Greynerd: I hope 4K TV's can be scaled down if we are forced to have them, 4K makes real life look like a cartoon image from what I have seen. Possibly we are reaching a point where video becomes just too sharp and giving video photographic levels of sharpness takes it beyond what looks normal.
In the end we are all correct in different aspects. Both of these are true:
1. 4K is a legitimate improvement in motion image quality for those who are interested in ultimate image quality. (The film Baraka was scanned at 8K many years ago.)
2. Most people won't notice the difference and won't care.
The question for each of us as individuals is whether we are part of the "good enough" audience or the "striving for excellent" audience. Nothing wrong with being part of either, it's a personal choice. Some people care about cars, I can be happy with an ordinary car. I care a lot about image quality, other people can't tell the difference between a snapshot and an Ansel Adams.
You could walk into an Apple Store and look at a the 4K and 5K iMacs. Ask yourself if the photos on those screens look more like cartoons...or more like real photo prints.
Don Sata: All very good points but one: extracting stills from video, since video shutter speeds tend to be too slow to be useful for stills.
"...video shutter speeds tend to be too slow to be useful for stills."
Not necessarily true; make sure you're not confusing frame rate and shutter speed. In video, those are two different numbers in the same frame.
Say you have a DSLR or mirrorless camera in 30 fps video mode and you're using a lens at f/2 for the narrow depth of field. There are many situations where that would completely overexpose the frame if the shutter speed equaled the frame rate. While the camera can still expose 30 frames per second, each of those frames could be 1/1000 sec, perfectly acceptable for stills.
You see evidence of this in footage of airplanes and helicopters where the propellers are too "strobed" with no prop blur. It is a symptom of the video shutter speed being much too high. Some productions have to attach ND filters because the video shutter speed is too high for film-like motion blur.
That is ridiculous. 4K in and of itself has nothing to do with making your image look like a cartoon. It means you have left the TV's "soap opera" motion smoothing setting on. If you get the TV away from the "in-store demo mode" settings and set your TV properly, it can produce a film-like image.
4K is around 8-9 megapixels, depending on which 4K you're talking about. Are you saying that your digital camera makes images even more cartoony because it does more than 4K resolution? No, of course you would never say that. Because it is not the resolution that's making it look cartoony.
If 4K is so bad for image quality, you're free to go back to using a 2-megapixel camera or less, since 2 megapixels is about the current 1080p standard.
Jay A: In my opinion, 4k is the new 3D. Something completely unnecessary, being pushed on the consumer in an effort to create a buying frenzy for a new, better, spiffier, whiter than white product that no one wants nor needs.
4K is not the new 3D.
3D is already failing and not heavily marketed by TV makers. But 4K is part of the normal progression of technology, that is why it's getting so easy to implement that you are seeing it on smartphones.
4K is something we legitimately need. For decades...we've been trapped in a low-resolution world. 120 dpi monitors and 1080 line (or less) TVs. All of that is inferior to what film was. With 4K video and HiDPI displays, we are finally getting back what we lost for many years, finally getting back to real film quality. It seems ludicrous to argue that we should refuse this return to traditional visual lquality.
mxx: A question about white screen backgrounds: Doesn't it consume more power than a black background? Especially when screens keep on getting bigger?
mxx, you have to account for the display technology. Black backgrounds can save power with OLED and (I think) old CRT technology, but no power is saved for displays that leave the backlight on all the time and create black by blocking the light, as LCD and LED-lit LCD do.
If this really works it would be a useful advance. Right now, every time you read about a "fast charging battery" what it really means is they fast-charge to around 75% and trickle the rest, hoping that is enough for you to think it's useful. Fast-charging all the way to 100% would shorten the lives of current lithium-ion batteries.
But of course, we will have to wait and see if this is a real technology or just PR.
Gionni Dorelli: if you use lightroom CC you do not need these HDR softwares anymore.I have Photomatix and Nik HDR software packages and have not touched them since the last version of LR CC came out.
No, I didn't take a statistically valid poll. None is necessary, because i never said "all HDR fans" or "most HDR fans." I merely said "a lot," which requires no statistical backup. And if you check out any other photographer forums or even other forums here, you will see that what I said is, at least, anecdotally quite true.
What is also true is how Trey feels about LR HDR. He laid it all out in his review on his blog. He hated it.
As for me, I respect Trey for many reasons, but I just don't like his HDR style.
If you like Trey's style, you will still need more than one app because LR won't get you far enough.
There is more than one kind of HDR. A lot of Trey Ratcliff fans hate Lightroom HDR because it is too photorealistic and not gaudy enough. Lightroom probably can't do what Aurora can. Trey pushes color and saturation much further than LR HDR is designed to do.
The other side of that is, a lot of photographic HDR fans hate the Trey Ratcliff style. They like LR HDR because it is realistic HDR. They will probably not like Aurora and will stick with LR.
Glad you're still covering these. Everyone's saying "You don't need a compact anymore because of smartphones," but my smartphone won't do zoom, shallow depth of field, low light, manual exposure, raw format, etc. like one of these can.
My other camera is a pro DSLR that is far too large to take everywhere.
Canon calls it "market shrinkage," but it's really about Canon not providing a good product in the camera markets that are rapidly expanding.
gonzalu: Oh boy! I used to like Sandisk, until they get acquired by WD, then I will have to find another brand. So sad. Why can't these people leave well enough alone?
Or looking at it positively, Sandisk may inject reliability into WD as a whole?
It might be important to distinguish internal from external drives. Western Digital bare drives seem to have a much better reputation for reliability than the enclosures WD puts them in.
My experience is consistent with the Backblaze study. I bought a couple of the infamous run of flawed Seagates a few years ago, they threw up errors, wouldn't even format properly. Soured me on the brand.
The Western Digitals my family has owned have been flawless so far, internal and external, 2.5" and 3.5".
Putious: This update will be a difficult pill to swallow for the anti-Sony crowd.
This is only a bad thing to people who are completely blinded by hate for Sony. I don't own a Sony and my next camera won't be a Sony, but I am thankful that Sony, like Panasonic, sets a bar that will motivate other camera makers to keep up by extending their cameras' lifetimes with firmware updates.
BigShooter: This is for the iOS only, great way to alienate a lot of customers Adobe.
Just cancelled my CC subscription a month ago and have no regrets, especially when they continue to pull crap like this...
BigShooter, it's pretty obvious from this thread that you care more than anyone...
"Years ago, Adobe pulled something similar by prioritizing and releasing the PC versions before the Mac versions...LOL"
Yes...I think that was over 15 years ago. Since then, Adobe developed some apps first on Mac, then ported to Windows later. Biggest example of that I can think of: Lightroom.
BigShooter, I did post something actual (that link), it's up to you to read it. And there's more: A company called Serif, long-time Windows-only developer (Page Plus, Photo Plus) has rolled out a line of well-reviewed applications (Affinity Designer, Affinity Photo), considered worthy Adobe competitors. Interesting thing is, their new line is Mac-only. Now why would a long-time all-Windows company put their best new design and photo applications on the Mac only, with no timeline for Windows?
When the Lytro cameras came out, for a long time the software was Mac-only.
It's not just one fact, and it's not just one time. A lot of what drives digital photography comes from the Mac side.
BigShooter...we get it from facts.
I know facts aren't always allowed here, but for example, when a Photoshop product manager was asked what the platform split was, he said "Last time I checked, Creative Suite sales were roughly 50/50 Mac/Win." That was in 2009, but more recently, a Lightroom plug-in developer posted in a forum (maybe this one) that when he checks the visitor logs for his web site the platform split is, again, 50/50.
If developers report the Mac share of photography apps is 50%, that is obviously saying that photography users lean more to the Mac than the overall user base where the Mac is 10%. That is "where we get this stuff."
The link for the Photoshop figure is http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/02/optional_plug_in_disables_trackpad_rotatio.htmlYou will have to scroll down into the comments to see the mention. I also remember the 50/50 platform split being mentioned by Adobe at another time, I just can't find a link to that or the developer's post.
Beachcomber Joe 79% market share is for the general population, not for the photography market which is more Apple leaning. Companies don't just go by number of users, they go where the users provide actual revenue for a specific product. iOS market tends to reward developers more than Android, even though there are fewer users. There are also the technical issues that make it simpler to develop and test on iOS, although where the user base makes it economically viable then Android development becomes worth it.
Look at it this way too: If app sales should be driven by raw market share only, there is no point making any mobile apps for the USA first. By the numbers, China and India are where the most mobile users are, and by a very large margin.
GiovanniB: Maybe it was a marketing decision. Even back in the 90s I often met professionals in the prepress sector, who insisted uncompressed TIFFs would provide better quality than lossless compressed ones (LZW for instance). It was almost impossible to convince them because they mostly claimed to have heard it from some kind of a guru. I suppose that kind of myths still linger around and that might be a reason for Sony to decide not to give any reason to such ill-informed people to preserve their doubts.
But while there might be no visible difference between an LZW and uncompressed TIFF (since LZW is lossless compression), there is a visible difference between (lossy) compressed and uncompressed Sony raw, as DPReview has shown, a concrete difference.
There did used to be a problem with LZW TIFFs in that some RIPs would not accept them. But that was not an image quality problem, it was a bug in RIPs. Some may have misinterpreted that as meaning uncompressed was "better" when in fact it was simply "better supported."
steelhead3: Russia could have been a great country if it hadn't fallen into its traditional xenophobic ways...so much talent wasted.
Russia is ethnically diverse, the problem is the white Russians don't like any of the others.
ShoppingBoy: What kind of man is going to buy a device that runs on Lollipop? I'll get the iPad Pro, thank you.
HowaboutRAW, iOS 9 still has the menu that pops up when you long press, which looks like a right-click menu. For example if you long press on text, you will get a pop-up menu for Cut, Copy, Paste, Select All... If you long press an image, a pop-up says Save Image, Copy... Those are in apps in general, not just web pages.
iOS 9 adds 3D Touch on the new phones where you get pop-up options based on how hard you press, not how long. For example if you press instead of tap the camera you get pop-up picture taking options without having to open the app. http://www.imore.com/3d-touch-iphone-6s-explained
The 3D touch secondary pop-up features in particular go beyond what the simple right-click menus I've been using in Windows and OS X for 20 years.