January 26, 2015, 01:29:23 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 - LDS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Interesting how long we will be waiting until Adobe will start using GPU acceleration in LR

One of the reason is that a good slice of LR is written in LUA - a "scripting" language that makes more difficult to use the CUDA (or any other GPU accelerated) libraries, which are mostly designed to be used by sofware written using the C/C++ language. That's why it was simpler to use GPU acceleration in Photoshop than Lightroom. Guess Adobe needs to re-write some of the code to really take advantage of GPU power in LR - just it needs to have a business sense for them, and don't eat into more renumerative PS sales too much.
IMHO LR became a more pro app than it was in the beginning, and needs tu fulfill pro needs PS can't because of the different workflow, but PS is still the "flagship" Adobe app.
I would also like to see an LR that can work with a central repository and database, so more than one station can access the same catalog at the same time without issue...

LR is still very sluggish.
What are your preview settings?

The purpose of the "completely new kernel" is simply to unify Windows PC, Windows Phone and Windows Embedded product families around a common internal core.

This is one of the aims, but not the only one. Remember kernels are also shared with the server version...
This unification had already started with Windows 8 (phones, xbox and PC share the kernel), but was not yet complete.

Just because it's "new" doesn't mean it's improved. Adding code components to support additional product families doesn't inspire hope that it will run better / faster / more efficiently.

Nor it doesn't imply it is not. "New" means also some old legacy code can be removed, and more modern implementation adopted. Every release, even those that were not successful, had interesting new kernel features (if you want to know them, read the "Windows Internals" books)


Wrong. Windows 10 will have new features and improvements as well over the previous OS. Win 8 has features 7 has not, i.e. SMB3, native USB 3.0 support - 7 needs third party drivers -, per monitor High-DPI support, NVMe, Advanced Format HD, and others. 8 also has a different memory manager designed to use less memory.

In 10, expect more native support for the latest hardware standards, more security features, and it will come with the Windows 2012 hypervisor (and probably it will be able to use it to run "sanboxed" applications).

Never judge an OS from the UI changes only. Everything can be released as a "service pack" - even Adobe has no need to release LR6 - it could add the same new features with an update.

From a technical point of view you can always update the previous software in some way. If it makes sense for your commercial business is another thing...

Windows 10 will be out later this year as a free upgrade to windows 7 and 8.  Adobe needs to be working on support for that.
Guess they are working on it, but until Windows 10 is not officially released, LR can't support it officially. AFAIK LR6 will be released before Window 10, thereby it can't support it.

No software vendor I know supports an OS which is still in beta, and not officially released and supported by its vender - and where changes can still be introduced. It's like asking to support the 5D4...

I thought LR 5 introduced the requirement for a 64bit OS already, am I missing something here? I was running LR 4 on a work laptop on Windows XP and needed to buy a laptop with a newer OS to run LR 5 to support the raws from my 5D3.

LR5 runs on 32 bit OS but no longer runs on XP. Hope you got a 64 bit OS :)

EOS Bodies / Re: NEW CAMERA - EOS 80D?
« on: January 08, 2015, 05:38:26 PM »
It's a fake to bring attention to a device nobody would notice otherwise...  :P

The touchscreen might be important to some, but Canon already has it, and I'd rather skip it because it's one more hardware feature that can break. Plus they made the dial smaller 60d->70d because you are supposed to touch around on the screen and not press buttons as the nearly obsolete old-school photogs.
Actually, touch screen are today cheaper and more durable to make than durable rotary switches and buttons. Also, if you remove holes in the body and all the engineering efforts needed to build buttons and dials, mount and connect them to the rest of electronics, there's a lot of cost savings in molds and assembling.
While from a user perspective well built buttons and dials are far easier to operate and the tactile feedback they provide allows for 'blind use', touchscreen are cheaper because functions can be simply programmed without requiring anything else, context can be changed to allow for different controls on the same area (no ad hoc controls needed, less physical space needed) at the expenses the user can only rely on visual feedback to operate them, and thereby are far slower to use.
I see a trend towards touch devices because it is fashionable and because of the cost savings for the producer, but from an advanced user perspective is a huge step back in usability. I can see some uses just for inputs like the one requiring a keyboard, but not for common photo tasks when keeping focus on the subject is the most important part.

Post Processing / Re: Backup to Blu-ray
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:14:09 PM »
Umm... you're off a bit on the 2.5" drives.  The 2.5" external drives are simply SATA laptop hard drives. 
Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. Not designed to last long. Most external drives are built to be cheap. Not to be long term storage devices. Good to shuffle files around, not for long term backups. There are external adapters that let you plug in the disks of your choice. IMHO far better choice than pre-assembled ones where you often don't know what disk is inside, for backups.

Hard drive technology is pretty universal when it comes to the platters and their magnetic retention. 

But construction is not. There are different quality levels. The choice of materials and parts, production line specs and quality controls, etc. etc. After all, are the low end Canon DSLRs and lenses built with the same materials and specs of the high end ones? After all the technology is pretty universal when it comes to CMOS sensors, shutters and lenses... isn't it?

There are drives designed for enterprise level use and durability but in this case we aren't talking about MTBF, we are simply talking about magnetic retention.

But MTBF matters too. Sure, you can use multiple copies to reduce the risk - that's why I always alternate new sets to ensure they don't come near the MTBF together - but disks are more complex devices and thereby with more points of failure.

The quality of the controller and drive electronics/firmware has impact on the "correctness" of data written and its lifespan, as well the quality of the magnetic layer used for recording. Why high-end disks usually come in lower capacities (and longer warranties) than the lower-end ones? Because until they can warrant the same quality, they don't risk to sell you a disk that may fail too soon because the technology is not mature enough.

I spent time for years with a friend that owned a data recovery company

I spend part of my working time with Very Large Database applications running on SANs (Storage Area Networks) made of hundreds of disks (and lately, a lot of flash ones as well). Also the company I work for produces also military spec hardware, which needs to work in far worse conditions. Guess I learnt a couple of things too :)

Anyway, companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and the like are now faced with the need to store huge archives for decades (of course, unless they go bankrupt earlier) - because users in they early 20s or 30s expect them to store their "memories" for that long - and are experimenting with different technologies to keep data available at least near-line (as users are less likely to access often older contents) cheaply. And Facebook is now experimenting with blue-ray 100GB disks. If you store just the platters, and not whole disks, it's far cheaper.

Some companies (Sony and Panasonic) are working on "optical disks cartridges" able to store 1-1.5 TB each with RAID capabilities Currently Panasonic already offers the ADA cartridges, but they are only 50GB in size, and are somewhat a proprietary format. With the proper recording layer (one which won't decay if a few years, or decades) optical cartridges could become am interesting long-term storage for static data.

Post Processing / Re: Backup to Blu-ray
« on: January 02, 2015, 05:21:49 PM »
2.5" Ext Drives.

These are usually cheap drives designed for laptops, and not designed to last long (you can see it from their actual prices). There are drives designed for long term storage, but it's not those. They may last longer if you connect them just for backups, and then store them properly, but don't expect much. They are cheap, though. Anyway, even magnetic archiving will decay with time (flash memories included).

The quest for the definitive backup media continues.... :)

Post Processing / Re: Backup to Blu-ray
« on: January 02, 2015, 05:08:44 PM »
Vikings first settled on American soil.

For which, unluckily, they didn't left any record able to reach us... bad media backup strategy theirs. Maya ones worked better :)

Post Processing / Re: Backup to Blu-ray
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:28:54 PM »
For optical archiving, there's M-Disc...
Um, even with 25GB Blu-Ray discs, you'll need 40 of them for 1 TB.

I'm going to give M-Disc a try, but only for those image subset I can't really afford to lose. I'm not going to backup everything on them, because they still require more storage space than TBs sized hard disks.
IMHO a sensible backup strategy doesn't threat each file equal - but you need to assess which ones are more important and need better, although more expensive protection, and which don't.

Technical Support / Re: monitor and printer calibration
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:01:46 AM »
Any other ideas or help as to why I am printing so dark?

First, check the brightness you set your monitor to when calibrating. Most monitors are set around 200cd (or more), which is usually too high for print proofs (good for movies and games, not photo....). it should be set around 110-140 cd (or even less) depending on the ambient light.
Also, the prints contrast will always be much lower than on screen images. Glossy papers have more contrast, matte ones less, both have far less contrast than a monitor. Dye inks and pigment inks will lead to different level of contrast as well.
That's why proper soft proofing is important, after proper calibration of monitor and printer. It will try to show you how the final print will look, and let you fine tune parameters specifically for that image, printer and paper combination.
In Lightroom, is important to activate 'simulate paper and ink' to see the final result with ICC profiles correction applied. Photoshop AFAIK can soft-proof too.
A relatively inexpensive lamp to assess prints is the GraphiLite, which can be find around 80 euro, it also takes less space than a proof box, if your needs are not so 'professional'.

Lenses / Re: Lee Adaptor for EF24-70 F2.8 II
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:47:31 PM »
I'm presuming a WA adaptor would be best/essential? Standard adaptor would cause vignetting?

I prefer to keep a UV filter on my lenses so would ideally fit a Hoya Pro-1D to the lens & then the adaptor ring - with a WA adaptor would I get any vignetting with a Lee 2-slot holder & 105mm ring fitted?

Lee site says the standard rings are good from "24-28 onwards", thereby you could experience some vignetting, especially on a full frame.

I do use the WA adaptor, and I do remove the UV filter, even it it's a "slim" B+W, when using the Lee adaptor. Never tried with the filter mounted to see if it vignettes - but it is also true I use it most of the time on a 16-35, not the 24-70. Especially if you plan to buy something below 24mm, get the WA one.

Anyway, IMHO when using filters is better to use the minimum necessary, even if they are high quality coated ones, the more you use, the more the image quality may suffer.

Canon General / Re: What do you copy from your camera card?
« on: December 31, 2014, 09:30:58 AM »
as there are 2 versions of 7D missing

Right. It was updated to include the 5D III, but not other cameras - strange. Anyway, I guess the 7D and 7D II use one of those schemas as well.

the file alone, format before returning to the ready to use rotation.

Usually it's better to format the card in the camera you're going to use it in. It will ensure the camera firmware will create whatever file/folder clean layout it needs to work with, and ensure file system compatibility. It's better to let the computer software handle camera formatted cards, than viceversa. Usually a computer software is far more comprehensive than camera firmware.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12