Oly "does it" again.

In article , Cynicor
says...

I think you mean "we should all use computers with character-based
interfaces."

Yup.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Dec 21, 10:29 am, "Kinon O'Cann"
wrote:
If I hadn't seen this, I would have thought someone was kidding:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...60uz/page8.asp

Check out the "Expression Edit" feature. My nomination for the most
incredible waste of time and money by a camera company so far. Why not
concentrate on image quality instead of this insanity?

Probably to most on this group it is a waste, but there are many folks
who buy cameras who do not really concern themselves with image
quality that much. Even in the days of film, remember the Instamatics
and the 110 cameras?

To many folks, if the people in the image are recognizable, that is
what counts. Bells and whistles, cheap to add, may be an advantage in
the market place for the casual shooter.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:19:45 -0500, Cynicor wrote:

The only time I can use a use for this is when everyone has had too
much to drink and they have some fun looking at how funny they can
make each others faces look, good for a laugh or two but that is about
it.

My problem with it (maybe this isn't a problem) is that if a feature
like this gains widespread popularity, it's the death of trust for
photographic veracity.

But it's unlikely to become widely popular unless as a brief fad
at most, and then if it does, that's justification enough for adding
the Expression Edit feature. I don't recall reading any complaints
about some of the similar "useless" features Canon's Powershot
cameras have had for a good number of years, such as Color Swap.
I've never used it, but neither have I ever even tried most of the
different non*-transformational settings, shooting and Special Scene
modes, such as Vivid, Sepia, "Kids&Pets", "Foliage", "Underwater",
etc. It's so easy to ignore extra features that aren't desired that
it seems absurd to foam at the mouth about "this insanity". Not
pointing to you, but evidently we have a new RichA wannabee.

* must more modest transforms

Alfred Molon wrote:

Reminds me of those techno geeks who complained about the graphical
user interface of Windows, which according to them was a waste of
computer resources. According to them we should all use computers
with graphical interfaces.

Why would someone who complains about the use of a GUI advocate the
use of it?

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 7a530426-73ef-4451-a116-
, Scott W says...

Are you telling me that if I don't see the need for a camera to change
someone's expression I am a DSLR geek?

It can be a useful feature for consumers who might want to change the
facial expression in a photo. Don't forget the fun factor which plays a
major role for average people. Only a DSLR geek would dismiss this
feature as totally useless.

That is not true in the slightest. I know several people who proudly
don't use dSLRs and I can guarantee that every one of them who tire of
the feature almost straight away. I suspect it barely works at all on
shots that have lots of faces or faces that are in profile.

Reminds me of those techno geeks who complained about the graphical user
interface of Windows, which according to them was a waste of computer
resources.

Depending on the use it is. You wouldn't catch many servers running X
windows if they're administered properly, and I use the boxy, 95ish theme
with my Vista installation - I do find all that swishy glass a waste of
resources.

According to them we should all use computers with [command-line]
interfaces.

Not necessarily - at the time windows came out, even the very simple boxy
theme did take up a significant amount of resources - more than some
people would've liked. Now that computers have gotten fast enough there
are people, like me, who are happy with that ugly theme but will not yet
progress to the new level of transparent themes.

- --
Brendan Gillatt
brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?...rch=0xBACD7433
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFHbXFjkA9dCbrNdDMRAp8eAKDdWBYWGuWBba6OWkxbtM XBI9R6TQCfWtQE
yhyni2a3dGkp1men6Qrnz7E=
=uFC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:54:23 +0000, Neil Ellwood wrote:

Reminds me of those techno geeks who complained about the graphical
user interface of Windows, which according to them was a waste of
computer resources. According to them we should all use computers
with graphical interfaces.

Why would someone who complains about the use of a GUI advocate the
use of it?

Not very logical, is it? I think that what Alfred meant was
that some techno geeks originally disliked the graphical user
interfaces but that they eventually saw the (phosphor's) light . . .
That might describe me too, where things started to pick up when
Windows 3.0 was released (but I still preferred DesqView), and it
really took off with the more mature OS/2 and Win95.

My problem with it (maybe this isn't a problem) is that if a feature
like this gains widespread popularity, it's the death of trust for
photographic veracity.

That happened last Christmas, when a consumer camera was released that
had a skinny mode (effectively squishing the photo to make wider
people look not as wide). I know a few people who were pleased as
punch with their "thin" picture. Myself, it looks like a picture that
is not displayed at the right ratio. That might just be me though

On Dec 24, 9:41*am, theclyde wrote:
My problem with it (maybe this isn't a problem) is that if a feature
like this gains widespread popularity, it's the death of trust for
photographic veracity.

That happened last Christmas, when a consumer camera was released that
had a skinny mode (effectively squishing the photo to make wider
people look not as wide). *I know a few people who were pleased as
punch with their "thin" picture. Myself, it looks like a picture that
is not displayed at the right ratio. That might just be me though

I seem to be sometimes at odds with others in the Newsgroup. I don't
see that this is something to be frown off. I thought it may be a good
feature that a camera can offer. I wonder what is the percentage of
camera buyers nowadays, who are teenagers. With digital cameras are
getting cheaper and more advanced everyday, I assume that there are a
big chunk of those users/buyers are teenagers, who want to take
pictures in the mall, parties, or anywhere, and have a good laugh. Ask
them about this feature, and I am sure that they would think that is a
neat idea. (I am just guessing here).
Before making too much of a judgement, I like to see some practical
samples and its applications. I notice that in some other website
(Digital camera info?), they tested it and indicated that this feature
is not working. I like to see samples and like to know more on how
good, easy and accurate this feature works. It may be an interesting
challenge for Olympus' engineers to have this feature built into the
camera, and may lead to other developments that people could not
imagine now.
Humans have been trying to think out of the box, and they sometimes
never know where this would lead. I would not be surprise that in a
few years, a camera and a mini computer will fuse into one unit, and
you will have all of the Photoshop like processing in the camera, or
built into it. Imagine a Photoshop or Paintshop pro in a digital
camera. HDR software in a camera... mmm, interesting! Last time I
looked around, I could only fix 'red eye" in a computer. However, now
this feature is already built in some camera models. Look at the
"color accent" and "color swap" in some Canon camera models. It is one
of the fun things that I have with my G7 (as a comparison to my FZ18).
Next time you go to a Home Depot, pick up those colour strips they
usually gave you free for painting your home (no need to buy an
expensive colour chart!). Use it to pick up various colours in your G7
and do the colour swap (or colour accent). It is a lot of fun! If you
are an exterior decorator, use your "Colour swap" to check what colour
your client house needs for painting. You can show them what their
house would like with a different colour ... on the spot. This is
just some application which probably never have been expected. There
are many other applications of photography, other than the narrow
field to become professional photographers in the classical sense, ...
i.e. taking portraits, sceneries, wildlife scenes, etc.