joe6pack

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 26, 2004

Comments

Total: 704, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Jura S: If it works the same way as their "shake reduction" ...
Well, I guess this one was too optimistic.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Maybe this is one of their 'synthetic cloak'

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3233084678/adobeclarifies

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:20 UTC

I bet hackers will be exploding it to speed up finding nude photos once they compromised a phone or computer.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

joe6pack: No HDMI? (No mini-DisplayPort)

The adapters don't work as well as native connectors like mini-HDMI. Sometimes the display does not get detected when plugged in. Some does not work during boot.

This is quite common compatibility problem for cutting edge technology. I have seen it with earlier HDMI and Bluetooth (still an issue today).

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: No HDMI? (No mini-DisplayPort)

I have USB-C to HDMI adapters and they don't work very well. The worst being the Apple Multiport Adapter. Having said that, I really hope they keep a full size HDMI port. It is not all that much bigger but it means a world of convenience.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 23:36 UTC

No HDMI? (No mini-DisplayPort)

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 17:57 UTC as 40th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

... and you can continue to hallucinate that the milky way can be seen like the photos with naked eyes.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

"Exposure to Artificial Light at Night Can Harm Your Health"

"It does indeed affect organisms all around the world, in negative ways. That includes humans, as pointed out by Lee Jay."

Give me a break. Did you guys even read the article linked? It is talks about lights from digital devices, your iPad!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 00:23 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

I stand by my comment. As a person standing in the place which the lighthouse photo was taken, there is no way to see the milky way like the the photo shown. The sky may not be polluted but your eye cannot see milky way with the lighthouse in front of it.

"Do you think he painted every frame by hand" - Seriously? You have to ask?

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 00:10 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

Light pollution is a by product of civilization. People continue their activities late into the night and early in the morning. Compare to other forms of pollution, light pollution is negligible. It does not cause harms to animals, besides the fact that human inhabited the area. It is a first world problem. I don't see a point of reducing light pollution to satisfy a few lazies so they can see some stars from their backyard.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:21 UTC

I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 19:08 UTC as 32nd comment | 21 replies

What in the world is "digiFilm"? Are they trying charge their customer for each "digiFilm" for something that we have been doing through the settings menu?

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:57 UTC as 107th comment | 1 reply

Besides using for backup, I can't think of a reason when someone need such big storage. It could store a lot of data, and when it failed it would take all your data, all 12TB, with it.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 16:11 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies

I see so many haters for the Wacom tablet. But I see it differently.

Apple should be responsible for backward compatibility during OS upgrade. What if the device manufacturer ran out of business? Who will support the customer after upgrade?

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 18:52 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Google Nexus One (46 comments in total)

Believe it or not. The Nexus One is the most expensive phone that I bought. But I had to return it because it has terrible touch screen bug (the touchscreen does not rotate with the display, can you imagine?).

Other than that, it was solid and I love the trackball. It reminds me of Ultraman.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 10th comment
On article Why hyperfocal distance charts are inaccurate (44 comments in total)

The author say that using "hyperfocal distance charts with a more demanding value (of circle of confusion)" is not the right answer. I tend to disagree. If the circle of confusion is small enough, the hyperfocal distance will be much longer and therefore image will be sharp. So I don't see how what is a "Nope. Not a all" solution.

The most popular online hyperfocal distance chart takes the camera sensor size into account, so I think it is actually serves quite well. In fact, I would say if the image were printed on a 8x10, no one would complain.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 20:46 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Maybe I am missing something here. All I see is filters ranging from $102 to $200. This is not even a 2x price difference. While $102 is technically the "cheapest", it is not the kind of test we had in mind prior to reading the article.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:03 UTC as 43rd comment

Did someone notice that this fake photographer Martins managed to "zoom out" or "uncrop" photos published photos? As if he had the originals (see pic 2 and 4). Maybe that's the two photographers are the same person? Or maybe Daniel C. Britt also took photos from somewhere else?

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 23:30 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies

The US Army should assemble a team to claim the bounty.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 06:30 UTC as 8th comment

If I am reading the article correctly, it means processing regular negative into reversed film using chemicals.

I agree that the video gives no clue what they are doing. I simply don't get the A4 size transparency. I could have just printed or photocopied a digital image on a regular transparency.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 06:23 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

Come on, DPReview. Is it really so hard for you guys to publish the sensor size and focal length when you mention the aperture size?

Or just say, "we didn't bother to check the sensor size but we are sure you can find it from the comments below".

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 22:56 UTC as 15th comment | 3 replies
Total: 704, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »