Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Retina MBP report  (Read 14286 times)
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 605



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2012, 12:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting that the antiglare "high res" (1680x1050) screen on the MBP has a higher color gamut than the retina display.
Logged

Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1894



« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2012, 01:19:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Apple has posted an FAQ on the retina display
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Robert-Peter Westphal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2012, 01:35:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Apple has posted an FAQ on the retina display

Thanks Chris for posting this very intersting link !!

Robert
Logged

'visit my completly renewed gallery at http://www.naturfotografie-westphal.com '
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1894



« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2012, 02:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

And for those that have a retina display, here is an early problem

Scroll down to the 'image persistence' video
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
grabshot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2012, 05:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Web page creators need to put images online with special identifiers so that modified browsers can select the correct resolution to display for each element. This will likely happen fairly quickly, especially on photography related sites. I intended on putting Retina-aware images on this site beginning in the near future.

I'm not paranoid about image theft but I'd advise caution against putting "Retina-aware" images on the web. It's one thing to put a 900 x 600 pixel or so jpeg on a website (and inadvertently make it available to bloggers and other copyright averse online users), it's a different ballgame putting up 1800 x 1200 images (and larger if you are going to really take advantage of the new screen) that begin to be useful for print usage. Too risky IMO.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2012, 05:21:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not paranoid about image theft but I'd advise caution against putting "Retina-aware" images on the web. It's one thing to put a 900 x 600 pixel or so jpeg on a website (and inadvertently make it available to bloggers and other copyright averse online users), it's a different ballgame putting up 1800 x 1200 images (and larger if you are going to really take advantage of the new screen) that begin to be useful for print usage. Too risky IMO.

That's a very valid point with deep reaching consequences!

Actually this may end up being the most impacting aspect of this upgrade.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2012, 07:41:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been giving a lot of thought to this. A watermark may be the only answer.

Michael
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2012, 10:47:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been giving a lot of thought to this. A watermark may be the only answer.

Exactly, things will quickly point in that direction.

If you look also more broadly, this is getting close to an article written a few years ago by one of your contributors about the death of paper...  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2012, 02:36:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been giving a lot of thought to this. A watermark may be the only answer.

Michael


Maybe, or some new way of embedding images and displaying them in a non-saveable way; something like flash, and hopefully designed against the print-screen function.
Logged

Danijel
lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2012, 03:02:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe, or some new way of embedding images and displaying them in a non-saveable way; something like flash, and hopefully designed against the print-screen function.

To be displayed on a screen, at some point in time the image will have been decoded and written into a buffer (main memory, dedicated frame buffer on graphics card). At that point in time all you would need to do is dump the contents of the buffer. For example, fraps is a common program used to grab the contents of the OpenGL or DirectX frame buffer to create a video file. There is very little programming skill necessary to grab the frame buffer and convert it into a usable image format. Put simply, if you can see it on your screen, it is in a buffer somewhere and disabling print screen isn't going to stop anyone other than casual thieves (opportunistic theft).

Sadly, a large, centrally located watermark is likely the best strategy to deal with folks intent on printing your work without paying. There are algorithms that can be used to remove watermarks partially. The basic logic for such an algorithm is that to be visible a watermarked pixel must have an RGB value noticeably different from the value of the surrounding pixels (and the surrounding pixels generally have values similar to the pixel that was changed). So, removing a watermark is basically a specialized smoothing-like operation. You also want to throw in some edge detection to identify the regions that are being manipulated.

So, watermarks can also be defeated, to an extent. The image won't look as good, but depending on the print size some users would find it to be acceptable enough to print (and steal).
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 03:11:56 AM by lfeagan » Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2012, 03:10:54 AM »
ReplyReply

To be displayed on a screen, at some point in time the image will have been decoded and written into a buffer (main memory, dedicated frame buffer on graphics card). At that point in time all you would need to do is dump the contents of the buffer. For example, fraps is a common program used to grab the contents of the OpenGL or DirectX frame buffer to create a video file. There is very little programming skill necessary to grab the frame buffer and convert it into a usable image format. Put simply, if you can see it on your screen, it is in a buffer somewhere and disabling print screen isn't going to stop anyone other than thieves of opportunity (casual theft).

