is not there yet. Which is why this product isn't a game changer. As the game continues to be the MF niche.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 23:36 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (816 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: Nice body. But the MF problem of lack of fast or affordable lenses persists, i.e., this will remain a niche product although I applaud them to be first for a possible new trend.

2695$ for a 70mm/2.5 equivalent when a very good 85mm/1.8 equivalent (for full frame) is 500$? In theory, MF lenses (with the same equivalent properties) should be cheaper (they are easier to make) but so far, nobody delivers on this technical promise.

Look at how miniscule the lens pictured in images #1 and #13 above is (a 35mm/2.8 equivalent)!

Of course, I mean the lens. The lens barrel is gigonormous in comparison.

Maybe, an RX-style compact MF mirrorless with a fixed sharp and fast lens would be more compelling. Say RX1mkIII ... The Sony 50MP sensor should have become rather affordable by now.

EDIT: this was no reply to QuarterToDoom

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 08:43 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (816 comments in total)

Nice body. But the MF problem of lack of fast or affordable lenses persists, i.e., this will remain a niche product although I applaud them to be first for a possible new trend.

2695$ for a 70mm/2.5 equivalent when a very good 85mm/1.8 equivalent (for full frame) is 500$? In theory, MF lenses (with the same equivalent properties) should be cheaper (they are easier to make) but so far, nobody delivers on this technical promise.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 08:34 UTC as 121st comment | 7 replies
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1196 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: The sensor is only 22% wider than full frame.
For perspective, full frame is 62% wider than APS-C, and more than 100% as wider than MFT sensors.

By convention, the size of a thing is a linear dimension, not a square one. E.g., by talking about the size of a human, we mean height, not skin surface area. For monitors, we mean the screen diagonal. Etc.pp.

For camera sensors, this became the image circle diameter.

44x33mm has a +27% larger image circle than 24x36mm (aka 0.79x crop).

It would be interesting to learn if the XCD mount and lenses are designed for the small 44x33mm format (like Leica S) or the full MF format (like Hassy H or Pentax 645Z).

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 07:59 UTC

I've seen CorelDRAW and Corel PhotoPaint fade away while their changing shareholders kept trying maximize profit w/o real improevements to the core product.

With competition from Affinity and alike, I no longer think this is impossible with PS. However, every so tiny change is kept being reported by the press. So, I am not sure ...

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 13:28 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

blurredvision: Hey look! Another post about an Adobe update where people complain about the subscription in the comments! I'm still waiting for all the detractors to switch to another product like they promised us they would 3 years ago...

Why switch to another product? LR6 is not subscription (rented software), it is purchased. People complain about part of the upgrades not shipped to owners of a product which is still current. But as the upgrades are so minor, I don't personally care. And they will all be in LR8 ...

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 12:58 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

ogl: Never used ACR. I don't care about ACR. I'd like to add - they use f16 for tests...To use f16 is useless. The resolution is rather low and the diffraction already started with 36 MP FF camera at such aperture.

@ogl, to call it useless is a bit harsh.
Actually, up to F13, diffraction losses are recoverable (via smart sharpening) at the 36MP pixel level. Especially at the low noise levels provided by four ISO 100 frames.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 14:21 UTC
On article Waterfails: We test Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift (225 comments in total)

I do still take offense that DPR misses to test against the most obvious reference:

A burst of 4 images shot in the conventional way, stacked using software like PhotoAcute, preferably in superresolution mode and downscaled back to the original resolution.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2016 at 11:13 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

falconeyes: The "Intelligent Zoom" feature could make this a useful tool.

However, I don't buy their claim that their algorithm is AI. The threshold for any algorithm to classify AI is rather high and I doubt they come even close. IMHO, it is a classical image processing app (like optical character recognition which once was considered artificial intelligence -- but not anymore).

@ProfHankD, I don't want to start a debate about what is AI. To some degree, it is a question of definition. Personally, I don't consider pre-trained neural nets AI.

As for your comment about RAW, you are right of course. Cropping, altering color balances etc. will all throw their "weights" all over the place for what remains, essentially, the same image. Which highlights the trouble of their approach (or any approach within the current state of the art).

The most useful application currently IMHO would be a sorting wrt sharpness after face and eye detection. More modest claim but more useful result.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2016 at 10:08 UTC

The "Intelligent Zoom" feature could make this a useful tool.

However, I don't buy their claim that their algorithm is AI. The threshold for any algorithm to classify AI is rather high and I doubt they come even close. IMHO, it is a classical image processing app (like optical character recognition which once was considered artificial intelligence -- but not anymore).

Link | Posted on May 29, 2016 at 15:51 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

falconeyes: Is this the level of innovation Adobe thinks is acceptable to CC users?

It saves to click 4 corners with the mask tool and then use content-aware fill which was inroduced with CS5, I believe. Actually, it just makes a script a built-in feature.

Where is the real innovation? A new tool like content-aware fill as such?

The last innovative feature brought to PS was content-aware fill introduced in CS5. It is based on the PatchMatch algorithm (2009), with contributions from Princeton University, University of Washington and Adobe. 3 of 4 authors are now with Adobe.

I am sure there is enough imaging research going on. It is just Adobe isn't investing anymore in the core strengths of its product. Rather, they add bells and whistles like upload to the cloud etc.

Link | Posted on May 27, 2016 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Is this the level of innovation Adobe thinks is acceptable to CC users?

It saves to click 4 corners with the mask tool and then use content-aware fill which was inroduced with CS5, I believe. Actually, it just makes a script a built-in feature.

Where is the real innovation? A new tool like content-aware fill as such?

I wouldn't. But I don't see noteworthy innovations brought to PS since a couple of releases now. Instead, I see "new features" which would normally go as actions.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 23:18 UTC
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grig: I don't see destruction compared to FZ1000... Sorry... May be good idea to change it to "outperforms" or something like it if you really think so, but not destroys for sure... But to me FZ Leica lens is sharper and less CA... Especially on the sides at F8 at 400mm

I agree the "destroys" headline should remain reserved for findings which deserve such wording.

In this particular case, I would have appreciated to read "outperforms the competition".

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Ogiba: I have not purchased a HDD in years and all of my PCs and Macs have SSDs.

Most photographers do still rely on RAID5 HDD arrays for their >10TB archives.
SSD arrays not only are more expensive, they do also fail in a less predictive way.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 22:36 UTC
Total: 743, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »