« on: July 20, 2013, 03:01:16 PM »
Andrew Scrivani is on Creative Live right now if that's of any interest to anyone.
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.
This is only an illusion of sharpness. The truth is what really matters (the information). Looking at the print from far away only proves that human vision is very limited. At close-up you can see all the information captured by your camera, both sharp and blurry parts. So, sharpness = information. Then from the distance you see much much less information despite that it looks sharper. This kind of sharpness ≠ information. This trick is about the CoC of your eyes, DoF has nothing to do with it.
Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you.
Do I even need a 50?
Doesn't the jagged performance shown in
mean that, for the 7D, the base is 100, 125 is pushed from 100, and 160 is pulled from 200?
Unfortunately, no matter how low of a monthly fee you suggest you will never convince the contingent of users who refuse to accept "renting" software. You see, they believe that they "owned" the software when they bought in the past and could use it forever and ever and ever to infinity and beyond. They feel that "Adobe owns you" once you sign up to a subscription model because if you ever stop paying you can't access your old PSD files. And they also fear that once everyone accepts the subscription model Adobe will jack up the prices on us.
NO - what I propose if you lay out $700 for PS, you own a perpetual license. You pay a monthly support fee rather than an annual or 18 month upgrade fee. You can stop paying and keep using the s/w just to be back on the support service you need to pay missed months (either in full if short term or at discount if longer).
My copy of the upgrade is downloading right now. I've been using the beta, the two big differences, the straighten tool and the radial filter are worth it to me.
The fun thing about our legal system is that anyone can do anything they want and your recourse is to sue them and that takes a lot of money and time with an uncertain outcome.
The fun thing about the legal system where I live, is that (in this case) Canon must show monetary loss due to 3rd party firmware before they can sue.
Sounds like CRguy's reference to 1-series bodies is a separate communication from this one. Also, it seems unlikely that ML would state, "The 1-series and Cinema bodies are out of our project scope because we're afraid Canon will sue our pants off if we touch them." (In fact, both reasons are probably true for ML.)
I think I'm missing something here. From the original post it is apparent that Canon doesn't have a problem with ML being run on its Cameras ... why would Canon sue if only for the EOS-1 cameras and not the others? After all, a hack is a hack.
A hack to the 5DIII adds features without hurting Canon's bottom line. A hacked 1D X that functions as a 1D C...Canon doesn't want.
Therefore Canon's response is quite correct and honest. If you install ML and the use of ML damages your camera, they don't have to cover. But if ML is not the cause of the damage, they must honor the warranty.
One thing I don't understand about the post: what does it mean that "only Canon is OK" with that? Other companies will refuse to even touch your camera if you installed a 3rd-party firmware - even if it has nothing to do with the damage?