151–160 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't see 10$ a month for a tool as advanced as photoshop as outrageous.
I think it is $21/month: https://i.imgur.com/q5BSDWI.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What worries me is that COTS photo equipment increasingly comes with these algorithmic retouches that "over-represent" the data - or, put another way, bake its own interpretation into image, in a way that cannot be distinguished from source data. It's nice for a casual Instagrammer, but then a lot of science and engineering also gets done using COTS equipment. I worry that at some point, a lot of money will be burned…
I did a web search for "cots" and learned that a cot is... > a small usually collapsible bed often of fabric stretched on a frame But in this case, COTS is apparently... > commercial, off-the-shelf In other words "photo equipment" or "consumer/retail photo equipment." Upon further reading[0] it seems odd to use the term here, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. It's often used for software and has a key phrase.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did a web search for "cots" and learned that a cot is... > a small usually collapsible bed often of fabric stretched on a frame But in this case, COTS is apparently... > commercial, off-the-shelf In other words "photo equipment" or "consumer/retail photo equipment." Upon further reading[0] it seems odd to use the term here, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. It's often used for software and has a key phrase.…
It’s a common acronym in the tech world. I’ve usually used it in the context of a “buy-or-build” conversation about software (e.g. “most businesses are best off using COTS applications than doing custom development” - that sort of thing). But the acronym means what it means, so when OP talks about COTS camera gear, it makes sense to me.
As an aside, the term of art is "make-or-buy" if you want to be able to Google it.
The discussion we are having is interesting because COTS are notorious for their hidden costs and how difficult they are to properly budget. Having to find a way to disable or reverse advance post-processing in a camera would be a fairly typical example of that. In this specific case it might mean having to commission a custom firmware from the camera manufacturer - something which is very much doable but might end up costing you as much as buying bespoke equipments for inferior results in the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a common acronym in the tech world. I’ve usually used it in the context of a “buy-or-build” conversation about software (e.g. “most businesses are best off using COTS applications than doing custom development” - that sort of thing). But the acronym means what it means, so when OP talks about COTS camera gear, it makes sense to me.
> "buy-or-build" As an aside, the term of art is "make-or-buy" if you want to be able to Google it. The discussion we are having is interesting because COTS are notorious for their hidden costs and how difficult they are to properly budget. Having to find a way to disable or reverse advance post-processing in a camera would be a fairly typical example of that. In this specific case it might mean having to commission…
Make-or-buy seems more a term for manufacturing industry/SCM. TIL
For those wanting to try this out without paying for Creative Suite, Pixelmator Pro on the Mac ($40) has something similar[1]. The iPad version ($8) also has this feature now[2]. [1] https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2019/12/17/all-about-the-new... [2] https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2020/09/15/pixelmator-photo-...
If it's just a matter of "trying it out", Adobe's Creative Cloud has a free trial already, is only $10 a month normally (IIRC), and has the advantage of running on Windows. Edit: the photography bundle, which includes Photoshop, is $10/month, not Creative Cloud as a whole. Thanks to mastazi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how floating point math works? At least not for standard floats (IEEE 754), and except for very large integers (near 2^m, where m is the mantissa of the FP type). Floats have an exact representation for integers within their mantissa range -- i.e., '18' is exactly the same as '18.0000'.
They're correct when it comes to scientific fields - the number of significant figures is important, so 18.0 and 18.000 really do mean different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they're David to Adobe's Goliath, I also feel compelled to mention that I've just recently discovered/purchased this and am incredibly impressed with it.
Look into Cupscale, it’s a GUI for all of the ESRGAN models. https://github.com/n00mkrad/cupscale
https://github.com/AaronFeng753/Waifu2x-Extension-GUI
It has several models for processing animation and photos.
If you want it even tediously automates the scaling of videos and GIFs by exporting each frame, upscaling, and joining back together.
I suggest to read the Adobe blogpost at https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/03/10/from-the-acr-te... instead. It has sample images side-by-side with bicubic upsampling. Even better comparisons are in the blog post for a competing product: https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2019/12/17/all-about-the-new... (likely the same algorithm, but using a different training set, so results will be different from what Adobes prod…
A few examples in the blog post stood out to me - both refine ambigous letters to clear ones, which demonstrates concerns other folks were talking about in this thread. In this one, i's are nearly illegible, but are corrected. It appears to be correct here, but could be wrong. https://blog.adobe.com/hlx_fa6ee5a67d3f2e5b1945745176e6b955e... This one's weirder. In the original, I can't read many of the letters. It look…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0O6UXrOZJo
>On the scale of things too horrible to contemplate, "document-altering scanner" is right up there with "flesh-eating bacteria". Since 2006, Xerox scancopiers literally are making stuff up. They, for example, replace digits with others in scans.
You can get on the order of sqrt(N) improvement in resolution from N images with an optimized system. I've done it in the past, with a hand held DSLR and Hugin (the panorama stitching program, in this case used to align the stack of almost identical pictures with subpixel accuracy)