July 30, 2014, 03:33:45 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 250
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:29:28 AM »
Well, the interesting part of the test data is showing the d810 has a real ISO 50 (47) available, labelled as 64 and 32 extended.

The SNR at the new low ISO is now pushed down to .008% gray scale, a number only attained by Pentax' K5ii series at its measured ISO of 68 (80) until now.  The pixel-level DR is increased to 13.67 in the d810 vs 13.59 in the K5ii

That is interesting, as the K5 and K5-II both also use very heavy in-camera processing of the RAW to achieve that. Before Pentax started using Sony sensors, the sensors they were using were very noisy. Pentax combated that with RAW signal processing, which they brought over to their Sony sensor cameras, which is why they had the best SNR and some of the best RAW dynamic range of any cameras till now.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:22:00 AM »
...
Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

The other take away from this is that you don't actually believe that they're "joined at the hip" and that you made that comment just to be inflamatory. i.e. you were being a troll.

Of course I don't believe they are "joined at the hip"...companies don't have hips.  ::) The only person on these forums who could possibly take that comment as being "inflammatory", Dilbert, is you...and as I already stated, that isn't surprising. So, moving on...

18
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:01:55 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???

Let me make it easier for you.

Why do you think that it is appropriate to use that figure of speech with Nikon and DxO?

Because it is! :) Man, Dilbert...it's always the same old thing from you. There wasn't even any material for you to REALLY get your fingers into this time...and yet you still can't let up. It was a simple figure of speech, one meant to be a little humorous. Everyone else got it...but you? No...you gotta make an issue out of a freakin figure of speech. Man...I kinda feel sorry for you...you MISSED SHAKIRA'S HIPS, MAN!!

And yes, just to be completely clear, it was, is, and will forever be entirely appropriate to say Nikon and DxO are joined at their virtual corporate hips. Because THEY ARE! :D

19
Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 25, 2014, 01:34:50 AM »
@jrista,
I'm indeed intrigued by your Windows 8 observations and comments, you may have just convinced me to add yet another internal SSD to my workstation just to dual boot.
As far as Windows' interfaces go, even Windows 7 I dislike a lot, had to install Classic Shell to make it tolerable. I never even liked the XP interface, every time I used search I longed for Windows 2000. I though the interface on 2K was just perfect, too bad that version fell so far behind in so many ways.

You might like the Windows 8 default interface. It's flat, but it's simple and non-glassy, not overdone and to colorful like XP. I just set it to a dark gray, and I've been quite happy with it. I stopped liking the 'primitive' Windows 95 "3D" look a long time ago...I was in with flat and photographic before Microsoft (and then everyone else, including web designers) went flat. I'm about as happy as I can be with modern user interfaces. Flat (and photographic), in my opinion, is the pinnacle of design. :D

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:59:08 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

Yeah...not gonna touch that...not on these forums...

A guy tries to start a pleasant flame war and you just have to spray halon 1301 all over it.   :P

Hey, be careful with the BoTtoM man! We don't want to extinguish Shakira's Incorporated Hips! :P

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:54:01 AM »
Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

You're making the prior claim, as yet unsubstantiated by other independent testers, that DxO's "overall score" has legitimacy.  Given that DxO doesn't publish their weighting, you may have a harder time with your task than jrista does proving corporations have hips.


|
|
V

P.S. I believe Shakira is a corporation.  ;D

I'd touch Shakira's incorporated hips to reggae music, though.... :P

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:51:37 AM »
I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can have religious values, so presumably they also have all other aspects of human experience, including physical bodies.  I'm sure if you ask one of the majority voters, *cough* Scalia *cough*, he could conjure up some hocus-pocus-juris-prudence to support hips on a corporation.

</snark>

Yeah...not gonna touch that...not on these forums...

23
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:48:55 AM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?

Well you're the one making the claim so what I'm doing is asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

If you can't see how companies would be joined at the hip then why claim that they are?

Seriously, dude?  :o

Your going to ask me for "evidence" when I'm using an OBVIOUS FIGURE OF SPEECH now? Every time I use a PLAY ON WORDS?  ???



Don't be lame! :D

24
Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 25, 2014, 12:29:30 AM »
If I had one wish for Microsoft to grant for a future release of Windows, it would be this: Make every, single, element, of the user interface customizable. Allow me to drag, arrange, pin, doc, hide whatever I want, wherever I want it. This includes menus, toolbars, taskbars, anything. Let me choose which mode the OS boots/runs in, regardless of the device it's running on. Let me choose how I want the OS to serve me. Don't force me to live with your choices on my behalf. I appreciate the effort to guess my wants and needs, but give me the option to override your choice if it misses.

Feel free to have everything a certain way as a default for beginners, but give UI nuts like me the ultimate in flexibility. I want MY Windows experience to be mine.


You really don't understand what your asking for, there. :P Do you know what it would take to develop an OS that was 100% completely and totally customizable like that? It's a nearly incomprehensible job, especially with an established platform that existing customers rely on to keep functioning the way it always has for backwards compatibility purposes. Companies have tried, Microsoft actually tried once, with Longhorn. They put a massive amount of time, money, and effort into it, and some of the initial early alphas (one of which I have, somewhere, on a DVD here) were AWE-SOME. Microsoft built a new OS that pretty much wiped the floor with any other OS. It, in my opinion, was nearly the perfect OS (barring the still-present bugs at that time, and some un-finished features...the core of it all was WinFS, the melding of hierarchical and relational databases into a journaled file system; The Longhorn OS was originally built on top of that core file and data management concept, and everything integrated with it...it...was...amazing). You can see this concept here:

Longhorn concept Small | Large


The alpha I used wasn't quite as polished as this video shows, I think they doctored some things up, but overall, that's what Windows Longhorn was designed to do and be (which was what Vista was originally supposed to be, an early form of it). The media management alone was beyond phenomenal. The customizability was a lot higher than current versions of Windows, they had a lot more docking capabilities, search was amazing, they had an early version of the metro UI concept, where apps didn't have to be regular old windows with a title bar, a menu bar, a toolbar and a client content area...free form apps that could look like anything, but they didn't always have to be full screen (although I understand why Metro/Win8 touch apps have to be full screen or minimally tiled, given the touch nature of tablets.)

So, why didn't they release it? Why didn't they make Vista the original Longhorn? Why did they revert back to a more primitive form of windows? Two reasons. First, the backwards compatibility thing. Microsoft originally rewrote Longhorn from the ground up on an entirely new concept (a concept they are still experimenting with, you can read more about it if you look up their Singularity research project). This brand new totaly rewritten OS lost a significant amount of backward compatibility. Microsoft tried to jettison all the ancient cruft that still litters the OS today, even in Windows 8. They found that they simply couldn't...massive breaking changes to backwards compatibility would have alienated the majority of their existing installed base. Early leaked alphas, as cool as they were, alarmed the most important segment of Microsofts business: The enterprise.

As for the other reason, you already said it: Too much change. Microsoft put billions of dollars into Longhorn, then billions more to "revert" it back into what Vista ended up actually releasing as. Despite how freaking cool Longhorn was...people freaked out about it in early trials. Not the people who thought it was amazing, the people who could see the power buried just underneath the surface....but everyone else. All the hundreds of millions of "average" computer users who expect Windows to always look and behave "just like Windows." The people who abhor change (unless it comes from Apple, of course, Apple is the god-king-fruitloop of the brainwashed masses....  ::))

Microsoft, ever since then, has been VERY careful about what they change and how much they change in each new version of Windows. People complain about Windows 8 being too much change...lol...people have NO IDEA what "change" is until they have given Windows Longhorn a try. Windows 8 was a TIMID push into a touch OS. It added a new form of app, and really only changed two major things that all users would see: The start menu became a start screen, and menu bars in built-in desktop apps were changed to ribbon bars. That's it! The changes from Vista to Windows 7 were even more minimal than that. Microsoft has released two additional versions of windows since v8...8.1 and now 8.1U1 (8.2). Both 8.1 and 8.1U1 have also been minimalistic updates. They can't do more than that, they can't add in a ton of features, because if they do, a very meaningfully significant portion of the some BILLION users who run Windows will bitch and moan about it.

Microsoft's taken on the only strategy they can these days: Make some small changes, see how people react, listen to their feedback, and make a few more small changes. Rinse, repeat, ad. infi. They wasted billions of dollars making Longhorn...and it was pretty much all pure waste. They can't waste that kind of money again, so the hope of a truly radical, innovative, and ground breaking new operating system (and Microsoft is probably the only company on earth that could pull such a thing off...Apple couldn't, Apple only ever releases individual, isolated feature updates to OS X, and OS X was only successful because of how utterly horrible the original NON-multitasking MacOS was, and the most siginficant thing they have done with iOS is give it a face lift...underneath, it's still the same core OS, and they will never be able to change it lest they bring the ire and wrath of all iPhone and iPad users...hmm, that sounds familiar...) a groundbreaking new operating system is a dead hope. Microsoft learned a painfully expensive lesson from Longhorn. Despite all of us, including myself, who really, really, REALLY wanted Longhorn (and the underlying core WinFS technology) to be released, as well as some of the talked about improvements that were supposed to follow the initial retail release of Longhorn and improve things even more, the masses trumped us.

And that's all that really matters. A significant portion of the masses, the consumers, abhor change, refuse to accept change, and therefor have saddled Microsoft with an operating system that cannot EVER look ANY different than it has since 1995 (despite the fact that they have all been asking for Microsoft to "change" one thing or another that they personally hate in Windows for decades, they still don't actually want change). The other significant portion of the masses, the enterprise, can't let go of their ancient technology, and therefor have saddled Microsoft with an operating system that cannot EVER remove ANY of the ancient cruft sagging in it's underbelly, dragging all the rest of the OS down along with it.

Ironically, Microsoft built an OS that over a billion running computers can't do without, and yet at the same time, built an OS that they cannot change without losing customers. They built themselves their own Catch-22 from which they apparently can never escape...



Mozilla Firefox almost got there with the latest version. I can customize and arrange nearly everything about the toolbars, even the contents and order of what's in the menu. The only thing they dropped the ball on was locking the Stop/Refresh button inside the address bar (it's tiny, too) and removing the Separator from the menu of doo-dads you can choose from to customize the toolbar.


You should look at Opera 12. Before they ditched their own rendering engine and become a Chrome Clone, Opera was the most customizable, feature rich browser on earth. I'm a BIG fan of Opera up through v12. Opera was phenomenal. It was almost like a web operating system in and of itself...it did everything, beyond browsing it was fully skinnable, did email (IMAP, POP), torrent downloads, IRC chat, it had a fully featured widget framework, it was the first browser with tabs, the first browser with tab grouping, the first browser with tab previews and thumbnail tabs, it was the first browser to sync settings across computers, it was pretty much the first browser to do anything. I think the only thing it didn't do first was the FireBug thing...FireBug was first, Opera DragonFly came after. All other browsers copied things from Opera, and even today, Opera 12 is the most feature rich browser I've ever used.

I'm pretty sad that the company ditched their own rendering engine, Presto, for Chromium...Opera is just a Chrome clone now, and a less feature rich one at that (as they have to wait for Chrome itself to be updated before they can integrate the new Chromium engine version into Opera, so Opera versions 15 and up are always behind Chrome). Truly a sad thing.

While I'm at it, if I had a second wish it would be: Store the operating system and programs on one partition and all my files on another by default so re-imaging is quick and easy, without affecting my files/data. I do this manually any time I get a new machine, but I still have to go through and change the default locations of things like My Documents, My Pictures, et cetera. Why mingle all my data on the same logical drive as the OS and programs? If something borks my registry or otherwise pollutes my operating system, I want to just re-image and move on with life.


You should be able to do this. Each version of Windows has had the ability to import settings or import settings and apps from prior installs. If you configured your system drive to point to another drive for all your "User" folders, like Documents, Pictures, etc., you should just be able to import those settings (assuming you didn't format the original drive). In more recent versions of Windows, I believe you can even mount a Windows full-drive backup, and import the settings from that (in the event that your original boot drive fully died.)

As for installing on another drive by default, there would be risks involved in that, especially for less computer literate users. If you've noticed the trend with the Windows install, it has progressively become less and less interactive from the original release of Windows 95. Windows 8 install is almost entirely automated. All you really have to do is pick the partition you want to install on (and maybe create that partition, however if you just pick a new, blank hard drive, it will partition it properly for you as well), and then let the install run. The entire Windows 8.x installs are completely automated, and the only time you actually interact with it is pretty much after the OS is installed, and your just picking your basic settings...what colors, what's your username, do you want to use wifi, etc. I don't even think it asks you for timezone anymore...it figures that out on its own by using the new Windows 8 location service to figure out where you are in the world, and sets the timezone accordingly.

It isn't that hard to redirect your personal folders to another drive, and that's pretty much a one-time thing any time you install, so personally, given that I do the same thing, it isn't at the top of my complaint list. :P

There is another option for this as well. Windows has supported inline mount points, hard links and symbolic links for quite some time. You could just xcopy your entire user folder to another drive, log into another account (preferably administrator), then either mount that whole entire drive at C:\Users\YourUserName, or symlink it (basically point C:\Users\YourUserName to, say E:\). Then, it would be a simple matter of simply remounting your relinking your user profile any time you reinstalled the system.

(That's another one of Microsofts problems...only technology professionals know about the really cool things you can do with Windows. PowerShell is one of the most amazing features of Windows, and it wipes the floor with Bash and pretty much any other unix/linux shell since it's fully object oriented instead of just text based...but again, only technology professionals know about it.)

Anyway...I guess I'm rambling...

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 11:32:26 PM »
...
This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip.
...

Do you have any evidence of this?

All of this (everyone's comments) just sounds like more sour grapes from Canon fans because their cameras don't score as well and it is well recognised that Canon's sensors aren't as good.

Does anyone complain that the scores for Canon sensors are too high?
Or that DxO incorrectly says that Canon camera X has a better/worse sensor than Canon camera Y?

^--- This ---^

Isn't a surprise, either. :P  ;D Our resident Nikon foreverfanboyyayz!

BTW, Dilbert...are you ACTUALLY asking me if Nikon and DXO are "literally" joined at the hip?   ???  I mean, your asking for "evidence" of that...I've been racking my brain for a way to describe how organizations and companies have "hips", conjure up some kind of...evidence, for that...but I'm at a loss for...anything...here...... :P

26
Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 24, 2014, 07:15:23 PM »
The controls do get small, though, everything is small, as Adobe does not seem to have put any effort into supporting High DPI displays yet.

Lightroom 5 fully supports HiDPI Retina displays, and on Windows it has a 200% UI font scaling option. Most of the CC products are in the same state. Windows rendering isn't as good as OS X Retina, because it has a number of issues with HiDPI scaling that Adobe are working closely with Microsoft to address. It will be a while before we get feature parity.

A 200% scale would be too large, though...at least, on anything less than a true 4k screen. Windows supports multiple scaling (i.e. 125%, 150%, 200%, and even higher than that for future high DPI displays), and Windows 8.1 is now actually capable of scaling dynamically depending on the display for multi-headed systems. Adobe should really integrate properly with Windows so that if, for example, I wanted to pull off a loupe onto a second screen that has a different DPI, it would use the Windows 8.1 scaling, rather than use some fixed built-in scaling that is independent of the OS.

If your trying to force the OS to conform to the Adobe-custom DPI approach, that's the wrong solution. Your forever going to be working against the Microsoft grain. Reference and use the OS DPI/scaling factor, and properly adjust the DPI used to render windows that are pulled off onto different screens, so that we Windows users can comfortably use multiple screens with different DPIs as we please.

At the moment, I believe Windows supports the following scales:

96dpi/100%
120dpi/125%
144dpi/150%
192dpi/200%
240dpi/250%
288dpi/300%
384dpi/400%
480dpi/500%

27
Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:35:54 PM »
I just upgraded to 8.1, and shortly after reading Microsoft's support files about problems I was having with IE 11, I went back to windows 7.  I'll give 8.2 a try to see if it fixes the issues.  I like to put links to web sites on the desktop by dragging from IE, that does not work.  Dragging them to the favorites bar in IS 11 also doesn't work.

That feature is something I use a lot.  Microsoft says they are aware of the issue, but that's all.

I have IE 11, and I just tried doing both, dragging to desktop and dragging to bookmarks bar. Both worked.

The only thing I know of that would prevent that is if the IE instance was running under a different account. That can happen if you run it as administrator. In which case, windows security mechanisms are kicking in, and you WANT that. Otherwise you'd have a security hole that people could exploit.

