Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> control colour balance and that the F801s could only control exposure.
> It did this on the basis of a data base of thousands of images. It
> must have had color sensitivity of some kind as, for example, it could
> tell the difference between a large white-walled building and a snow
> scene.


So you're basically saying that there's no way to detect the
difference between a large white-walled building and a snow
scene without colour sensitivity, not even by seeing that the
snow scene was much brighter than the building?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012
On 12/5/2012 10:05 AM, Elliott Roper wrote:
>
> So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
> were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
> RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
>


Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
"Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
complaints about how it shuffles.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012
In article <k9qr0o$vjb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

>
> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.


bullshit.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012
On 12/6/2012 3:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <k9qr0o$vjb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
>> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
>> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

>>
>> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
>> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
>> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
>> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

>
> bullshit.
>

Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012
In article <k9r6ru$em9$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
> >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
> >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
> >>
> >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
> >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
> >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
> >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

> >
> > bullshit.

>
> Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
> shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
> playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.


controls > shuffle > by album
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On 12/6/2012 4:51 PM, nospam wrote:> In article
<k9r6ru$em9$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only

why others
>>>> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of

processing
>>>> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
>>>>
>>>> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
>>>> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
>>>> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
>>>> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
>>>
>>> bullshit.

>>
>> Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
>> shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
>> playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.

>
> controls > shuffle > by album
>

That works on previous iPods, not this model.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On 06/12/2012 22:13, Elliott Roper wrote:
> In article <k9qr0o$vjb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2012 10:05 AM, Elliott Roper wrote:

>
> (about Aperture and its preliminary RAW processing)
>> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
>> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
>> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
>> >

>>
>> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
>> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
>> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
>> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
>>
>> I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
>> is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
>> so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
>> complaints about how it shuffles.

>
> That's what I like /so/ much about this group. Clear incisive argument
> with deep insight into the subject at hand.


Doug /is/ right about Apple, though.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
In article <k9s6cs$65a$(E-Mail Removed)>, David Taylor
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > (about Aperture and its preliminary RAW processing)
> >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
> >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
> >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is
> >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we
> >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of
> >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.
> >>
> >> I will say that the big problem with the iPod Nano that actually
> >> is a Shuffle concerning losing position in a playlist elicited
> >> so many complaints that they issued a fix update. The didn't fix
> >> complaints about how it shuffles.

> >
> > That's what I like /so/ much about this group. Clear incisive argument
> > with deep insight into the subject at hand.

>
> Doug /is/ right about Apple, though.


no he is not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:32:44 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:20:52 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>news:9Ugus.800360$(E-Mail Removed)4...
>>>>> OK, so I am iggerant. But you guys haven't been able to show me an
>>>>> example
>>>>> of a RAW image vs a JPG shot at the same time that demonstrates this
>>>>> superiority of image.
>>>>
>>>>If you are unable to demonstrate it for yourself, then it probably doesn't
>>>>matter to *you* what the difference is. The rest of us already know and
>>>>choose our work flow accordingly.
>>>>
>>> I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
>>> to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
>>> which most definitely provides the information he says that he
>>> requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
>>> acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
>>> I think he is a troll.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens

>>
>>**** you and the horse you rode in on. I have looked at it several times.

>
>Naughty naughty. You musn't lose your temper. The fact is that you
>have never previously acknowledged that I have given you a URL leading
>to a site which gives you the information you have kept bleating for.
>You have missed so many times that you have put me in mind of Robert
>A. Heinlein's "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three
>times is enemy action".
>
>>No, it does not show any big difference in the images.

>
>Then you are blind.



I think the term is 'wilfully blind'.

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see something
because it would question their long- and firmly-held ignorant views.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2012
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 10:40:12 PM UTC, Doug McDonald wrote:
> On 12/6/2012 3:32 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > In article <k9qr0o$vjb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Doug McDonald

>
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >

>
> >> > So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others

>
> >> > were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing

>
> >> > RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".

>
> >>

>
> >> Really? In my experience with Apple their slogan is

>
> >> "Do it OUR way and like the result OR ELSE ... pray that we

>
> >> will have, somewhere in some obscure menu item, some sort of

>
> >> corrective setting." Which they do in maybe 40% of cases.

>
> >

>
> > bullshit.

>
> >

>
> Then, pray tell, how do I get my iPod Nano (shuffle size) to
>
> shuffle albums, not tracks? What I did was generate custom
>
> playlists with random albums, with the tracks inside albums in order.


If yo're putting thimngs in order then it's not random.

A friend had a problems saying his shuffle wasn't random but on checking itappears that the tracks he didn;t like as much as the ones he did came up the same number of times, his 'memory' was of taking it out his pocket to forward through the ones he liked least which resulded in him having a clearer memeory of the tracks he least like because he had to action when they came on.
So it was mostly a purely a memory issue or how he percived randomness.

I'ts similar to those that don't believe lottery numbers can come out in sequence like, 1234567 because they haven't witnessed it it can't happen and another striing of numbers that isn't recognised will come up more often, which isn't the case.


>
>
>
> Doug McDonald


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Tim Conway Digital Photography 0 11-25-2012 09:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments