Just because technology can do something, doent meant its always right

[eti]

I’ll leave you to your musings. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re not and the same to me. Being right is vastly overrated.

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

Okay you win the game. Enjoy!

Ask the Who’s who of pop about Peter, that’s if you know who they are. lol. Enjoy your Sunday.

[bd139]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

You're sounding a little bitter. Perhaps utterly defeated is a better synonym.

Ask yourself what the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is?

One gets paid.

[bd139]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

[eti]

You're confusing photographic nostalgia with reality.

Prove it.

If you take the celebrities and the money points out of your argument it looks like:

My late friend, Bob, was cameraman for the Joe Bloggses and was friends with Dave from the pub, and did promos for the Stinky Pinks (He lived next door to them) and also The Dumbells.  He worked extensively with the Gordon Bleus, and when he told me something, I’d take his word for it over anyone alive, as he REALLY knew his stuff. He was no “ amateur photographer“, you can Google him if you like.

Film is better. He’s got cans of unseen footage, many many stacks of which I lifted with my own hands when he moved house. Each can was worth a MINIMUM of circa £2 to any number of media outlets, and he had around 200 of them.

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

Google him, he was cleaner for the local council estate, and friends with Bill, Mike, ex boyfriend of Shelley… yes I’m name dropping, because he’s a legend of snuff video production, he KNEW his stuff back from when he began.

Sorry and all that, but he was an authority on film and that’s how I see it. 

This is a stream of emotions with nothing factual or relevance in a temporal scale.

Facetious mockery doesn’t negate a thing. You lose any credibility automatically from that churlish response.

I think that was a fairly accurate response. I completely destroyed your argument because it was emotional namedropping only with nothing factual. If you remove the names and the money there is nothing credible left.

Look in the mirror not throw an insult back.

Your mindset is that of a competitive child. Which intelligent adult uses such words as “destroyed”? … this isn’t an online computer game. 🤦‍♂️

You're sounding a little bitter. Perhaps utterly defeated is a better synonym.

Ask yourself what the difference between an amateur and a professional photographer is?

One gets paid.

Im sure your forum peers will appreciate that denigration of their lives of hard work and certification. Silly little man.

[ebastler]

@eti -- may I suggest you re-read the current thread about your endless series of accounts, take a deep breath, and take it from there.

I don't know how Dave sees it, but personally I would be in favor of giving a previously obnoxious, banned member another chance. If they can lastingly change their style, and that's a big if.


In other news, didn't you just post some advice about deeply nested quoting?

[bd139]

Im sure your forum peers will appreciate that denigration of their lives of hard work and certification. Silly little man.

I did not denigrate the man. Just your argument. You brought him into the fight. He's your victim.

Also I didn't threaten violence like yourself.

[bd139]

@eti -- may I suggest you re-read the current thread about your endless series of accounts, take a deep breath, and take it from there.

I don't know how Dave sees it, but personally I would be in favor of giving a previously obnoxious, banned member another chance. If they can lastingly change their style, and that's a big if.


In other news, didn't you just post some advice about deeply nested quoting?

Oh another one of those forum members...

eti: I haven't been banned since I signed up. Go figure.

[eti]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

[bd139]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

I respect your decision and appreciate the apology. It takes a lot to do a 180 on that. Thank you.

But the trailing insult; don't be a dick...

[eti]

You are referring to my dear friend who died of dementia. If you stood here you wouldn’t be standing for long I assure you. I’d knock you clean out and throw you off a cliff.

Don't change the subject and certainly don't resort to making threats of violence.

That is totally uncalled for.

Edit: oh he deleted it. Classy.

It was deleted because I have a conscience and thought better of it. I’m sorry I wrote that, it was childish and unkind. I’m aware I can be quoted and screenshot etc.

Okay so I’ll walk away from you and you can get on  with your day, totally unaffected by the mere ravings of an online bloke whose opinion doesn’t in one iota affect the beliefs  of someone who is secure in their education.

Cheers old thing.

I respect your decision and appreciate the apology. It takes a lot to do a 180 on that. Thank you.

But the trailing insult; don't be a dick...

The last part was not an insult (why would I apologise and then insult you? That would be a bit pointless). It doesn’t take a lot for me to say sorry tbh; I don’t have a huge wall of ego, and I like to apologise when I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong a lot in my life, but saying sorry isn’t hard, it’s freeing.

[magic]

Now for the kick in the teeth. Most smartphones are better now than any 35mm body on the market. The only poor area is the lenses. In fact the most important bit of photography are the lenses and the post production workflow. Everything else is moot.

Don't forget compromised sensors and image processing aimed at consumer cattle whose discerning abilities are limited to whining about noise...

Who painted grey camo patterns on this steel?

[bd139]

Ah yes that’s one reason I bought a mirrorless recently. The processing on the smartphones is quite destructive. Some of that is actually the finish of the metalwork though and some of it is the low quality jpeg I exported but the phone is doing some weird stuff.

But quite frankly the image is a pretty good approximation of reality and that’s what matters to most people.

I mean if you consider bokeh and grain doesn’t really exist it puts things into perspective. Compromises everywhere and that’s part of the art.

[magic]

The "camo" effect is overdone noise reduction. It sees small, low-contrast, pseudo-random details like steel texture, distorted reflection of tree branches, clouds or whatever was there and replaces it with a patch of average color. Once you realize what it is, you will start seeing it everywhere and always recognize phone images from those taken with dedicated cameras.

JPEG artifacts are overrated. Lots of people talk about them, much fewer appear to have actually tried saving some images at shit JPEG quality level and seeing how much shit it takes to really become shit.

[bd139]

Indeed. You can actually shoot raw on my phone which is interesting. It doesn’t apply any processing at all so I can control the NR in lightroom. Very handy when I don’t fancy lugging my mirrorless around.

[themadhippy]

Ask the Who’s who of pop about Peter, that’s if you know who they are

i will next time i see my mate lee's dad

[tooki]

I’ll take his word on film being best, apart from it being my own informed view too. Colour range of natural substances cannot be anywhere NEAR “emulated” by pixels.

You are apparently unaware that essentially every movie made in the past 20-30 years or so is edited digitally, even if it was shot and distributed on film?

Digital is perfectly capable of capturing any color space we want. Whether a particular standard can do so is a different question.

So… I take issue with your claim of being “informed” because you are very obviously not. You’re apparently completely unaware of things like sampling theory, color spaces, as well as the capabilities and limitations of film. I’m not even saying you need to be an expert on those things (I’m not), but you need to know that they exist and the basics of what they say.

[thinkfat]

But it was shot in 14-bit RAW which meant the sky could be pulled back out again



Try doing that with an enlarger and some colour paper...

[...]

The real point is that you can argue about physics until the world implodes but you can take really damn good photos with a potato if you know what you are doing. And good is subjective and not related to physics at all. I've printed stuff out of my old 6MP D70 fairly large and it looked great.

Well, dodging and burning wasn't invented by Adobe for Photoshop. You can sure pull off something like that with an enlarger and masks. Negative film has an amazing amount of dynamic range. It's just more difficult to exploit when you actually print because the medium you print on has much less.

Color slide film, on the other hand, is much denser and much more range limited, more "digital", so to say. But, boy, do the colors pop!

But lets face it, the world has moved to digital, and while it's possible to digitize film, it is far from convenient. It's an endless battle with color profiles, dust, getting the film flat so that the scanner can digitize it in focus, not damaging the film while handling it, etc. And with modern sensors, dynamic range is much less of a problem. High resolution is much easier to achieve, too. Even with a half-decent flat-bed scanner (Epson V330 class), getting more than 6 Megapixels from a 35mm negative is difficult. You can probably do better, but you cannot do better for cheap. And you need to digitize, because approximately nobody cares for prints nowadays.

And that's why a blanket "film is better than digital" is nonsense. Yes, negative film has a certain appeal and certainly an advantage over digital in certain (constantly diminishing) use cases, but it takes dedication, time and expensive equipment to exploit that advantage.

[voltsandjolts]

The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

Well, there is the prospect of tv 'goggles', 3D ones, which has yet to really take off. The room sizes of new housing in the UK is pitiful, because land owners and developers need to make themselves rich. At least with goggles, I can lie back against the wall, put my feet on the opposing wall and still get a big cinema screen experience 

[Simon]

It's less about the resolution and more about the DPI.

As TVs get bigger and bigger you need to up the resolution to keep them looking sharp.

There's zero point having a 32" TV that's 8k IMHO.

But if you have a projector making a 3 meter image then 8K is going to look much better than 1080p and probably noticeably better than 4k. (Though i cant say i have seen one yet).


It seems probably we will get to the point where an entire wall of your house is a display. And you can do conference calls that simulate your wall joined to other peoples walls. So its like you are both standing in the same room because the DPI & HDR are so high

Depends on how close you want to stand to it. I have 27" and 42" monitors both 4k, they both look just the same to me, but then I don't sit as close to a 42" screen as I would a 27" one. It's actually about angular resolution, and our eyes are not as good as we like to think. 8k is an immoral waste of resources, the same as most 4k videos that if you told most people it was 4k whilst showing them 2k they would not question it. Every time we "double" the resolution we quadrupal the data to fill a screen. It's a bit like a website I visited for a company that plants trees on behalf of other companies selling people stuff, the irony was that their entire website was animated resulting in more data to transfer and more power to put it on the screen, and of course 90% of it would go unappreciated....

Sure if you want the equivalent of a billboard that people will walk right up to have 100k, but we topped out at what the human eye can resolve in one full frame at 4k. This monitor I am typing on right now looks as good as a magazine print, I cannot see any pixels, if it is meant to be round - it is. why would I want 8k? I would not be able to tell the difference but refuse to use 2k as that is shit!

[tggzzz]

The TV manufactures should have realized that once everyone already has a thin flat TV there is absolutely NOTHING that can be offered on a new set that will replicate that kind of sales volume.

Well, there is the prospect of tv 'goggles', 3D ones, which has yet to really take off. The room sizes of new housing in the UK is pitiful, because land owners and developers need to make themselves rich. At least with goggles, I can lie back against the wall, put my feet on the opposing wall and still get a big cinema screen experience 

I started taking stereoscopic photos in 1984; clearly I like the technology.

There is no way that stereo TV will take off. Even if you could magically avoid having polarising/LCD/etc glasses, there are two killer disadvantages:

• there is a "sweet spot" for viewing. Sit too close and the Z-dimension is magnified, or too far away and it is compressed
• given a choice between stereoscopic or 60fps + more pixels, I'd opt for fps+pixels

[Simon]

Ah yes that’s one reason I bought a mirrorless recently. The processing on the smartphones is quite destructive. Some of that is actually the finish of the metalwork though and some of it is the low quality jpeg I exported but the phone is doing some weird stuff.

But quite frankly the image is a pretty good approximation of reality and that’s what matters to most people.

I mean if you consider bokeh and grain doesn’t really exist it puts things into perspective. Compromises everywhere and that’s part of the art.

The only reason I still keep a DSLR is because - lenses. All phones have tiny sensors and short lenses and distort all of the perspective. All these kids that think they are fat and that are having nose jobs have not looked at themselves in the mirror properly. I once compared a photo of a group of friends taken on a smartphone with one taken on my camera with a 50mm prime lens. It was then obvious but only on comparison that the further to the edge of the picture you go on the smart phone, the more the faces are seriously distorted.

[ebastler]

There is no way that stereo TV will take off. Even if you could magically avoid having polarising/LCD/etc glasses, there are two killer disadvantages:

• there is a "sweet spot" for viewing. Sit too close and the Z-dimension is magnified, or too far away and it is compressed

The same applies to the X and Y dimensions, and that has not hurt the success of TV too much. 

• given a choice between stereoscopic or 60fps + more pixels, I'd opt for fps+pixels

The fact that you prefer something else can hardly be called a killer argument why a technology will never take off. 

Having said that, I have used the stereoscopiv feature (which our TV came with, whether we wanted it or not...) twice in the 6+ years since we got the TV. But I would say it's the glasses and the reduced picture brightness which are distracting me. If it weren't for those drawbacks, I might actually use the stereo mode when watching a movie every now and then.

[Simon]

i went to the cinema and saw starwars in 3D, it was clear that they messed up in some shots and it just looked wrong, unsurprisingly it was the CGI shots that were bad for having some sort of wrong perspective as they had to totally make it up rather than have a real frame of reference.

I don't overly see the point of 3D, I'd watch it if it's done right but I can live without it.