Make sure IE is running under the same account as your logging in as, and you shouldn't have problems dragging pages to the desktop or the bookmarks bar.

Oh, and just as an FYI, to drag links, you have to drag the page icon off the address bar. It's just to the left of the page address itself. As far as I know, there is no other way to drag links...but dragging the page icon always seems to work for me. That also seems to work for most other browsers as well. It works in Chrome/Opera, as well as FireFox.

28
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:13:54 PM »
As DXO has given a near perfect score to the D810, they may have painted themselves into a corner. Their proprietary scale doesn't give DXO much room to heap hyperbolic praise on the next Nikon release.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/07/24/nikon-d810-sensor-new-dxomark-leader.aspx/


This really isn't a surprise. DxO and Nikon are inseparably joined at the hip. Plus, all this really means, particularly the new 14.8 stops Print DR number, is that Nikon is cooking their RAW files EVEN MORE. Nikon/Sony's biggest "cheat" is the fact that they clip to black point, instead of offsetting to black point. Nikon cameras just throw away a lot of low-level signal information. The Sony Exmor sensor gives them more room to do that, for sure, but they are still throwing away information.

Canon, on the other hand, does not clip, they offset. So ALL the noise in the deep shadows of Canon's signal is still there (it's always there, in every sensor). Canon could probably achieve better results by using a more significant offset...and at times, as they have improved their sensor tech and increased their bit depth, they have changed their bias offset. It used to be 128 to 256 back in the 10-bit days, it was 512 to 1024 in the 12 bit days. I think it's 1024 or 2048 with 14-bit cameras.

The kicker is that RAW editors don't have to honor Canon's bias offset. The entire RAW signal is stored in Canon's files, and the offset is calibrated with a border of masked pixels. Who knows if editors like Lightroom, or DXO, or Aperture actually adhere to Canon's recommended offset. Even if they do, there is still negative signal information that can be pulled up, and the full noise signal is there. With Nikon RAW images...all that negative (deep noise) signal is simply discarded.

I use DeepSkyStacker and PixInsight to calibrate Canon RAW files for integration into a "stack". I use a 200-frame master bias image to subtract the bias signal from each light frame before integrating it. When the bias is removed from Canon RAW files, the dynamic range jumps by almost two stops...which puts it in the same range as Nikon files...

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 24, 2014, 05:13:41 PM »
No, their Biased Scores (abbreviated BS) are 'open ended' - they don't top out at 100.   They planned well...their BS can go on steaming and stinking with no end in sight...

LOL

Their scale goes up to 11...

You mean their scale goes up to ∞! ∞ is to 11 as 11 is to 10 in this case. :P MOAR!!

30
Software & Accessories / Re: laptop for tethered shooting?
« on: July 24, 2014, 04:08:34 PM »
...Adobe does not seem to have put any effort into supporting High DPI displays yet. I don't know why, they are rapidly becoming ubiquitous, and with 4k on the way, they will be well behind the times if they don't do something about it soon.

I was thinking the same thing. While the display on the M3800 is touch, I'm not sure if a stylus will be practical/possible (plus, I'll be downgrading to Win7, and I'm not sure how 7's support is for touch).

To your point about the trend toward 4K, it would surprise me if Adobe didn't get with the scaling program soon. If I can get anywhere near the lifespan out of the new Dell as I have with this HP, then 3200x1800 might be a good bet, counting on Adobe to catch up in the next year or two.

Thanks for the input!

Maybe I spring for the 3200x1800 display now, knowing I can add more RAM any time in the future. Adding more pixels, not so much...  :P

I'd warn you away from Windows 7 if going high DPI. Windows 7 has the bare minimum support for it possible. Windows 8.1 Update 1 has VASTLY superior High DPI scaling and support. There is also little reason to not use Widnows 8.1 these days. You boot into the desktop by default, which is nearly identical to Windows 7 with a few minor tweaks here and there. The only major difference is the start menu has been replaced with the start screen, however you can get third-party utilities that restore the start menu as well.

Windows 8 boots in seconds, and overall uses far less memory and is generally much faster than Windows 7. It is also far more resource efficient, which increases battery life in a laptop compared to Windows 7. There is very, very little reason to downgrade, and so many reasons to stay with Windows 8. If you go with a 3200x1800, Win 8.1 is definitely the better option.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 250