On 06/02/2012 05:40, P. J. Alling wrote:
On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote:
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
John Francis
[...]
But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a
On 1/29/2012 3:13 AM, Bob W wrote:
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
John Francis
[...]
But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering
mode, and an exposure compe
But Larry is such a playful guy.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Be careful how you reply, Cotty. He's from California and that stuff
> is legally binding.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:
>>
>>>
Be careful how you reply, Cotty. He's from California and that stuff
is legally binding.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:
>
>> On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> Of course,
>>> that's what makes the PDML so
On Jan 31, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Cotty wrote:
> On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> Of course,
>> that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
>> groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.
>
>
> Fuck off Colen.
You want to kiss m
On 30/1/12, Larry Colen, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Of course,
>that's what makes the PDML so much nicer than other online discussion
>groups, where 90% of the people would start out with an insult.
Fuck off Colen.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
--
On 30/1/12, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Mark.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax
On 30/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>My understanding of the Fuji is that it is a non coupled viewfinder
>unless switched over to being an electronic one.
That is correct. the X100 is big and bright and you flick a switch to
play Space Invaders, er I mean engage the EVF. The X10
On 30/1/12, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>The Fuji X10, X100 and X-Pro1 optical finders
>have no focusing capabilities, they rely upon an EVF or AF system for
>focusing.
Which is exactly why I got an X10 - I didn't want to focus manually
through the optical viewfinder, I wanted t
Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan. . . .And to a first approximation,
nobody lives there either.
Oooh. A joint Mark!
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan.
>
>
> And to a first approxima
On 1/30/2012 3:24 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody belongs in Saskatchewan.
And to a first approximation, nobody lives there either.
But being in Saskatchewan in winter? That could go a ways towards
explaining Bill's disposition.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (from dos4est)
ax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
Never fear, Frank. I'm done. I put Bill back where he belongs.
On Jan 30, 2012, at 6:16 PM, knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
> Now, now then boys. This sort of behaviour only hurts both of you. Shake
> hands a
; "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." --
> Christopher Hitchens
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> From: Paul Stenquist
> Sent: January 30, 2012 1/30/12
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on
On 1/30/2012 3:03 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
In assuming you were drunk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I would
think that anyone who begins a discussion with a personal insult is either
drunk or mindless.
Or me, or Bill, or Godfrey, or you, hell half the PDML might do so if
we
ist"
Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:
> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist
On Jan 30, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William Robb wrote:
> On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there we
On 30/01/2012 7:58 AM, David Savage wrote:
The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
Just saying.
And the D700 is a non SLR camera how? But point taken, it goes back to
the egotistical rubbish I wrote about APS-C viefinders being small and
tunnel like.
If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you
On 30/01/2012 4:10 AM, Cotty wrote:
On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
a feature, it is almost completely phased out.
This is the
On 29/01/2012 8:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no
options.
But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a
on 2012-01-29 15:01 Paul Stenquist wrote
You can test for the difference between gray and 5% below clipped highlights.
You'll find it's about two stops. But you can tell by looking at a jpeg derived
histo as well. If the highlights are clipped just a wee bit, you're golden.
i use the histogra
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote:
>
>> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts wrote:
>>> David Savage wrote:
>>>
The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
Just saying.
:-D
>>>
>>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
>>
>> It's
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:41 AM, David Savage wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> David Savage wrote:
>>
>>> The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>>
>>> Just saying.
>>>
>>> :-D
>>
>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
>
> It's pretty rough.
If Pentax were to aband
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:45 AM, George Sinos wrote:
> ... It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic
> process.
MARK!
I'm with ya 100%, George.
--
Godfrey
godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listi
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:41 AM, David Savage wrote:
> On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> David Savage wrote:
>>
>>>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>>
>>>Just saying.
>>>
>>>:-D
>>
>> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
>
> It's pretty rough.
However, D700 and A850, and
Just what I was (not very clearly) trying to say with that long rant.
It's almost impossible to engineer human judgement out of an artistic process.
Whenever they add a new feature to make the process simpler, they
narrow the definition of "correct." That leads to additional options
and adjustme
On 30 January 2012 22:37, Mark Roberts wrote:
> David Savage wrote:
>
>>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>>
>>Just saying.
>>
>>:-D
>
> Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
It's pretty rough.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
t
David Savage wrote:
>The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
>
>Just saying.
>
>:-D
Sony A850, too. Gotta love full-frame ;-)
--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUB
The D700 has a nice big viewfinder.
Just saying.
:-D
On 30 January 2012 21:54, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides.
> I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual
> and the histogram otherwise. Of course, that'
The DR of film cured many ills, at least if you didn't shoot slides.
I generally rely now on AE in reasonable light, but switch to manual
and the histogram otherwise. Of course, that's often simply making
the best of a bad situation. As for viewfinders, all I have to do it
pick up my old SP500 to
On 29/1/12, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to try to find a non SLR camera
>with a fully functioning optical viewfinder of any kind, good or bad. As
>a feature, it is almost completely phased out.
This is the sad truth.
The Epson R-D1, Leica M8
On Jan 29, 2012, at 9:23 PM, William Robb wrote:
> On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no
>> options.
> But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single
> autofocus point
> --
On 29/01/2012 11:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no
options.
But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a single
autofocus point
-- with the plus of being able to choose the location of that pint --
the
>Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or
>even that I dislike you.
MARK !
-Original Message-
>From: Larry Colen
>Subject: Re: Why Not RAW Format on ALL Digital Cameras?
>
>
>On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey Di
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
>> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
> Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or
> even that I d
On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:53 PM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
>> Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
>> data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
>> you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with
on 2012-01-29 13:33 Larry Colen wrote
My career is to write embedded systems software.
as a mere generalist programmer and designer of systems, my frustration with
the untapped potential of modern camera interfaces is probably a notch or two
below yours; whilst we are accused of measurebation
On Jan 29, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
>
> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
>
>> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more
>> information potentially available that a simple match needle would thro
on 2012-01-29 14:13 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
Knowing the characteristic curve of a sensor and how digital image
data exposure operates, it's very easy to 'place' the exposure where
you want it with a spot meter and a moment's thought: with the
brightest area of significant detail 5% below the satur
On Jan 29, 2012, at 1:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
>
> I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
Just because I call you rude names doesn't mean that I disagree with you, or
even that I dislike you.
>
>> Part of the issue with digital exposure
> I also agree with Godfrey on ease of manual use.
I'm glad we agree on something. ;-)
> Part of the issue with digital exposure is that there is so much more
> information potentially available that a simple match needle would through
> away too much useful information.
I disagree. Until sens
Steve,
I get the feeling that you are the only one that actually understands what I'm
saying.
On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:20 AM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
>>
>>> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
>>
on 2012-01-29 05:29 Paul Stenquist wrote
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge
reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and
a good
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I would find the trend toward more technology disturbing if there were no
> options. But since I can focus manually at will, or I can choose to use a
> single autofocus point -- with the plus of being able to choose the location
> of that
On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, George Sinos wrote:
> In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the
> camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend
> our creative reach.
>
> At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human
> judgeme
In general, I appreciate the developments and improvements that the
camera designers have come up with the give us better tools and extend
our creative reach.
At some point, it becomes problematic when they try to remove human
judgement from the equation.
For instance, the developments in auto-fo
On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:16 AM, steve harley wrote:
> on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
>> That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge
>> reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call
>> and a good photographer makes the necessary
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> John Francis
[...]
> But relying on auto exposure metering under tricky lighting conditions
> is a pretty poor strategy. That's why your camera has a spot metering
> mode, and an exposure compensation setting - so you can
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 08:36:37PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. Then why is it that if you photograph something like a white
> >> table, or snow, using normal metering, it comes out grey rather than white?
> >
> > Because the meter is dumb.
>
> That is exactly my point. There'
On 29 January 2012 13:00, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote:
>
>> On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my
>>> gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in
on 2012-01-28 22:00 Larry Colen wrote
It was my practice pushing the envelope that allowed me to just relax and be
creative, even in challenging light.
i often feel the same way; one of my common challenges is shooting plants under
shifting cloud cover; even without direct sun there's a lot
on 2012-01-28 21:36 David Savage wrote
If all you ever do is test the performance limits of your equipment,
you end up with nothing but test shots.
who does that? Larry certainly doesn't if you look at his photos ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listin
on 2012-01-28 21:57 Paul Stenquist wrote
That's basically what today's best meters do. But they still can't gauge
reflectivity and color as well as the human eye can. The meter makes a call and
a good photographer makes the necessary adjustment. Most of the time the meter
will come close enoug
On Jan 28, 2012, at 11:36 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
On Jan 28, 2012, at 8:36 PM, David Savage wrote:
> On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I find a lot of my creativity in pushing the performance envelope of my
>> gear. I find it a lot of fun to look for photos in situations where not long
>> ago it would have been p
On 29 January 2012 12:36, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> O
On Jan 28, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> You c
On 29 January 2012 11:02, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 6:35 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>> On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to
>>> mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use w
on 2012-01-28 19:49 Larry Colen wrote
I'm certain that if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The metering mode in
our cameras picks a spot to meter on, and sets the exposure for that point at
midpoint.
i understand that better cameras (unless you set them for spot or average) to
do some kind
on 2012-01-28 19:35 William Robb wrote
(I cared about angels
and pins for a little while, until I realized it was wrecking my creativity).
that seems to support the idea that it's a necessary part of the process of
improvement ... and/or that you were one of the ones whose grappling with pins
On Jan 28, 2012, at 10:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure
>>
On 1/28/2012 7:07 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in
any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on
On Jan 28, 2012, at 9:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp
>> in any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on
>> the light and what's in front of
On 1/28/2012 6:35 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to
mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what
knowledge that I do have.
Or it could mean that I'm occasionally
On 1/28/2012 6:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in
any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the light and
what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer who understan
On 28/01/2012 8:21 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
There will always be more that I can know about photography, not to
mention room to improve my physical skills to be able to best use what
knowledge that I do have.
Or it could mean that I'm occasionally prone to minor bursts of hyperbole.
You see
You can "expose to the right" or anywhere you choose by using exposure comp in
any metering mode. The metering isn't based on jpeg or RAW. It's based on the
light and what's in front of the lens. No meter is smarter than a photographer
who understands how meters work.
Perhaps, I'm missing some
On 1/28/2012 6:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 28/01/2012 7:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought,
and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot
with interchangeable lenses.
It could also indicate that you
On 28/01/2012 7:58 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Everything about using my camera indicates that raw is an afterthought,
and the UI is optimized for people that want a $1,000 point and shoot
with interchangeable lenses.
It could also indicate that you don't know enough about photography.
--
Wi
Never mind raw on a point and shoot, I want my DSLR to properly support
shooting in raw. I want metering and histograms based on the raw data.
I want to choose metering modes so I can use "expose to the right" for
raw, and if I want to shoot jpeg I can choose 18% grey, or whatever they
call i
on 2012-01-27 16:47 Tom C wrote
A camera manufacturer does not HAVE to teach customers how to use a
feature (when have they ever?)
if the feature is there and people can accidentally enable it, it becomes a
support issue; even if the company offers no actual support, it may increase
the retur
On 27/01/2012 5:47 PM, Tom C wrote:
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote:
On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote:
I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the
option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a
camera that doesn't have that abil
On 27/01/2012 2:52 PM, David Parsons wrote:
My wife has a Kodak that she got or free secondhand. It's a fine
camera, but Kodak isn't a brand I'd ever buy new. They are marketed
to the very bottom of the market, and frankly, I feel that they aimed
at people who are unable to handle plugging in a
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote:
>>> I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the
>>> option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a
>>> camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functi
On Jan 27, 2012, at 8:16 AM, William Robb wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote:
>> I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the
>> option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a
>> camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionalit
I agree. Like others said, it's a matter of who their market is,
mostly--makes no sense for a camera maker to have to support advanced
features like that on a $150 camera.
The best way for them to do it would be to open their platforms and
let the open source community do it.
Which brings to mind
My wife has a Kodak that she got or free secondhand. It's a fine
camera, but Kodak isn't a brand I'd ever buy new. They are marketed
to the very bottom of the market, and frankly, I feel that they aimed
at people who are unable to handle plugging in a cable.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Mark
George Sinos wrote:
>I see many, many brands of "point & shoot" cameras in my Saturday morning
>class.
>
>One of the things I found interesting was people that owned Kodak
>cameras loved them, but always were kind of apologetic about owning
>the brand. Most of them usually started a question wit
I see many, many brands of "point & shoot" cameras in my Saturday morning class.
One of the things I found interesting was people that owned Kodak
cameras loved them, but always were kind of apologetic about owning
the brand. Most of them usually started a question with "this is only
a Kodak, but
On 26/01/2012 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote:
I was just thinking that it would seem an easy thing to provide the
option to save to RAW format on any digital camera. I won't consider a
camera that doesn't have that ability. So is that functionality being
withheld to differentiate a higher end camera from a
Camera manufacturers are absolutely right in concentrating their
efforts on the JPEG rendering options of their cameras. Look at the
enormous success of apps on Android and iOS for image manipulation,
the custom cameras, Hipstamatic, etc.
People want fast and easy, only a very very tiny percentage
Do you know how many of my highly educated friends and relatives have
accidentally put their DSLRs in RAW mode and have come to me when they
were unable to view the photos? I could only imagine the chaos if you
could do that with any point and shoot.
Evan
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@p
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> On consumer P&S cameras, it's one more thing to explain and
> potentially support. Since the vast majority of P&S owners don't even
> know what RAW is,
> Steve Desjardins
This was brought up at our first meeting, asked how many shot in
It means more code, and more testing in QA. More code for the UI
(admittedly small), but also more code because RAW requires a
different compressor, a lossless one. And if it's a manufacturer with
a proprietary RAW format, like NIkon, they have to decide if they'll
support DNG as well.
Whole lot o
On consumer P&S cameras, it's one more thing to explain and
potentially support. Since the vast majority of P&S owners don't even
know what RAW is, the manufacturers just don't want to complicate
matters. IMHO, that is ;-) DSLRs, EVILs, and advanced compacts that I
know of all support RAW.
On Th
84 matches
Mail list logo
