|
the greater cleveland area has bald eagles, too 
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Are you a bad enough dude to keep taking pictures in a tsunami? http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/jpq041511/s_j03_RTR2L83Q.jpg (the guy survived, no idea if his camera did, but I doubt it) http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/04/japan-earthquake-the-long-road-to-recovery/100047/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06t8TGAffNA Almost infinite depth of field with an aperture of 2.8 - how does this work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Wonder if this sort of thing will take off. http://vimeo.com/22134219 It would be pretty cool if it has the performance of that X100 thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
A5H posted:Wonder if this sort of thing will take off. I'm not a fan of all the in-camera processing, but I could see photographers going bonkers over being able to set up multiple lenses and control them all from a tablet style computer over a wireless link.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Are you a bad enough dude to keep taking pictures in a tsunami?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I bet his flash memory survived! Dude is badass and probably knew that his camera was toast but flash memory is tsunami proof. Not necessarily - trying to write to a wet memory card could fry it, especially with saltwater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Googling the guy (Toya Chiba) yields lots of results, but not much real information. Some articles say his camera was too badly damaged to save pictures, but don't go into details. Maybe in a year or so after things settle down in Japan, he'll get a shot at recovering data off the camera and we'll get to see what he saw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
If only he'd have used a filter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
If any of you guys have an iOS device, check out this awesome panoramic app Microsoft made. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/photosynth/id430065256?mt=8 Do cameras that allow that panoramic sweep thing work this awesomely? It's pretty amazing how it kind of orients what parts of the shot you have around what you're going to add. http://www.fastcompany.com/1748209/microsoft-launches-photosynth-instantly-create-virtual-panoramas-for-bing-maps For a video if you guys just want to check it out but not download it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
A normal picture is like a peephole. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Dear videographer, Shaking your camera during interviews does not add visual interest, it makes you look incompetent. Love, Cross_
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
ease posted:A normal picture is like a peephole. But I love peepholes! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
A5H posted:Wonder if this sort of thing will take off. That's very cool. I suppose the best way to do it would be to have a detachable mount on a detachable sensor, so you don't have to buy a new sensor every time you have a new lens. I also really liked the UI, except for the built-in filters/photoshop actions. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
That camera shake/zoom must have been done in post. Dear Final Cut Pr...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
A5H posted:Wonder if this sort of thing will take off. This seems kind of cool except I'm not sure why I'd need to remove the lens from the body. Seems like it would just be a pain in the rear end to shoot with one item in each hand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
The logical step from that would just be controlling a dSLR or the like wirelessly from a computer/phone, which would be pretty damned easy to implement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Can't you do that now with wireless USB? VVV That's what I meant. I'm not really from the future. TomR fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
You can do it with a wifi battery grip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Is anyone else not on board with the obsession with making everything touch screen now? I hate it. It isn't even close to the tactile feel of a physical button. Even if it was 100% accurate I still wouldn't like it. My phone has a touch screen and a keyboard and I use the touch screen as little as possible. It just seems like something that's cool in concept but it's just... I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old. Every piece of technology in twenty years is probably going to just be a giant touch screen. It'll just be one pad thing that you carry around and it will work as a computer and it will have a wireless attachment that turns into a phone (so you don't have to hold the big tablet up to your head) although it will probably all be video phones then. The future is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Is anyone else not on board with the obsession with making everything touch screen now? I hate it. It isn't even close to the tactile feel of a physical button. Even if it was 100% accurate I still wouldn't like it. My phone has a touch screen and a keyboard and I use the touch screen as little as possible. It just seems like something that's cool in concept but it's just... I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old. Every piece of technology in twenty years is probably going to just be a giant touch screen. It'll just be one pad thing that you carry around and it will work as a computer and it will have a wireless attachment that turns into a phone (so you don't have to hold the big tablet up to your head) although it will probably all be video phones then. Yep. Can we throw 3D into that rant too?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:28
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:It'll just be one pad thing that you carry around and it will work as a computer and it will have a wireless attachment that turns into a phone (so you don't have to hold the big tablet up to your head) although it will probably all be video phones then. Hey old man, we do this today(iPad + facetime/skype + bluetooth headset/headphones) Seriously though, for cameras, I prefer something more tactile, touch screens on cameras either make framing/composition more difficult, or promote poor form as you try to hold the camera further from the body and can't brace it. Touch screens are kind of a fad right now because capacitive screens are more mainstream in devices. Once it gets through the "hey cool!" novelty factor, we're going to see either a new and better amalgamation of control systems or go back to tactile systems where they actually are better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Yep. Absolutely. It just hasn't become invasive enough for it to affect me yet so I didn't think about it, but I'm sure it's a matter of time. And yeah, I know there is the iPad now, but I mean something that will completely replace personal computers and phones and TVs and the like. You'll just carry it all around in one device. And it will all be touch screen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:the greater cleveland area has bald eagles, too So does the greater Cincinnati area. We were canoeing down the Little Miami and there was a bald eagle just chillin' up in a tree, watching us float along. It was very clear that it was HIS river, too. So drat regal...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Is anyone else not on board with the obsession with making everything touch screen now? I hate it. It isn't even close to the tactile feel of a physical button. Even if it was 100% accurate I still wouldn't like it. My phone has a touch screen and a keyboard and I use the touch screen as little as possible. It just seems like something that's cool in concept but it's just... I don't know. Maybe I'm getting old. Every piece of technology in twenty years is probably going to just be a giant touch screen. It'll just be one pad thing that you carry around and it will work as a computer and it will have a wireless attachment that turns into a phone (so you don't have to hold the big tablet up to your head) although it will probably all be video phones then. I see your point, but cameras and phones are two completely different things. Touchscreen makes sense on a phone, because it's designed to perform a very broad list of functions- telephone, camera, messaging devise, web browser, etc. Each function requires a different set of controls and a different control layout, so touchscreen is the logical way to go. It's also important to simultaneously maximise screen size and minimize bulk on a phone, so touchscreens have an obvious advantage there as well. Cameras, on the other hand, are designed to perform exactly one function- record images. Screen size isn't really important, and you only need one button layout. So I don't see physical buttons going anywhere anytime soon, at least for 'serious' cameras.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:If any of you guys have an iOS device, check out this awesome panoramic app Microsoft made. That is seriously loving cool.. just have to slide my ipod around and it automatically takes pictures when it needs a new one. It really only spazzes out when there's not enough light (I did it in a living room with nothing but the tv on), but otherwise it's bulletproof. Fatal flaw however is that the only way to do anything with the picture is put it on facebook, bing, or photosynth (which I guess is microsoft's home page for this software). It doesn't seem like you can get a normal 2d image either.. really only works with some pseudo-3d software. Which I guess makes sense, it would be a lot more difficult for the software if it had to map a 3d space to 2 dimensions (hello distortions).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Fatal flaw however is that the only way to do anything with the picture is put it on facebook, bing, or photosynth (which I guess is microsoft's home page for this software). If you check your photo roll you'll see that there is a 2D image already in it of whatever you've taken :-)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:If you check your photo roll you'll see that there is a 2D image already in it of whatever you've taken :-)  I didn't even back out to check my photo roll, I just saw the share options in-app and gave up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
edit: damnit that's what I get for not reading the thread for a few days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:If any of you guys have an iOS device, check out this awesome panoramic app Microsoft made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I see your point, but cameras and phones are two completely different things. Yeah except the camera we are discussing IS touch screen, and it's being touted as the potential future of cameras. It appears to have a shutter button still, but everything else is touch. I don't want touch screens on anything because I think they are dumb and cumbersome. And I disagree on the phone. It's just as easy to navigate with arrows and a single "ok" button.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I see your point, but cameras and phones are two completely different things. But touchscreen never took off on computers, the ultimate general purpose device.. I ♥ my blackberry with keyboard and old style keyboard shortcuts. Once you know the shortcuts it's much easier to press k to open bookmarks than do a touch-gesture or a menu system. And you don't have to look at the screen so you can do it while driving and not risk spilling your beer! Zegnar fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Apr 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with touch screens. It opens the potential for infinitely customizable UIs. I only lament the loss of an optical viewfinder. Yesterday I was working in the bright harsh sunlight, and could barely see my histograms, so a viewfinder was 100% necessary. Of course, if all your controls are on an lcd screen, and you can't see it in sunlight, then I guess it's not the best idea. Let's just skip straight to the retina implant control technology eh?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
I think it's kind of hard to say because touchscreens didn't take off when PC's first arrived that they can't become a regular way of interfacing with a device now. The environment in 1992 wasn't nearly as incubatative for that type of thing. As much as people may not like to admit, they are extremely more practical for specific purposes, navigation systems for instance. I have a feeling we'll get to a point where touch is integrated into everything, and it will just be one of a few options for interfacing with your devices. Why shouldn't it be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:But touchscreen never took off on computers, the ultimate general purpose device.. gorilla arms (try touching your monitor all day and you get tired arms) (good god, everything is in da wiki now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesture_recognition#.22Gorilla_arm.22 AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I don't think there's anything wrong with touch screens. It opens the potential for infinitely customizable UIs. When I want to perform a function on my body, I know to press button A, then B twice and can do it without looking. With touchscreens, I might miss button A and B only registers a single press. It's too unreliable for Serious Photographers. I think it is Samsung who have a rows/columns alongside the LCD and their function and label changes with the context. That seems a reasonable compromise for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Yeah except the camera we are discussing IS touch screen, and it's being touted as the potential future of cameras. It appears to have a shutter button still, but everything else is touch. I don't want touch screens on anything because I think they are dumb and cumbersome. And I disagree on the phone. It's just as easy to navigate with arrows and a single "ok" button. Don't think of it as a camera with a touch screen, think of it as a tablet with a remote lens. Which, if this sort of device ever made it to market, is what I imagine would happen: future iPad gets a special chip that allows it to operate a remote lens+sensor combo. I personally love the poo poo out of the touch screen on my iPad, and would welcome it becoming my hub for all my gadgets as if it were a star trek tricorder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 14:45
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:But touchscreen never took off on computers, the ultimate general purpose device..
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
psylent posted:Oh god I absolutely hate typing or doing anything on my work Blackberry. I can type about 5x faster on my iPhone. I'm with you here. I carried around a BB for work for about 6 months. Every time I used the thing it made me feel like I was bashing two rocks together in morse code to get what I wanted. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
The pisspoor design of Blackberrys has nothing to do with buttons themselves being unintuitive. There's a reason keyboards became horizontally oriented rather than vertically. Why Blackberry has not adapted to that is beyond me (probably because they want to keep their terrible signature look that is not only awkward to type on but also severely limits the size of the screen). Your thumbs should not be touching at all times when you're trying to type something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Your thumbs should not be touching at all times when you're trying to type something.  It's a bit of a slow day here...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2011 16:39
|
|