October 23, 2014, 06:16:58 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - iKenndac

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
I've been using Yosemite for a few months as the Developer Previews progressed, and by and large things work well - considering the magnitude of the UI changes, it's pretty impressive. Lightroom and Photoshop CC 2014 work perfectly fine.

That said, if you use EOS Utility you'll want to hang back for a bit until it's updated:




2
Software & Accessories / Re: Reco Config for Mac Pro (2013)
« on: January 02, 2014, 04:20:32 PM »
I've hear rumors you *might* could upgrade the CPU yourself, but I've not confirmed that yet.
It uses the standard LGA 2011 socket and a standard Xeon configuration. (Source)

But for the GPU, since they are soldered into the thing, I'd max it out on purchase.
The GPU isn't soldered on, but it does use a proprietary connector (same source as above) that will make any future upgrade options pricey. I maxed out my GPUs.

3
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Shutter Actuation App for Mac
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:49:24 AM »
Is it normal/expected/possible that cameras leave the factory with some actuations on them already? Quality assurance testing, maybe? What's your experience?

Yup. I'd actually be worried if my camera arrived without anyone bothering to see if it works! You can't buy a new car with 0 miles on the clock for similar reasons.

4
Software & Accessories / Re: OS X Mavericks
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:45:49 AM »
BTW if you have upgraded and use the current EOS Utility, let us know about workability & stability.

I'm a software developer by trade and have been running the 10.9 developer previews on one of my machines since June. The version I have installed "Version 2.13.10 (2.13.10.0)" works just fine for me with my 6D over Wifi and USB. However, I'm a hobbyist and most likely not as demanding as you guys with remote shooting, so take my "evidence" as anecdotal at best.

5
Software & Accessories / Re: OS X Mavericks
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:57:07 AM »
Yikes.


Adobe needs to address this ASAP.

Thankfully, you can just quit the Creative Cloud application and everything will still run fine — you can then just launch it to check for updates every so often.

And as for paul13walnut5, "Production environment" is a very standard term for the computer setup you use to do work in — i.e., something that needs to stay operational. You don't install stuff in your production environment until you're reasonably certain it won't cause problems. A sandbox is a setup you can use to test out new stuff without worrying about the consequences of it breaking. It might be a spare computer or a virtual machine, for instance.

6
Lenses / Re: Are we in a rebate "drought"?
« on: September 15, 2013, 01:19:11 PM »
There's a rebate going on right now in the UK. £170 back on the 16-35mm f/2.8? VERY tempting…

7
If you want to use the same applications as you do on a PC, your only option is one that runs Windows — like the Microsoft Surface Pro. iPads, Android tablets like the Nexus 7 etc etc won't run Windows software.

Graphics, performance and RAM won't be of a concern on any modern Windows tablet unless you want to do full-blown Lightroom editing on them.

8
PNG has it's applications, and better resolution and color information (with higher file size as the tradeoff)... is one of them.

24-bit PNG has 8 bits per channel, same as JPEG. There is no more colour information in a PNG than a JPEG.

PNG is lossless compression, where JPEG is lossy. In terms to quality:filesize, PNG's compression algorithms do better at simple graphics with sharp edges and uniform colours, where JPEG is better at your typical photograph.

Even the PNG website (under "Typical Usage") says that JPEG is better for this kinda stuff:

Quote
Note that for transmission of finished truecolor images--especially photographic ones--JPEG is almost always a better choice. Although JPEG's lossy compression can introduce visible artifacts, these can be minimized, and the savings in file size even at high quality levels is much better than is generally possible with a lossless format like PNG.

If you're going to print your photo, then lossless is what you want. For a tiny version that's going to be displayed on a web forum using browsers already established to be terrible at colour management on crappy 6-bit displays, a big PNG file is probably overkill. If you're going to do that, you may as well just post up DNGs and be done with it.

9
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: June 26, 2013, 04:21:08 PM »
Went to a woodland obstacle course this weekend. Got loads of great photos with my 6D + 70-200 f/4 L (no IS) - here's one of my favourites.


10
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: June 26, 2013, 03:25:54 PM »
I bought my 6D earlier this year, conscious of the fact that the AF being underwhelming on paper. I've been loosely following this thread and similar ones online, seeing people say the 6D's AF is anything from "completely useless" to "actually, pretty good!". Most photos I take are of stationary things, so it's no big deal.

This weekend, I visited a place called Go Ape — an obstacle course through the trees in a British forest. I was taking photos with my 6D and 70-200 f/4 (no IS) and was kinda worried since the weather was typically dark and grey, we were under tree cover and I had to take photos people people sliding down zip lines at fairly high speed.

Thankfully, my fears were unfounded. The AF in the 6D performed amazingly well and I was getting some superb shots! Sure, the AF isn't as good as the 5D3's, but it's way better than a lot of posts and articles would lead you to believe.


11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Geotagging - best method in LR
« on: June 13, 2013, 03:16:48 PM »
As the poster above me said, you can get a standalone GPS unit and keep it in your bag. However, you don't need third-party software — Lightroom (and Aperture, if that's your thing) can import files from these devices directly and geotag photos with them.

I have a 6D now so I'm set, but before I used a rugged Garmin device I also use for hiking and bike riding. It's a bit clunky, but there are little standalone devices like this.

Finally, you can get apps for your phone that do this now. They'll drain the battery, though, but if you're only out for an hour or two they'll be fine. The key thing to look out for is the creation of GPX files — if you have a device or app that generates GPX files, they can be imported straight into Lightroom or Aperture without any extra software.

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Computer Upgrade for new camera
« on: June 02, 2013, 06:55:42 AM »
Sorry about that. I only read the first post thoroughly, then I just randomly scrolled and have read somewherer about iMaca and love getting something something, so I just concluded you're getting one. Anyway. Get a SSD (your computer will be reborn, I promise you that) and 4GB RAM (more, if it fits in your laptop). Lightroom 4 has this stupid bug, which won't flush memory. After editing about 20-25 pictures, all my RAM is used up and even if I restart Lightroom, it won't help much, other than restarting whole computer.


Have a look on the App Store for free Memory Flushers. They work a treat.

I hate to be that guy, but: No. No no no no no.

Memory flushers are often detrimental to overall system performance. Here's why: Unused RAM is wasted RAM. It's money better spent on something else. Therefore, when you quit an application or an application frees/flushes memory, Mac OS X won't actually free it. Instead, the system keeps the data in RAM around in case it's needed again later. For example, if you reboot your Mac and launch Photoshop, it'll take quite a long time to launch. If you quit Photoshop and launch it again a second time, it'll load *much* faster. This is because the system kept the data around in RAM so it didn't have to load Photoshop from disk the second time.

This cached information is freed from RAM automatically if something else needs it. Using "RAM flushers" deletes this cache, meaning you lose the performance benefits it provides.

You can read more about this from Apple themselves here (under the "Inactive" header).

Basically, if you have more than 0Mb of free RAM on a Mac OS X machine at the end of the work day, that RAM was a waste of money and you should've spent it on something else.

Source: I'm a programmer by trade — it'd my job to know this boring crap like the back of my hand.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the useful part of this post: The simple way to tell if your computer needs more RAM is to look at the "Page Outs" figure in Activity Monitor. Page Outs happen when the system has run out of RAM to store everything it needs, so it starts purging stuff out to disk. Doing that is super slow (even with SSDs) and you should avoid it if you can. For example, my Mac has 16Gb of RAM and its uptime is nearly 80 days (I just sleep it rather than shutting it down). In this time, page outs total around 200Mb, which is perfectly fine. My free memory figure is never more than 1Gb or so, and all my apps load super fast because they're in the cache. However, because the page outs figure is so low, adding more RAM won't really increase performance.

