December 19, 2014, 07:32:16 PM

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 - Meh

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47
46
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.

Fair point.  The release of the 1DC opens up a nice little market for a firmware hack.   Still a tiny market though compared to 5D2/3 bodies used for video.... so maybe not worth getting into a battle with Canon.

47


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.



+1

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?

They probably can take that position but not formally say "your warranty is voided".  Never underestimate the cleverness of people who want to take a self-serving position on an issue.  They could simply claim that part of their service process is to run diagnostic software and any unauthorised firmware would interfere.... blah blah blah.

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.   And referring back to my above point about being "clever for self-serving purposes", lawyers are the worst of the bunch.

The saving grace is that if you did sue them they would settle very quickly rather than spend the money defending and risk getting a ruling that they must change their policy.  If they settle with you and fix your camera/car/whatever they can keep on taking the same position with other customers and just deal with the few who scream the loudest.

48
From a legal perspective, nothing can ever "void" the warranty on a product per se.  However, this seems to be a commonly stated issue for many products.  For example, car dealerships often tell customers that if they don't perform the standard service work their warranty will be voided.  Absolutely untrue.   The warranty is a legal contract and can not be voided.  What is true, is that if damage is caused by user negligence the manufacturer can refuse to cover said damage.  So, continuing the car example, if you don't change your oil and the engine seizes because the oil has turned to equal parts syrup and sludge, they can refuse to cover the repair.

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.

As for Canon threatening legal action only for firmware hacks on a 1-series but not on other bodies that seems strange.   I seriously doubt that's their official position.  If ML is not supporting 1-series bodies it is far more likely that they just didn't want to put the work into writing code for 1-series bodies when for video the 5D2/3 is the much bigger market.

49
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 01:48:28 AM »
Meh,

To my knowledge, I have yet to insult your intelligence, but I do see your point. We all need to go back to being friends. I can potentially see the value in the new model and yet it is no where close to being as valuable to me as I'm sure the Adobe crew has hoped. For my business, this simply is not my cup of tea. I am certainly glad that you and others have shown your support for their product as I believe it is easier to push against the new format than it is to defend it. I, for one, simply hope that we can all get what we desire whether it is a box, digital download, or subscription plan. If that were to happen, I think the rough seas would settle. I'm not holding my breath for that to occur, but we can certainly all have our dreams.

-Tabor

No worries, I was not referring to anything you said... it has been said by others in several different ways, some subtle and some direct, that Adobe must think customers' are stupid to think this subscription model is a good idea.  I'm not quoting anyone directly.

I think you're right that Adobe will not back down and offer boxed versions.  They've made a pretty substantial business decision and did so only after seeing the success of the subscription model over the past year.  Yet they are going to keep selling CS6 for a while and that shows they were sensitive to the issue before they announced CCl.  What they might do to appease the folks that don't like the CC model is support CS6 longer and they might reduce the pricing for single applications or offer a PS+LR package since that is the combo most photographers use.

50
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:55:43 AM »
Seriously though, I too am known to be a bit facetious at time, but this is a serious issue facing photographers, and forums like this help us discuss and even put our thoughts into words for the world to hear.

It is, but let's have the discussion without any disrespect to anyone and not even towards Adobe.  If you want to make your case to them it's best done respectfully and with an open mind.

Even something as simple as saying Adobe is insulting customer's intelligence is an insult to anyone who likes their new model...  if I happen to like it then I must have limited intelligence.  That may seem overly sensitive but it's not... if you want me to listen to and respect your opinions then shouldn't you do the same.  If I and 500,000 other people are signed up and paying for CC then perhaps there is some value in it, unless we are all just stupid minions.

Some of you are furious about the pricing, the fact that you don't "own" the software (you never did anyway), the fact that it checks in once a month to confirm the license, etc. etc. and those are valid concerns.  But let's say PS was only $5 per month... would all the other issues be acceptable or tolerable?  If so, then this is just a pricing issue.

Someone said that 20,000 people have signed the petition... 20k is a big number but it's less than 5% of the people who have signed up (assuming Adobe is being honest about that number, which they probably are since it would be a disclosure item in the financial audit).  Those 20,000 people are not wrong, they may genuinely not like the new model, but neither are the people who like the new model.

51
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:24:55 AM »
I'm sorry for causing you upset and I agree the first post that had that reference probably crossed the line
As i said i find the extreme group offensive too and hence drawing the parallel as I do find Adobes actions seriously offensive. Perhaps I was a bit flipant with that usage.

However the replacement post had nothing even remotely along this line the most severe word i used in that was "dictatorial" which is a significant step down. I also mentioned that I felt the Adobe net minions roaming the web were treating their customers intelligence with disrespect. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the replacement post would be removed except that it's sensorship (or thought police as unfocused put it) which ironically enough is moving closer to the previously mentioned extreme groups tactics of simply removing any vocal opposition.

All of yours and my posts in that exchange were deleted I presume because they were connected.

This is just me, but I don't like the name calling even if it's directed at a faceless corporation because it taints the whole discussion.  If you don't like their new model just say so and say what you don't like.  Why compare them, or anyone, to anything at all.  The one thing I have little patience for on this site (and to be fair, the CR members are quite good compared to other forums) is personal attacks, insults, hate, bullying, etc.

52
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 22, 2013, 11:18:44 PM »
WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!

There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)

oh except I wasn't gushing over how I love the new Adobe subscription model
please this level of sensorship is retarded cant he mod that removed my posts
please PM me with a reasonable reason why?

seriously is Adobe paying CR to crush the negative feedback or what?
 ::)

Not sure what "second lot" you're referring to but the post you made last night deserved to be deleted and if I was the mod I would have banned you from the site.

Seriously? thats a bit extreme
I find fascists offensive too hence the reason i refered to Adobe as such

I found your post offensive.  Your posts are often edgy and blunt but not offensive, they sometime make me chuckle just a little bit and that brightens my day.  But your comment last night was out of place and unnecessarily associated Adobe with the behavior of a very extreme group.

53
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 22, 2013, 10:21:08 PM »
WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!

There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)

oh except I wasn't gushing over how I love the new Adobe subscription model
please this level of sensorship is retarded cant he mod that removed my posts
please PM me with a reasonable reason why?

seriously is Adobe paying CR to crush the negative feedback or what?
 ::)

Not sure what "second lot" you're referring to but the post you made last night deserved to be deleted and if I was the mod I would have banned you from the site.

54
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: May 21, 2013, 10:31:19 PM »
Ironically, the best way to send a message to Adobe is to buy their product.


Buying CS6 rather than renting will show the model we prefer. And when it comes round to the time when people would normally be upgrading, then they'll notice that people are sticking with what they've got.

That'll show 'em... give them that $200 and see how they like it... take that Adobe!

55
Lenses / Re: Downgrading my equipment - looking for advice
« on: May 21, 2013, 10:29:07 PM »
Sorry you fell, hope you're feeling better.

It's not clear from your post why you're downgrading, I assume it's connected to hitting your head but what's the exact reason:  i) because you want less weight or ii) because you needed the money from selling the expensive gear or iii) you just want to try to go with primes or iv) you want a smaller system.

Without know more I'd say keep the 5D3 and just get the few primes you want.  On the other hand, you want to pick up an 85, 135, and 200mm prime lens but you could have kept the 70-200 and covered all those focal lengths and certainly been "good enough" as you stated.

I don't really get what you're thinking here.


56
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 12:41:20 PM »
Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help.  Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape.  When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume.  As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape.  Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise).  Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck)  you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors.  When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise.  Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise.  Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level.  Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal.  Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ.  There are a lot of different points to consider.  What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog.  It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise".  All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high.  Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

57
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 10:41:00 AM »
Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

58
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:47:51 AM »
No it's not false and it precisely answers your question.  High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you.  I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years.  10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation.  The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise.  It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area.  I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel.  To me you are just noise.

I  am quite done with this.


You can get help for your anger issues.  There are experienced therapists waiting.  Some even have over 30 years of experience.

59
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:33:29 PM »
The onus used to be on Adobe to keep coming up with new and compelling features...

Very true... and it could very well be that compelling advancements are going to get fewer and further apart, that happens with most technology.  In the early years there are a lot of new developments but after a while the easy and obvious stuff is done and it gets harder and harder to come up with the next great feature.

Unless there is some feature of PS CC that is really needed or wanted, then anyone who currently owns PS should probably upgrade to CS6 and wait to see how things go with CC and if new features get added continually over time as Adobe is suggesting.  Not much harm in doing that, it's a cautious approach.

60
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 13, 2013, 11:16:59 AM »
@unfocused you're absolutely correct, it is a marketing tactic... to build a base as you said but also simple "segmented marketing" in which you charge a lower price to certain groups (students, seniors, etc.) who are less likely to buy at full price.  But it only works if there is a clear and enforceable differentiating factor among those groups.  Age works well because it's unambiguous but it's only enforceable for certain things like movie tickets... it doesn't work well for software.    "Personal" vs. "Business" actually doesn't work well because it's not always clear so what usually is done is to omit business features form a home version.   "Student" works well for software because you can require a valid registration at at an accredited school but you still need to put some protection which can be leaving out certain functions or not being able to upgrade.

Software is almost never transferable.  It is only valid for the person who licenses it (not necessarily who pays) and you can not transfer to another person or company if you decide you don't need it.  You can buy used software but it's technically not allowed... it's just very difficult to enforce.   

It should be pretty plain that it is not allowed to have a student buy you a discounted version if you are not a student.  The argument that "your wife" is a student might seem valid because you might think of it is a "family purchase" but it's not.   Anyone can use the software that's installed on one machine but should the "family" pay for the license according to the lowest priced user or the highest.  I didn't go read the Adobe license agreement to confirm so if someone knows better please speak up but I think the answer is the "highest".

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 47