To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
He won't because he can't.
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
"a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
There is a reason why professional filmmakers and broadcasting companies still don't use Smartphones but dedicated cameras like the EOS C70 along
with *big* lenses to catch as much light as possible. Professional broadcasting cameras use lenses which cost more than 200.000 USD each
and provide abilities like *fast* zoom without *any* change in the focus while zooming.
_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly. https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube
Sorry for the brief link description.
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
Alan Browne wrote:
_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly.
https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touché! :-) Love it!
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly.
https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touch! :-) Love it!
Likewise ... but it *is* Belgian ...
On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
[...]
_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly.
https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touché! :-) Love it!
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly.
https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touché! :-) Love it!
Likewise ... but it *is* Belgian ...
Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
the camera.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
the camera.
Key isn't really lighting, as key is Apple paid professional photographers.
Sure, if you spend millions of dollars on each video, and if you have a related degree and years of experience the iPhone can output good results.
But that means your suggestion every iPhone owner should spend millions of dollars just so that they can achieve those good results is preposterous.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Arno,
You have a Pixel so I need to ask you a question about the GCam software. Know that I always provide a reasoned rational assessment of the facts.
First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel
to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run.
However... if we agree to loudly ignore that the iPhone is crippled in app functionality, then (and only then) can anyone do a comparison to Pixels.
With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?
An important example is that the google software for taking pictures is so good that I myself have used the GCam ports on my Samsung & Moto phones.
*Google Camera Port*
<https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/android/google-camera/>
On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits >>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
He made that up. Since the phone was recording in Pro Res / Apple Log
HDR it is akin to shooting RAW on a DSLR.
That is: Maximum information preservation. Not interpretation,
addition, subtraction ....
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touch! :-) Love it!
Glad, you know who I was thinking of ...
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the >>>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models areThey use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits >>>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you. >>>
that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
He made that up. Since the phone was recording in Pro Res / Apple Log
HDR it is akin to shooting RAW on a DSLR.
That is: Maximum information preservation. Not interpretation,
addition, subtraction ....
Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
The whole point of marketing is to say something and make you believe more.
a. It's clearly what Apple is doing (which only a fool wouldn't see).
b. Yet, the fools (Alan Browne) fell for it - hook, line & sinker.
Alan Browne's repeated suggestion that everyone spend millions of dollars
on each of their iPhone videos just to achieve good results is absurd.
Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend
millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
a name that I'm forgetting.
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend >>> millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
a name that I'm forgetting.
My point is the adult view that marketing should be taken with a grain of salt - especially Apple marketing - which - let's admit it - is brilliant.
What Apple marketing is doing is successfully convincing people like Alan Browne that _they too!_ can get these professional results with the iPhone.
And yet... they can't. Not with an iPhone anyway.
Unless they too invest those millions of dollars on each & every video.
On 2023-11-06 12:22, Wally J wrote:
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you
spend
millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can >>>> achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has >>> a name that I'm forgetting.
My point is the adult view that marketing should be taken with a grain of
salt - especially Apple marketing - which - let's admit it - is
brilliant.
What Apple marketing is doing is successfully convincing people like Alan
Browne that _they too!_ can get these professional results with the
iPhone.
And yet... they can't. Not with an iPhone anyway.
Unless they too invest those millions of dollars on each & every video.
You really are a weasel, aren't you, Arlen?
Arno,
You have a Pixel so I need to ask you a question about the GCam software. Know that I always provide a reasoned rational assessment of the facts.
First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel
to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run.
However... if we agree to loudly ignore that the iPhone is crippled in app functionality, then (and only then) can anyone do a comparison to Pixels.
With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?
Since your GCam is native, have you noticed your Pixel takes better photos (using GCam) than a comparably sized Android with similar sized sensors?
On 5 Nov 2023 22:23:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
He won't because he can't.
How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a video?
How many iPhone owners have that kind of a budget to make that faked video?
Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
"a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
Sorry for the brief link description.
Touché! :-) Love it!
Glad, you know who I was thinking of ...
Classic for these low-IQ iKooks
How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a video?
So your source is your imagination.
Wally Nuts just doesn't realize what goes into make high quality video.
And in this case, since the iPhone 15 Pro records ProRes _and_ Log;
added to all the fine lighting and post production, what can be achieved.
On 7 Nov 2023 04:11:37 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a
video?
So your source is your imagination.
Do you think the billions of iPhone users who do not have Apple's professional team & filming budget can obtain that video quality at home?
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
"a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
The same can be said of *any* camera, doofus. This ain't the gotcha you
think it is.
First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel
to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run.
That depends on how to define "toy".
However... if we agree to loudly ignore that the iPhone is crippled in app >> functionality, then (and only then) can anyone do a comparison to Pixels.
With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?
Well... in theory maybe. But not all camera apps work without any
problems.
And when it comes to driver and library bugs... it took at
least 1 major OS update and several app updates before "Camera One" was
able to use the Camera2 API without crashing.
And I am still not sure,
if the app really uses the API correct - at least the pictures look ok.
That app is a remote controlled camera app which I can use to use my
Samsung Galaxy smartwatch to preview the camera and take a picture.
Also OpenCamera presents the camera modules as individual cameras and
some devices like the Fairphone 4 has some strange bugs where OpenCamera
gets the TOF sensor also presented as "camera" and will crash when you accidentally select it.
And finally you can not expect alternative camera apps to support all hardware features of the camera modules in the same way as the vendor provided camera app - like the TOF sensor found in some devices or using
an 48 MP sensor with its native resolution to do crops from the image
and not only with pixel binning.
And if you think there are no camera apps for iPhone, just two examples
(but there are more):
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/procam-8-pro-camera/id730712409> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/camera-pro-camera-editor/id1313580627>
Since your GCam is native, have you noticed your Pixel takes better photos >> (using GCam) than a comparably sized Android with similar sized sensors?
Well - "better" depends on the situation.
I also had images with GCam which have really horrible artifacts because
of the "AI" trying to "improve" image details where an older Xiaomi Mi 9
Lite using OpenCamera was way better.
But overall - yes the software is quite good and the "night sight" mode
is also impressive.
Likewise, every single news article says nobody can achieve those results with a puny iPhone without spending a huge budget on professionals and professional lighting equipment, and _still_ Alan Browne believes that he
can because Apple said so in a white paper.
Given everyone but Alan Browne is aware of how tiny the lens & sensors are, what's interesting is how desperate these iKooks are to believe in magic.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel >>> to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run. >>That depends on how to define "toy".
With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?
And if you think there are no camera apps for iPhone, just two examples
(but there are more):
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/procam-8-pro-camera/id730712409>
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/camera-pro-camera-editor/id1313580627>
Just to be doubly clear, I never once said there are no camera apps for the iPhone and if you think I said that, you'll have to point to my words.
On 2023-11-06, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
"a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
The same can be said of *any* camera, doofus. This ain't the gotcha you
think it is.
On 7 Nov 2023 04:11:37 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a
video?
So your source is your imagination.
Do you think the billions of iPhone users who do not have Apple's professional team & filming budget can obtain that video quality at
home?
Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 05:12:
On 2023-11-06, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by
Apple. And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more
like "a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
The same can be said of *any* camera, doofus. This ain't the gotcha
you think it is.
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
It's not the camera alone which makes the pictures.
Wally J, 2023-11-07 08:43:
Just to be doubly clear, I never once said there are no camera apps
for the iPhone and if you think I said that, you'll have to point to
my words.
See above: "... you can use _any camera software_ you want to use,
right?"
Why mentioning this when you did not want to say that Apple does not
allow to use other camera apps?
So there are camera apps for Android and there are camer apps for iOS.
What's your point here?
Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 05:12:
On 2023-11-06, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple. >>>>> And you fell for it.
Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like >>> "a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".
The same can be said of *any* camera, doofus. This ain't the gotcha you
think it is.
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
It's not the camera alone which makes the pictures. It only contributes
to it. But in the end the whole equipment counts.
But nevertheless - miniature lenses and sensors are more challenging to
get good pictures than using *big* lenses and sensors. Using APS-C or
full frame cameras is not just a question of personal taste.
On 7 Nov 2023 04:11:37 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a
video?
So your source is your imagination.
Do you think the billions of iPhone users who do not have Apple's professional team & filming budget can obtain that video quality at home?
On 2023-11-06 11:22, Wally J wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
the camera.
Key isn't really lighting, as key is Apple paid professional
photographers.
Sure, if you spend millions of dollars on each video, and if you have a
related degree and years of experience the iPhone can output good
results.
But that means your suggestion every iPhone owner should spend
millions of
dollars just so that they can achieve those good results is preposterous.
Could you do it on an Android phone? Maybe one at the top of the DXOMark list?
You remember them, don't you?
See above: "... you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?"
Why mentioning this when you did not want to say that Apple does not
allow to use other camera apps?
So there are camera apps for Android and there are camer apps for iOS.
What's your point here?
And remember: I am an Android user. I only have an iPhone because I have
to use it for my work.
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
It's not the camera alone which makes the pictures. It only contributes
to it. But in the end the whole equipment counts.
Which I pointed out in the original post - indeed it goes well beyond equipment alone. But the lunatics have to turn it into something else.
On 11/6/23 23:20, Wally J wrote:
Likewise, every single news article says nobody can achieve those results
with a puny iPhone without spending a huge budget on professionals and
professional lighting equipment, and _still_ Alan Browne believes that he
can because Apple said so in a white paper.
Given everyone but Alan Browne is aware of how tiny the lens & sensors
are,
what's interesting is how desperate these iKooks are to believe in magic.
I feel like it should be common sense a dedicated high-end tool can do
better than a jack of "all" trades.
And if you think there are no camera apps for iPhone, just two examplesJust to be doubly clear, I never once said there are no camera apps for the iPhone and if you think I said that, you'll have to point to my words.
(but there are more):
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/procam-8-pro-camera/id730712409>
<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/camera-pro-camera-editor/id1313580627>
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
See above: "... you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?" >>
Why mentioning this when you did not want to say that Apple does not
allow to use other camera apps?
So there are camera apps for Android and there are camer apps for iOS.
What's your point here?
And remember: I am an Android user. I only have an iPhone because I have
to use it for my work.
The question was about the Pixel camera software which "enhances" pictures which everyone can use "out of the box" (not requiring professionals).
I wasn't even hinting at the huge choice in camera utilities that Android
has over iOS as everyone knows about the paucity of iOS utilities, Arno.
BTW, while iPhone software choice always pales in comparison to Android and while iPhone hardware is purposefully crippled compared to most Androids (e.g., slots & ports), iPhone camera hardware is sometimes in the top 10.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
It's not the camera alone which makes the pictures. It only contributes
to it. But in the end the whole equipment counts.
Which I pointed out in the original post - indeed it goes well beyond
equipment alone. But the lunatics have to turn it into something else.
Alan Browne,
Every time Apple has high profits, you iKooks gloat about it on the Android newsgroup - where I wondered - for years - what kind of person does that.
Could you do it on an Android phone? Maybe one at the top of the DXOMark
Sure, if you spend millions of dollars on each video, and if you have a
related degree and years of experience the iPhone can output good
results.
But that means your suggestion every iPhone owner should spend
millions of
dollars just so that they can achieve those good results is preposterous. >>
list?
You remember them, don't you?
It's amusing (tragic? Sad? Pathetic?) how Wally J (Arlen) X-posted this thread to rec.photo.digital as part of his insecurity based ad hominem
attack on me.
This guy has far deeper psychological problems than we suspected.
On 11/6/23 23:20, Wally J wrote:
Likewise, every single news article says nobody can achieve those results
with a puny iPhone without spending a huge budget on professionals and
professional lighting equipment, and _still_ Alan Browne believes that he
can because Apple said so in a white paper.
Given everyone but Alan Browne is aware of how tiny the lens & sensors
are,
what's interesting is how desperate these iKooks are to believe in magic.
I feel like it should be common sense a dedicated high-end tool can do
better than a jack of "all" trades.
On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:[...]
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's three
words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so offended by it
is that it came from a company you have a seething hate boner for. Grow
some balls and move on.
I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
Pixel 8".
The same bullshit. Just marketing. I just find it amusing that
someone posts that and a flamewar starts just about Apple vs. Android.
It's like in the good old days when there was Commodore, Atari,
Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
I don't care about Apple or Android or whatever.
I have both devices -
one private one for work. I personally prefer Android because I don't
like the way how Apple treats the customers.
But if others like that -
fine, I don't care. I also have a Sony RX100 M4 and a Canon APS-C DSLR
and an old Canon AES1 film camera and a lot of lenses and other
equipment for the SLR cameras.
Well, at least nobody commented on my bad grammar in the subject line.
I just find it amusing that
someone posts that and a flamewar starts just about Apple vs. Android.
It's like in the good old days when there was Commodore, Atari,
Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 16:37:
On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:[...]
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's
three words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so
offended by it is that it came from a company you have a seething
hate boner for. Grow some balls and move on.
No - I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
Pixel 8". The same bullshit. Just marketing.
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
just about Apple vs. Android.
On 11/8/2023 8:08 AM, Arno Welzel wrote:
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
thread.
On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
Jolly Roger, 2023-11-07 16:37:
On 2023-11-07, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:[...]
Correct! That's why it is completely pointless to say "shot by XYZ".
Oh cry me a river. You schmucks are such fucking snowflakes. It's
three words in a marketing campaign. The only reason you are so
offended by it is that it came from a company you have a seething
hate boner for. Grow some balls and move on.
No - I would exactly say the same if it was Google telling "shot by
Pixel 8". The same bullshit. Just marketing.
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
just about Apple vs. Android.
Alan Brown deliberately cross-posted this to both newsgroups. So you'll
have to take that up with him. Personally, I'd rather not see any posts cross-posted to both of the these groups.
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts
just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
thread.
They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar
starts just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old
days when there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
thread.
They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
Then why did the OP
On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts >>>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
thread.
They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
Then why did the OP (who seems to be an "Apple person") post that contrived simulated iPhone video to Android newsgroups, as if any iPhone could do on its own what that Apple sham advertisement absurdly pretended it could do?
It's ok that he believes Apple bullshit but nobody on Android is that dumb.
So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ... then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
Alan Browne, 2023-11-08 20:03:
[...]
So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ... >> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
Sony Xperia V1
On 11/7/2023 10:04 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
I just find it amusing that someone posts that and a flamewar starts >>>> just about Apple vs. Android. It's like in the good old days when
there was Commodore, Atari, Sinclair, Acorn ;-).
The flame wars don't happen when the Apple people aren't on the
thread.
They don't happen when Android people aren't on Apple threads either.
Then why did the OP (who seems to be an "Apple person") post that contrived simulated iPhone video to Android newsgroups, as if any iPhone could do on its own what that Apple sham advertisement absurdly pretended it could do?
It's ok that he believes Apple bullshit but nobody on Android is that dumb.
Alan Browne wrote
Pretty much any camera (in phone or otherwise) of the same quality,
similar quality lenses and
--- this is the important bit, so read closely ---
* Records in a lossless format (such as Pro Res), and
* Records Log data to preserve the dynamic range.
And of course (as mentioned) from the top, everything about the filming
was studio level production: lighting, dollies, sound equipment,
personnel, talent, etc. and so on... not to mention all the post
processing that had to occur to get to that level of quality. And of
course a lot of detail missing here...
So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ... >> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
Sony Xperia V1
Wally J, 2023-11-08 21:59:
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote[...]
So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ... >>>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do >>>> the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
Sony Xperia V1
This question is for people who know photography far better than I do...
Is that true that the Sony Xperia V1 does what Alan Browne claims only an
iPhone can do in terms of what Alan Browne refers to above as recording in >> "essentially equivalent to RAW" format and being able to "record log data
to preserve dynamic range"?
At least Sony Xperia V1 also does raw picture snapshots. But depending
on the API implemented by the vendor, this is also possible using "Open Camera" in many other phones as well. So I can take pictures in raw
format with Open Camera on a Google Pixel 6a as well. In theory, Camera2 should allow *every* app to get uncompressed raw images, but some
vendors prefer to whitelist that feature only for their proprietary
stock camera apps.
About video also see here:
<https://www.videomaker.com/news/sony-reveals-xperia-1-v-with-pro-features-for-video/>
And JFTR: we talk about a phone for around 1400 USD.
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
So indeed, if there is an Android phone that records losslessly
(essentially equivalent to RAW), and records to preserve dynamic range ... >>> then coupled to all the rest, yes Virginia, that Android phone could do
the same and achieve similar results to what Apple achieved.
Sony Xperia V1
This question is for people who know photography far better than I do...
Is that true that the Sony Xperia V1 does what Alan Browne claims only an iPhone can do in terms of what Alan Browne refers to above as recording in "essentially equivalent to RAW" format and being able to "record log data
to preserve dynamic range"?
Funny how Arlen/Wally spouts BS that I've already addressed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:57:25 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,335,947 |