Yes, that is true, but the most casual ones are usually the ones you need to worry about. Also, if the process of theft is made technically difficult, it might be easier to prove malicious intent in court. It's the difference between picking up a wallet from the pavement and picking pockets.
Logged

Danijel
lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2012, 03:17:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, that is true, but the most casual ones are usually the ones you need to worry about. Also, if the process of theft is made technically difficult, it might be easier to prove malicious intent in court. It's the difference between picking up a wallet from the pavement and picking pockets.

Unfortunately it isn't very difficult from a technical standpoint. Photoshop and GIMP already include the tool necessary to remove small/unobtrusive watermarks and more than likely you are already familiar with it (though obviously not for this purpose): the content-aware spot healing tool.

http://www.instantfundas.com/2010/04/how-to-remove-watermark-from-image-or.html

Regarding the watermarked image used for the example in the above link: The big "X" across the image with single-pixel width is trivial to remove with a negligible loss of quality. Fixing any single-pixel wide modification (especially a linear feature) is trivial. Don't waste your time making watermarks like that. A non-uniform curvilinear watermark that is non-contiguous would be much harder to remove. For example, a watermark that consisted of many small, non-contiguous modifications of varying hues would be more difficult to remove (think of polka dots that were arranged to form words). If you varied the color of each polka-dot, you could also overlap them to form the watermark, but some discontinuities will make it harder to create an automated program to remove the watermark. Large blocks are easy to programatically identify and remove. The standard LR watermarking would not be hard to remove.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 03:31:21 AM by lfeagan » Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2012, 03:48:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Both posting a small resolution image and posting a watermarked image are techniques that go from the premise that someone is going to steal the image, and when he does, you want to limit what he can do with it. As you said, watermarking has limited usefulness, since a determined and skilled person can remove it. Reducing image size is more useful but is ultimately self-defeating, because you eventually make an image that is so small, it doesn't present your work in any significant way.

So, as long as the choice is between presenting my work properly and limiting theft, I decided that presenting my work properly has priority. YMMV.
Logged

Danijel
Tariq
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2012, 06:54:54 AM »
ReplyReply

If the intention is to prevent theft of higher resolution images and have one's work look good when viewed specifically on say an Apple Retina MBP screen, the best compromise at present is likely just to leave images at their current, lower resolution (optimized say for a vertical resolution of between say 768-900 pixels when viewing ones website at full screen) and let the Retina MBP perform it's linear interpolation up of the images (the default Retina screen resolution).  Looking at current images on the Retina MBP which have been interpolated up in this way display the slightest hint of interpolation artifacts which one really must look closely at to notice.  Imo, this is much less obtrusive/ noticeable than a big watermark on a higher resolution image.  When higher resolution screens become the norm, perhaps then worry about a permanent solution (and by then, there may be a solution readily available).
Logged
lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2012, 08:48:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I tried to think of some positive things on this topic regarding "regular folks" (those who are not OCD photographers such as those lurking about the LuLa forums, myself included), stealing images from photographers:
1. They will likely be downloading an image limited to sRGB with 8-bit precision.
2. They will probably be printing on their personal printer and know nothing about color profiles.
3. As a result of 1 and 2, the print they create won't likely come close to what they would have received had they paid.

I know, small consolation.

I believe anyone willing to steal and print an image wouldn't likely have ever paid for the image. There are those in society who are ethical and believe in paying others for their work and those who do not. Trying to compel those in the later category to pay is difficult and may not be worth the effort.

I have to run, but I just had an odd thought based on conclusion 2. Most browsers don't support embedded ICCv4 profiles so including one won't make a lick of difference to the on-screen rendering in the browser. Most applications used for printing, however, do. You could always use an embedded ICCv4 profile that was GRB instead of RGB ordering so that it would look like crap when they went to print it after downloading.
Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2012, 09:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe anyone willing to steal and print an image wouldn't likely have ever paid for the image.
I am often skeptical of this "pirates wouldn't pay anyway" argument, like when applied to movie and music downloads, but in this case I agree: the most likely result of preventing unauthorized use of your screen-resolution images is that the would-be pirates will keep searching, and find another less well-protected image that is good enough amongst the billions available online. That seems far more likely than them going through the hassle of paying you for your screen-resolution image.

I would guess that the most likely ways to generate a sale from displaying an image online is (1) selling a print, or a higher quality file suitable for printing at about letter size/A4 or above, and (2) for commercial web-sites.  For (1), keeping resolution down to "free sample" size seems enough: 1280x800?. For (2) maybe hidden digital signatures and web-searching tools that find your images reused on commercial sites might help, if the abusing site is big enough to be worth going after legally.


P. S. There is an irony to this worrying about 5MP "retina resolution" compressed JPEG images being good enough that people will not pay for higher quality versions, just after some weeks of worrying that the resolution of the D800 is not good enough due to its AA filter, or that the 5DMkIII has inadequate dynamic range.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 09:44:46 AM by BJL » Logged
lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2012, 11:00:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I am often skeptical of this "pirates wouldn't pay anyway" argument, like when applied to movie and music downloads, but in this case I agree: the most likely result of preventing unauthorized use of your screen-resolution images is that the would-be pirates will keep searching, and find another less well-protected image that is good enough amongst the billions available online. That seems far more likely than them going through the hassle of paying you for your screen-resolution image.

I am glad you picked up on the subtle difference. With songs and movies, it isn't likely that someone will listen to or watch a similar substitute for what they wanted. I can just imagine a conversation:
Inquiry to a friend: "Did you see (the new) James Bond last night?" (assuming it came out the previous night)
Response: "Nah, it wasn't available on BitTorrent so I watched the previous one instead."

Thanks to image search tools on the web, such as Google Images, if the result is too small, watermarked heavily, et cetera it is quite easy to simply move along to the next result. In the world of photography there seem to be very few exceptions to this principle (maybe for the top 0.001%, maybe).

For (1), keeping resolution down to "free sample" size seems enough: 1280x800?. For (2) maybe hidden digital signatures and web-searching tools that find your images reused on commercial sites might help, if the abusing site is big enough to be worth going after legally.

Those sound like good strategies to me.

P. S. There is an irony to this worrying about 5MP "retina resolution" compressed JPEG images being good enough that people will not pay for higher quality versions, just after some weeks of worrying that the resolution of the D800 is not good enough due to its AA filter, or that the 5DMkIII has inadequate dynamic range.

Yes, it is quite ironic. But it is similar to the principles expressed in The Innovator's Dilemma and it relates to the principle behind point 2 in your second paragraph. Because the market is saturated, photographers have two choices:
  • Move further up the value chain.
  • Lower per-item profit and prices to remain competitive at the same level in the value chain.

I suspect that most people on LuLa plan on taking the first strategy and therefore the equipment they use has become more critical as they attempt to keep or expand their revenue while moving up the value chain by selling higher-end/more specialized items. In a high-end, specialized market it is likely that fewer items will be sold and more work will go into the creation of each item. To keep the same revenue each item must be sold at a higher per-item profit. Even if you do not work in an area that creates new technologies, The Innovator's Dilemma is an excellent book to read. And if you do, it should be mandatory.
Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
mhecker*
Contributor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2012, 12:03:43 PM »
ReplyReply

On Windows 7, the Snipping tool makes it possible to cut all or part of any image to the clipboard.

On OSX, Command-Shift-4 provides the same function.
Flash does nothing to change this.

My rule is never post more pixels than you are willing to give up for free.
When you create the web page use an image with the max pixels you are willing to give away free.

Size the image window to a % of page width, rather than absolute pixel size and and let the Retina MBP perform it's linear interpolation to get the needed pixels.

A trivial watermark can be deleted easily and a large obtrusive watermark destoys the image aestehtically.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2012, 12:53:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I will take wider gamut over higher resolution.  YMMV.
Logged

douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2012, 02:38:58 PM »
ReplyReply

If the intention is to prevent theft of higher resolution images and have one's work look good when viewed specifically on say an Apple Retina MBP screen, the best compromise at present is likely just to leave images at their current, lower resolution (optimized say for a vertical resolution of between say 768-900 pixels when viewing ones website at full screen) and let the Retina MBP perform it's linear interpolation up of the images (the default Retina screen resolution).  Looking at current images on the Retina MBP which have been interpolated up in this way display the slightest hint of interpolation artifacts which one really must look closely at to notice.  Imo, this is much less obtrusive/ noticeable than a big watermark on a higher resolution image.  When higher resolution screens become the norm, perhaps then worry about a permanent solution (and by then, there may be a solution readily available).

Agreed.  I keep the resolution of my Macbook Pro Retina one tick up from Apples ideal retina setting, and pics look fine to me.  I was just on Magnum's website looking around, and there aren't any noticeable issues.  The "ideal" retina setting looked fine, too.  I plan on outputting my web jpegs at their usual size.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad