Alex_V

A lot of negativity directed at Adobe. I, for one, think that it’s great to see a bunch of software engineers with zero UX or software design skills still succeeding in the marketplace in this day and age. 😜

I’m sure that Apple will launch a large screen iMac, probably a 32”. They’re taking their time, no doubt, and they are almost certainly losing sales, as people who want to replace their 27” iMac will prefer to wait (like me). I said that Apple would launch it soon after the new (LG/Samsung?) 32” monitor was announced, and I expected that it would simply be a matter of scaling up the 24”, but evidently not. Still, Apple does take their sweet time when developing an all-new product, remember the Mac Pro saga? Any company has limited bandwidth for new product development, for Apple the priority will be to ship new phones regularly and get their laptops out the door — those are the cash cows. Plus Apple takes their time to get the product right. The last 27” iMac aluminium housing was launched in 2012 and terminated in 2022, that’s ten years for a consumer product to remain competitive in a rapidly changing market — unheard of. Excellent planning and outstanding design results in great products for consumers, and extraordinarily long production runs to milk every last dollar of profit for Apple

leicaman said:

Alex_V said:

SL356 said:

Sorry folks. This is totally fake. No way 'computational photography' produced this. 

I know what you mean. It doesn't need computational photography to occur. This effect can happen on a 35mm film SRL with a horizontal focal plane shutter: if the subject moves as the shutter is travelling horizontally across to expose the film. I believe the iPhone has a rolling shutter — same thing.

Actually, no, this would not happen with a 35mm camera. She would have to be the Flash to move fast enough for this to happen with the movement of the shutter curtains. They move too fast. They open, wait until it's time and then they close. They do not travel slowly across the frame. The travel time is in milliseconds.

This example was probably a panorama stitched by iPhone. And, you are right, a modern SLR shutter would be too fast. Still, a SLR focal plane shutter always has a difference between the time that one edge of the frame is exposed to that of the opposite edge. However, in most photographs, we don't notice. It is rare to see evidence of it, the most obvious examples are the oblique racing cars. The travel time may be measured in milliseconds, but with enough milliseconds a rapid movement will result in this effect. I have heard of this happening when a portrait subject moves their eyes from left to right as the frame is exposed. The result is one eye looking left, one looking right.  — nikonman

StrangeDays said:

nah it’s just accidental panorama. there are only two poses - left and right, stitched in the middle. the clerk likely used it by accident (done the same myself). the original photo is horizontally wide like a short pano. 

the two halves of the pano:

left:

and right:

Agreed!

SL356 said:

Sorry folks. This is totally fake. No way 'computational photography' produced this. 

I know what you mean. It doesn't need computational photography to occur. This effect can happen on a 35mm film SRL with a horizontal focal plane shutter: if the subject moves as the shutter is travelling horizontally across to expose the film. I believe the iPhone has a rolling shutter — same thing.

eightzero said:

This is an actual question: what new device has Apple offered in the past where this happened? IOW, the premium version came out, and then afterwards a less expensive option was offered shortly thereafter. I'm not convinced this is Apple's plan at all. Get the costs of parts down? Sure. They *always* do that, and the difference goes into their bank, not to lower priced stuff. Over time perhaps the devices get way more capable for about the same price, but that's not what is posited here. The only thing I can think of is the original iPhone: people complained when they bought one at full price (over $500!) and then a few months later Apple dropped the price. Purchasers complained, and Apple (Steve) offered refunds. I *can* sorta imagine Apple offering a new and distinguishable "virtual computing device" of some sort; but not just a less capable, less expensive, AVP.

It's ‘standard operating procedure’ for a company to launch a premium-priced variant and then follow with a budget model, because of the immense investment in R&D entailed in a completely new product. I guess that Apple will spend nearly as much as a car company does on developing a new model: years of development, developing of new hardware, new factory production line, new OS, software, de-bugging, plus the rest of the eco-system: packaging, advertising, manuals, servicing, language localisation, website etc. The goal is to recover that investment as quickly as possible by launching a premium-priced product. As the money comes in from the initial sales and they recover their costs Apple can then: a. drop the price of the original product marginally; and/or b. expand the product offering such as by launching a budget-priced variant to take advantage of the new production line and eco-system that is now in place.