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Computer Upgrade for new camera
« on: May 30, 2013, 06:46:18 AM »
3) I mean that I can see the iPhoto library from other applications, e.g. e-mail attachments and such. Works very nicely with iPhoto. Aperture is the same I guess.

Aha, I understand. Yes, you're correct in that a) Lightroom doesn't show up in there and b) Aperture does.

6) I'll look into Aperture, too. Reasons I consider LR are: a) I get it for free, b) lens correction included.

What are other Mac users oppinions re LR vs. Aperture? Worth to shell out another 80$ to get it over LR?

I'm currently torn on Aperture. I used it from the day 1.0 came out right up until a few months ago. I adore the UI, the speed, the "edit-anywhere" functionality and the system integration (Photo Stream, the system image picker you mentioned, etc). Lightroom, in comparison, feels clunky and slow to me.

However, on the flip side, Lightroom currently has far better image editing capabilities. The noise reduction is fantastic, and the lens correction tools are really useful. The new features coming in LR 5 look to make it pretty much all I'd ever need for image editing, and I've heard it's somewhat faster than Lightroom 4. After a month or so of getting used to it, I don't Lightroom's UI bad enough to move back. I still don't like the UI as much as Aperture's, but the image editing tools keep me with Lightroom, at least for now.

I'm eagerly awaiting Aperture 4. If it steps up its game in terms of image editing, I'll probably move back.

To be honest they're both great image editing and asset management programs, and like Canon and Nikon, they keep leapfrogging one another. Lightroom is currently ahead, but I'm not sure how long that'll be the case. Of course, you'll get die-hard fans defending one over the other (also like Canon and Nikon), but in my opinion you can't really make the wrong choice here — just go with whatever you prefer. They'll both get the job done, and that's all that really matters.

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Computer Upgrade for new camera
« on: May 30, 2013, 05:30:45 AM »
1) The SSD will speed your system up a ton for everyday tasks — booting, launching programs, etc. Also, get more RAM. It's relatively cheap nowadays, and it'll also increase the speed of you machine since it won't be paging stuff to disk. An SSD will speed this up, but RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than an SSD. None of my computers have less than 16Gb in them.

2) There's no need to partition the HDs really.

3) I don't understand what you mean by "synced into the system". Can you be a bit more clear?

4) Your Mac Pro should be able to run 10.8 just fine, especially with an SSD. Lightroom 4 requires Mac OS 10.6.8, and Lightroom 5 requires Mac OS 10.7. Aperture (which I'll get onto in a minute) requires 10.7.5.

5) The 2009 Mac Pro is still pretty quick. I think it has a few more years in it yet!

6) Look at Apple's Aperture. I find it a lot faster than Lightroom 4 on my 2010 iMac (2.8Ghz, 16Gb of RAM) — it uses the GPU for rendering a lot more than Lightroom, which provides a nice speedup. Also, you mentioned that your wife likes iPhone — Aperture and iPhoto can actually share libraries these days, which is great — your wife can use iPhoto and you can use Aperture and both work with the same photo library. Aperture is a lot more powerful than iPhoto, and I like it a lot.

15
They are not really reverse engineering the firmware. The camera still runs the original firmware straight from Canon. It's not a replacement version that they figured out how to write themselves. There is way too much that have no clue about with how DIGIC and the sensor works to even begin such a task. They simply load the regular firmware plus hooks and extensions that they wrote from the ground up.

Yes they are — they reverse-engineered many APIs that the firmware provides to display stuff on screen, get buttons presses, etc etc etc. They wouldn't know *how* to hook into the firmware without reverse-engineering at least some of it to figure out where to hook in.

In fact, they say the project uses reverse-engineering right in their FAQ, under the "Is It Legal?" header: "This is a clean room / black box reverse engineering effort", and again under the "Is it safe?" header: "Magic Lantern was created by reverse engineering an undocumented system that controls hardware."

Pages: [1] 2 3