or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

That's exactly what Apple's all about. Apple's products are called "affordable luxury". They aren't cheap, but seem to cost more than they do, because Apple doesn't make cheap things.The new iPad Pro is an exciting development, as the Pencil is. They keyboard, much less so, as there were things they could have done better there.I'm counting down to November.
Every pro photographer I know would prefer that camera companies make DNG standard. Hassleblad did so years ago. So have some others. It's a standard for Phase One as well. These are the two heavyweights in the medium format industry.I don't know of anyone who would use a JPEG from a DNG. That's not the purpose. A manufacturer can embed a JPEG for thumbnail usage, but not for editing. All RAW converters can read, and edit a DNG, and we all immediately convert our RAW...
They are, and they aren't perfect. But they got on top because of a far better implementation. As far as quality goes, it's not really their fault. The truth is that their tablets used to cost far more. But people simply won't pay that much. It's been that way for a while now.I used to have Barco monitors for my color correction department. Those monitors, which were 21" 1600x1200 rez, using CRTs, cost $16,000 each. That's not a typo. They had glossy screens, and we used...
There no benefit in it at all. It's just a marketing move. That high Rez adds nothing to the quality of the screen. It actually lowers the functionality of the device, as you need four times as much graphics memory, and a GPU that's four times as fast just to maintain the same video rates. It's a total waste of resources. It has nothing to do with color gamut, contrast, or anything.
Well, back then, if you had expensive gear, or what appeared to be expensive gear, and lied about what you did, to women (Do guys do that! Nah!) you might be able fool a few. But as most of the women I interacted with back then were the models I worked with, sure, we would go out. What was funny was that I knew a number of pretty famous models, having worked with them. If we were on the street together, and their height next to my 5'8" attracted attention, I'm sure people...
A DNG is better than a RAW file because it's become a standard, which RAW files are not. Every DNG is directly readable, as is the data within it by any software that reads DNG, which is about every image editor today. It's an Adobe invention, which is why it's become popular. So e camera manufacturers have that as their standard file format, which is a very good thing.Unfortunately, all RAW files are not equal. Nikon, for example, refuses to disclose its RAW information,...
It is. But Nikon hasn't really been interested in video. They do it just because Canon, their only real competitor, has done so well with it. Still, this is an interesting development. The 1080p from my iPhone 6+ is pretty darn good already.
All RAW means it that it's the pure data off the sensor, without any manipulation. Unfortunately, some companies, such as Nikon and Sony, do some manipulation, and even compression of their "RAW" files.
I'm pretty sure it could be. Even better would be a DNG.
Perhaps. On a built-in cover as this one, the cover is computed as part of the lens system. So the internal reflections are able to be minimized. If it's multi coated, as it likely is, then reflections should be well controlled.
New Posts  All Forums: