mod50ack

Yeah, the iPhone doesn't have the best camera by any means. But having received some RAW photos from one, I feel like they at least don't look super shitty before you push them. Now, they do not compare to RAWs from my actual cameras (whether the R5 or 5Diii). But they at least might be worth looking at.

The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (this is the model whose RAWs I viewed, but I don't own one) can produce 48MP DNGs. In good light they can look decent enough for what they are.

The Pixel 6 Pro just takes smeary photos. Their NR and compression makes them look blocky like screencaps from a video.

I also have used the Sony Xperia 1ii (used to own this phone for a while). This was supposedly a phone with a focus on the camera. In my experience, it looked pretty bad.

The fake bokeh will get better, I'm sure, but it can never beat the real deal. Real shallow DOF already exists; sure, faking it will get closer, and that's probably enough for the average Joe, but it's not like we can't just keep using the real thing, which doesn't have the potential flaws.

The thing about larger sensors, of course, is that they require lenses that project a larger image circle — and phone lenses can't really be like ILC lenses because, well, the form factors conflict. You can't stuff a 135/1.8 in your pocket; the laws of optics are what makes those lenses as big as they are.

> Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.

OK, I guess I mean to exclude this kind of work which is done because the cameras are of much worse technical quality — these are by definition not applications for which traditional dedicated cameras are used.

In other words, the toys are not replacements for more capable equipment. Yes, you can shoot with a Barbie camera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmrFguxgS0). But nobody could seriously claim that it replaces any standard ILC. We're not discussing whether or not phones (or Barbies) can take photos; we're talking about whether or not they can replace ILCs, and in what applications.

> Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.

Well, of course, also, we don't always have good lighting or a lack of motion. Often, I am photographing people in motion, or in poor lighting, or both. And that's not a super niche thing. Imagine photographing an actor who is in the middle of a rehearsal (which I've done many times). A dedicated camera is just the right tool for that job, with the appropriate lens attached. Not to mention, of course, you want to have a somewhat telephoto lens for that — and one area where phone cameras have been, to my eyes, mostly marketing bluster is that of "super-zoom."

But looking back just at the same gear example I mentioned earlier: I often use my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens on my (full-frame) Canon R5. Now, I'll concede that this lens itself is much, much larger than anything you could slap on a phone, and the full-frame sensor is also far bigger than what you'd find on any phone, so you'd EXPECT something larger.

Now, to be fair, this is one of the lenses you can buy (tied with a Canon and Sony of the same spec) with some of the shallowest possible DOF on a full-frame camera. I don't always shoot wide open, but sometimes I do. In the ideal situation, I'd be shooting at ISO 100. And a 45MP FF sensor at its base ISO is just going to be ... really good. Admittedly, the iPhone (more than the Pixel, to my eyes, by a LONG shot) can produce some OK fake bokeh. But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake. My R5 will focus perfectly on the point I want and get the shot I am looking for every time. And AI-based trickery won't work equally well with all subjects; pure optics stays the same no matter what you're shooting.

The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. Everything is NR'd, sharpened and HDR'd until it looks like a watercolor. I much prefer to apply (in most cases) pretty limited adulteration to my photos (which I shoot in RAW). I can shoot RAW with my phone, but I've never been anywhere near satisfied with the results. I will confess that the RAW results from the iPhone are significantly better, though still nothing like what I get from my dedicated camera. (I won't use an iPhone for reasons unrelated to photography.)

> That's overly broad. A lot of what photographers do doesn't need those capabilities (hell, some photographers work with literal children's toys),

OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras. Those are used for an occasional laugh. Now, yes, you can photograph most things with your phone. But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.

> My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.

Good! Hopefully this will become more common. The fact that the Pixel 6 Pro expands the sensor size but keeps a fixed-aperture lens made the camera worse, as far as I'm concerned.

Phones definitely cannot compete with ILCs in the applications that photographers use. Phones fundamentally lack the larger sensors and specialist lenses that allow ILCs to produce the images they do. Yes, phones can blur stuff to fake bokeh, but even very basic things are not accounted for in phones.

What phones can do is replace dedicated cameras for the basic photography needs of many consumers. Point and shoot cameras have gone by the wayside. So have many cheaper consumer-oriented interchangeable-lens models. Many people bought APS-C DSLRs and just used them with the kit lens. That market has fizzled out. For one, most of those people now just use their phones. But even if they don't use their phones, DSLRs from the early 2010s still produce good images by today's standards.

But you know what a smartphone can't replace? My 135mm f/1.8 lens, just to name one. And full-frame sensors are way better than phone sensors. I'd much rather use my Canon 5Diii (from 2012) than my Pixel 6 Pro.

More than that, I feel that in their question to get bigger and bigger sensors, phone cameras have missed the mark with their actual purpose. The Pixel 6 Pro, for instance, has a larger sensor size to get a shallower depth of field. But this is NOT a welcome change when I am photographing pieces of paper and get the wrong focus in my images. The fact that you can't stop down the aperture on the lenses in 99% of phones is a major limitation. And that's just the beginning.

Now, I'm not saying I never use the camera on my Pixel. But I am saying that it's not at all useful for anything I'd use a real camera for.

Chris and Jordan have already announced that they will be continuing with PetaPixel and things will be done basically the same way, just as it was when they were with The Camera Store.

Jamaica, like Canada, is not a republic.

That was something that played on Pokémon as a social phenomenon. And, more than that, you didn't absolutely need to do that to play and enjoy the game. It was a multiplayer element. If you were a diehard, yeah, you could buy a second Game Boy and a second game, but that would require playing the full game twice to get all the exclusives in both. That was beyond what the developers expected the player to do. All of that would make the game harder!

On the other hand, players of FTP games are encouraged to make micropayments, which make those games "easier."

I think the always-online thing is a DRM thing. I could be wrong, though.

As for the game itself: I've played it, and it's a pretty decent runner with the physics of New Super Mario Bros. Wii/U, but it's just not the same as the more full-fledged games. It's fun to pick up and play, but not groundbreaking or particularly special.

They were certainly both based on Opera. Don't know to what extent the DSi port was based off its predecessor, though.

The DSi Browser was an updated version of that original DS Browser. Don't know if it was based on the old port, or if it was redone. The DSi was more capable than the original DS, and the browser had to be redone because the old GBA-slot RAM cart was no longer supported. They switched the base to a considerably newer version of Opera. As a major advantage, the browser actually shipped with the DSi, making it much more useful than the two-cartridge getup necessary for the original DS (which, in the end, very few people ended up getting for that system).

YouTube Music literally has the full tracks with no DRM.

It's a rare scenario not generally considered by PD-Art on Commons. Commons isn't actually that conservative (except in that they demand the work be free in both its country of origin and the US). Commons has very few 3D models in general though not for copyright reasons.

Many institutions in the UK and elsewhere claim this. But that doesn't make it true.

The threshold of originality is historically signficiantly higher throughout most of continental Europe than in the UK. The 2001 Infopaq case also has relevance in the UK. The UK IPO indicated that based on this decision (binding in the UK) and other factors these images likely shouldn't have copyright even in the UK.

The 2019 EU copyright directive also explicitly included the provision that 2D replicas are not eligible for any new copyright (Art. 14). This is not directly relevant in the UK (though previous CJEU decisions remain effective there), but it does apply throughout the EU.

In short, the NPG doesn't decide what UK law says. Many people have claimed that scans and reproductions are worth copyright but in the vast majority of cases this is legally incorrect.

Yep, I work in this area and museums/libraries often believe that they have the right to prevent you from using the creative works whose originals they physically hold. This is usually not the case. And in the vast majority of countries, digitizations of at least 2D works aren't able to be copyrighted.

Commons does, however, allow scans of 2D public domain works that have "scarecrow" copyright claims in light of Bridgeman v. Corel (which ruled that such scans/photos can have no copyright in the US due to a lack of original creative content).

Commons doesn't accept 2D photos of 3D works because these photos' lighting, positioning, etc. choices can give them original creative content. But a 3D scan isn't likely to contain such creative choices. It may be annoying to make one, but the US does not have "sweat of the brow" copyright.

The question is about new copyright in both cases, not subsisting copyright. You hold the copyright to the elements originating with you in a derivative work.

No, it's just that he used a codec that has much more bit depth than he needed on the output end to make it a regular webcam. He says himself that if he used a custom codec then it would be fine but would require software support on the receiving computer.

It's about equally unlikely that you'll end up in prison or sued for downloading copyrighted content in the United States, especially if it is PD elsewhere. In fact, if it is PD elsewhere, the chances of your being prosecuted for downloading it approach zero.

Works passing into the public domain have very little to do with people actually getting practically slapped around for downloading them. But they have EVERYTHING to do with creating derivative works. If you create a film based on a book that is PD-US but still copyrighted in the EU, you can expect to get sued.

PD terms also affect legal libraries and archive significantly.

None of A. A. Milne's work will enter the PD anywhere in the EU until 2027, including all the elements of his character Winnie the Pooh, not counting elements introduced by other writers who added more later.

Yes, I know. The requirement of the Berne convention is 50 years after death. The US goes twenty years beyond that.

In the US, indeed. But in the UK the runner of AI can hold a copyright. Which I think is stupid but that's hardly the first dumb copyright thing.

50 years of protection after the death of the author.

Note that for a number of EU countries, US works are in the public domain once they are PD-US due to the application of the rule of the shorter term.

Yes, which you still need to add to a VHS player.

> Neither them nor Europeans are used to less benign governments.

I'm pretty sure Europeans have heard of Hitler and Stalin and their ilk.

I've been taking pictures for a few years now. Not all of my photos are fit for Wikimedia Commons, but I've put a lot on [1], especially of baseball players and buildings (just what I happen to enjoy photographing).

I began originally with point-and-shoots, which I borrowed from my parents and basically used as they're designed: pointing and shooting. The quality of those early photos is not always great. But with time, I learned how to get a quality shot of a person or action (in baseball) and how to wait for the right moment and so on. This was without cheating (using burst mode). Of course, you don't get 100% of the moments that are interesting. Sometimes someone blocks you, sometimes it just doesn't happen at the right time, sometimes you're eating a snack. It's OK. The most important thing is to get a lot of practice taking pictures of the thing you like to photograph.

You might thing non-moving subjects are easier. They are in a way. But if you are photographing buildings, for instance, then you should care about straight lines and getting the right perspective. This can be infuriating if you know what to look for. People move, but at least we humans don't have straight lines or flat surfaces and so it's pretty easy to capture us from many different angles.

The point-and-shoots helped me develop my sense of timing. You don't need to use a point-and-shoot for this, though; a better camera will be perfectly good (and give you better image quality). You can get a used DSLR for pretty cheap. The switch to interchangeable-lens cameras (DSLRs, which are a bit older, or mirrorless cameras, which are newer) will give you the opportunity to try out different lenses, which make a huge difference for your photography. (By the way, DSLR lenses can generally be used on newer mirrorless cameras.) My first photography-changing DSLR lens was a Canon 70-300, which made my baseball photography much more credible. You don't need to practice to use a new lens, of course. But if you practice using some, then you can gain a better understanding of the importance of focal length (and aperture) to your ptohography.

The next step is getting out of auto mode and getting a full understanding of manual exposure and RAW. For me, for a long time, I shot mostly in a program mode on my DSLR because I only saw through the optical viewfinder and wanted my exposure to be right, especially as I was shooting JPEG on small SD cards. That's all very well. But to get to the level I am at now, I needed to start shooting in full manual (the mode I now use 99% of the time), and shooting in my camera's RAW format (which gives you MUCH more editing latitude in basically every way, as well as the full quality of your camera).

Using a contemporary mirrorless camera can actually make manual exposure significantly easier. You can now see your exposure in your viewfinder (generally this can be turned off, too). (On DSLRs from the last ~ten years, you can get this same feature by using live view --- i.e., shooting with the back screen rather than the viewfinder.) This can confirm your exposure visually and also get you more familiar with the different settings and how to "eyeball" it even on a DSLR/without exposure simulation in the viewfinder.

At every step, practice is key. If you want to take pictures, go out and do it. It doesn't matter if they're bad. They will not all be good, especially not at the beginning. Find the things you like to photograph and keep at it until you are happy with what you're doing. (Or, if you find you don't like photography, that's OK, too.)

[1] Shameless plug: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MediaSearch?type=...

Virtually EVERY person, from every country, is descended from royalty/aristocracy of some kind somehow. And obviously, literally every person is descended from people who lived in antiquity.

The unusual thing is having a traced relation with royalty or stretching back this far.

Because 60fps and 24fps don't look alike and video shot at a very high frame rate can look off to an audience.

Remember also that typically a 1/2 rule is followed where the exposure of each frame is half the time of its display. So for each of the 1/24s intervals, an exposure is made for 1/48s. A shorter exposure would have less motion blur but look jittery. A longer exposure would look too buttery. People are extremely used to 1/48s exposures displayed for 1/24s (or similar).

48fps video in the Hobbit movies was very negatively perceived. It looked too much like a video game.

> Calculus/analysis tests seem quite standard, where's the unusual push?

The tests in standard courses aren't really what's at play. It's about people and the ability to "run into" and work with those people gets people into research networks.

Not all MIT students do that, of course, and it's not an absolute; many people come from less-prestigious schools, but the networking effects stack things against them coming from undergrad and afford them fewer opportunities to "walk into" those circles, depending on the resources their UGs have.

So only in the vast majority of fields, then.