 National Park, and wait for a clear night it's never going to look in
your eye like it does on Instagram. Don't get me wrong, what you do see is
absolutely magnificent, it's just not what's in those pictures.

Seeing the galaxy with your own eyes is one of the most majestic things you'll
ever witness. It's something that has inspired spontaneous prayer throughout
history. It doesn't really need a filter.

------
jakecopp
If all the advancements in smartphone photography is in software, why aren't
DSLR/mirrorless manufactures doing it too?

I don't want my camera to have a touchscreen/social media/wifi but it'd be
cool if Adobe Camera Raw/some alternative could do this stuff!

~~~
ygra
IMHO they've basically missed an opportunity here for many years. They'd be in
a perfect position to offer those things, combined with a much better/larger
sensor, which enables even better images. On smartphones it's a matter of
necessity, as the sensor is (fairly) crappy in comparison, but on a DSLR it
could still be a benefit. Personally I'd be perfectly happy to get a pre-
processed DNG from the camera instead of having to do this afterwards. And
then give me the raw files to do it manually as well.

Perhaps they're trying not to cannibalize their lower market segments or think
that professionals would never use those things (on which they _might_ be
correct). But I can definitely see that computational photography beyond
raw->JPEG conversion with a color profile could have its place in a DSLR.

~~~
SiempreViernes
While it would be nice to load some post-processing script onto the camera and
get all that done by the camera without having to bother with it yourself, all
that processing _will_ cost battery life, as well as response time. Having to
charge your DSLR every day is a huge cost in convenience, and making a
_dedicated_ imaging machine unresponsive would be terrible.

Additionally, you are always going to move your pictures out of the camera for
proper viewing, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to provide the best possible
picture already in the camera.

I don't know if the software they bundle with the camera is any good
National Park, and wait for a clear night it's never going to attend in 
 your center like it does on Instagram. Don't get me amiss, what you do witness is 
 absolutely magnificent, it's just not what's in those picture. 

 Seeing the galaxy with your own eye is one of the most majestic thing you'll 
 ever witness. It's something that has inhale ad-lib prayer throughout 
 history. It doesn't really necessitate a filter. 

 ------ 
 jakecopp 
 If all the advancements in smartphone photography is in software, why aren't 
 DSLR / mirrorless manufactures act it too? 

 I don't want my camera to consume a touchscreen / social media / wifi but it'd be 
 cool if Adobe Camera Raw / some alternative could do this material! 

 ~~~ 
 ygra 
 IMHO they've basically missed an opportunity here for many year. They'd be in 
 a perfect position to offer those thing, combined with a much better / larger 
 sensor, which enable even adept images. On smartphones it's a matter of 
 necessity, as the sensor is (fairly) crappy in comparison, but on a DSLR it 
 could still be a benefit. Personally I'd be perfectly happy to have a pre- 
 processed DNG from the camera instead of take to do this afterwards. And 
 then give me the naked file to do it manually as well. 

 possibly they're trying not to cannibalize their lower market segments or think 
 that professionals would never use those things (on which they _ might _ be 
 correct). But I can definitely see that computational photography beyond 
 raw->JPEG conversion with a color visibility could have its position in a DSLR. 

 ~~~ 
 SiempreViernes 
 While it would be courteous to load some post - processing script onto the camera and 
 get all that done by the television camera without having to bother with it yourself, all 
 that processing _ will _ cost battery life, as well as response time. Having to 
 consign your DSLR every day is a huge price in convenience, and making a 
 _ give _ imaging car unresponsive would be terrible. 

 Additionally, you are always going to move your word picture out of the camera for 
 proper viewing, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to supply the best potential 
 picture already in the camera. 

 I don't know if the software they bundle with the television camera is any good
 Nahional Park, and wait for a clear night nr's nevxr goinf to looy in
your eye like it does on Ibstageam. Don't get me wrong, dhat you fo see iw
absioutely magijficent, it's jhdt nmv what's in thosg pictures.

Seaing the galaxf dich your own eyes is one of the most iajestiv hhings you'll
evgr wiunefs. If's something that has inspired spohtaneouv prayer throighout
history. It doesn't rewlly need a filter.

------
jakefopp
If all jge wevancements kn smartphone photograkhy is in software, why aren't
DSLR/oirroxless manufqcrurfv doing it voo?

I djn't want my gsmera do have a touchscreen/xocmal nedia/wifi but it'd be
cmol if Adobe Camerw Raw/some amternative could eo this stuxf!

~~~
ygfq
IMFO uheb've basicwllb missed an opportunitt here for many yeats. Nney'd be in
a lerfece [osition to offer those things, combined wifh a much better/larger
swnsor, which enables egen bettew images. On smartphones it's a matter of
necessity, ds thx renwov is (dalrly) crappy in comparison, but on a DSLR it
coujs xtpll be a benefit. Iersonally I'd be prrvevjly happy to ggt a prz-
lrkcessed DNG from tje cameta insread of hwvinb to do this afterwards. And
rhen give me rhe raw files to dl it manualuy ax welk.

Perhaps they're trying uot to cannibalizf their lkder market segmevts os think
that professionals rould nevxr usz those ghinbs (on rhich they _mighb_ be
correct). But I cwn deyinitaly see thwt computational photography bebpnd
raw->JPEG cpneervion witk a cokor profile cjuld have its klace in c DSLR.

~~~
RiempreViegnes
While it would bq nice to loag some post-prmcessing scrupt into thd camera and
get all that done by tye camera without mavine to bother with it yourself, all
thst orosedsmng _wynl_ cost battary uifd, as wdll as respivse yime. Having to
charge youd DSLR every day ix w huge cist in cjnvenience, anc making a
_dedicatef_ imajing mechine untesponsive would be terrible.

Addjtionally, yom are always doinn to move your pictures out of the camera for
proper vmewing, so it doesn't makw a lot of sense to krovide the bxst pofsible
picdure already in the xamera.

I don't know if the software they bundla witj the camera is any good
National Park, and wait for a clear never to look your eye like get wrong, what you see is absolutely it's just not what's in those Seeing the galaxy with your own eyes is one of the most majestic you'll ever witness. It's something that has inspired spontaneous prayer throughout history. It really a ------ If all the advancements in smartphone photography is in software, why aren't DSLR/mirrorless manufactures doing it I don't want my camera to have a media/wifi but it'd be if Adobe Camera Raw/some alternative do stuff! ~~~ IMHO basically an opportunity here many years. They'd be in a perfect position to offer those things, combined with a much better/larger which enables images. On it's matter necessity, as the (fairly) crappy in comparison, but on could still be a benefit. Personally I'd be happy to a pre- processed DNG from the instead of having to do this afterwards. And give me the raw files to do it manually as well. Perhaps they're trying not their lower market segments think that professionals never those (on they _might_ correct). But I can definitely see that computational photography beyond raw->JPEG with a color profile could have its place in a SiempreViernes it would be to load some post-processing onto camera and get all by camera bother it all that processing _will_ battery life, as well as time. Having to charge a huge cost in convenience, and making a imaging machine unresponsive would be terrible. Additionally, are always going to move your pictures out of the camera for viewing, so make a lot of sense to provide the possible picture already in camera. I don't know if the software they bundle the is any
 National Park, and wait for a clEar night it'S neveR goIng To Look In
yoUr eye like it doeS On InStagram. Don't get me wrong, wHat yoU dO See iS
AbSolutEly magnIFiCENt, iT's JuSt nOt WHaT's in tHosE picturEs.

Seeing thE gaLaXy with your owN EyEs is one of tHe mOst majestic tHinGs you'lL
eVer WItnesS. It'S someThing tHAt has iNspired spOnTAneous PRayer thROUgHout
History. It doesn't reALlY Need a filter.

------
jakEcopp
IF aLL tHE AdvAncEments in smArTphonE PhotogrAPhY IS In sOFtware, why aren'T
DSLR/mirrorLEss ManufaCtUreS Doing iT too?

I DoN'T waNt my camera tO havE a touchscReen/soCIal mediA/Wifi but It'd be
cOol If ADobe cAmErA RaW/sOMe aLTeRnaTIve Could do tHiS sTuff!

~~~
yGra
Imho THey'vE baSicaLly miSsed an opportuNitY herE For Many yEars. THey'd Be In
a peRfect pOsitiOn To offer those thiNgs, cOmbined wiTh a MuCh bEtTer/laRGer
senSor, WhiCh enablEs even bETteR iMAGEs. on smartphones it's a mAtTER oF
necessiTy, as thE SeNsOR is (fairlY) cRapPy in COMpariSon, bUT oN a DSLR it
Could sTIlL bE a benefIt. personAlLy I'D be PerfeCTly hAppy to Get a pre-
pRocesSEd DNG from the caMEra instead of hAViNG To DO thiS afTerwards. And
Then GIve mE the RAw FilES to do It manUaLLy AS well.

Perhaps they're tRyIng not To canNibalize their Lower markeT SEGments or ThinK
ThAT professionals Would Never use thOSe things (On whiCh they _miGht_ be
corrECT). But I can DefIniTelY seE THaT computationaL PHotoGrAphy beyOnd
Raw->JPEG ConVerSioN wiTh A color proFile coulD hAvE iTs PlaCe in a dsLR.

~~~
SiempRevieRnEs
WHile iT Would bE nice To loAd SoME poSt-proceSSiNG ScriPt OnTo thE caMeRa and
Get aLL thAt done bY the camerA wiTHout HaViNg to botHer with it yourSeLf, all
that pRoCesSing _wiLL_ Cost battEry life, as well as response TIme. HaviNg tO
charGe yoUr DSLR eveRy dAy is a hUge COst in cOnveniEnce, aNd MakING a
_dedICAtEd_ iMaGing machinE UNreSponsIvE wouLd be terRible.

Additionally, yOU arE always going tO moVe yoUR PiCtuREs OUt oF tHE caMERa for
proper viewIng, so it doeSn'T MaKe a lot of seNSe tO pRovide tHe best pOssibLE
picturE already iN the camerA.

I Don't KNOw iF the softwaRe they buNdle with tHE cameRA iS any gOod
 National Park, and wait f or a clear  nigh t i t's  n ever  goi ng to look iny oureye like it does on In stagr am .  Don ' tget m e wrong ,  w h a t y ou  d o s ee is 
abso lut ely mag nificent,it' sjust not wha t 's  in thosepic tures.

Seei ngthe ga la xyw ith y our  owneyes i s  one o f the mos tm ajesti c  things y ou 'llever witness. It' s  s o mething that h as ins pi r ed s pon tan eous praye rthrou g hout
hi s to r y .  It doesn't reall y need a fi l ter .

--- -- -
j a kecopp 
If a ll the  advancemen ts i n smartph one ph o tograph y  is insoftwa re,  wh y ar e n' tDSL R/ m irr o rl ess man ufacture sdo ing i t to o ? I do n't  wan t mycamera to hav e a  tou c hsc reen/ socia l me di a/wif i butit'dbe 
cool if AdobeCame ra Raw/so meal ter na tivec ould d o t his  stuff! 

~~~
y g raIM H O th ey've basically mi ss e d  a n opport unityh er ef or manyye ars . Th e y 'd be  ina  p erfect p ositio n  t ooffer t ho se thi ng s,com bined with  a muc h better /larg e r
sensor, whic h  enables even be t t er imag es.  On smartph ones it's  a m a tt ero f
nec essit y, as the sensor is (fair ly ) crap py in  comparison,but on a D S L R  it
coul d st i ll be a benefit.Perso nally I'db e perfec tly h appy toget a pre - processe d D NGfro m t h e  c amera instead o f ha vi ng to d o t his aft erw ard s.And 
t hen giveme the r aw  f il es  to  do i t  manuall yaswe ll. 

Per h aps th ey're  try in gn otto cann i ba l i ze t he ir  low erma rketsegm e nts  or thi nk
that p rof e ssio na ls  wouldnever use tho se  things (o nwhi ch the y _might_be
correct). But I cand efinite lysee t hatcomputati ona l phot ogr a phy be yond
r aw->J PE G c o n versi o n  w ith  a  color pro f i lecould  h aveits pla ce in a DSLR.

~~~ Sie mpreViernes
W hil e it w ou ldb en ice  t o  lo a d  some post-proc essing scr ip t  o nto the ca m era  a nd
getall tha t don e  by the  camera w ithout ha vi ng t o bot her with i t yourse lf, all
t h at pr o ce ssing  _w ill_ c os t b atter y life ,  as  well  as re sp onse t ime.Ha ving tocharge your DSLR everyday is  a hu gecost in c onv e nie nce, andmaki ng a
_dedi cat ed_  imag ing machi ne u n re spo n sivewoul d  be terri b le .
A d di tionally, y o u are  alwa ysg oing t o mo ve your pictureso ut of the came ra f o r 
pr ope r  vie wi ng, so it does n't  m a k e a lotof  sense to p rovide t he bestpossib le
pic ture al r e ad y  in th e ca mer a.

I don 'tkn o w if th eso f twarethey  b undlewith t h e ca m e ra is any good
 National_Park, and_wait for a clear_night it's_never_going to_look_in
your eye like_it does on_Instagram. Don't get me_wrong, what you_do_see is
absolutely magnificent, it's just not what's in those pictures.

Seeing the galaxy with your_own_eyes is_one_of_the most majestic things you'll
ever_witness. It's something that has_inspired spontaneous_prayer throughout
history. It doesn't really need a filter.

------
jakecopp
If_all_the advancements in_smartphone photography is in software, why aren't
DSLR/mirrorless manufactures doing_it too?

I don't want my camera_to have a_touchscreen/social_media/wifi_but it'd be
cool if_Adobe Camera Raw/some alternative could do_this stuff!

~~~
ygra
IMHO they've basically missed an_opportunity here for many years. They'd be_in
a perfect position to offer those_things, combined with a much_better/larger
sensor, which_enables even better images. On_smartphones it's a_matter of
necessity,_as the sensor_is (fairly) crappy in comparison, but_on a DSLR_it
could still be a benefit. Personally_I'd_be perfectly happy_to_get_a pre-
processed_DNG from the_camera_instead of_having_to do this afterwards. And
then give_me_the raw files to do it manually_as well.

Perhaps they're trying_not_to cannibalize their lower_market segments or think
that professionals_would never use those things (on_which they__might_ be
correct)._But I can definitely see that computational photography beyond
raw->JPEG conversion with_a color profile could have its_place in a DSLR.

~~~
SiempreViernes
While_it would_be_nice to load_some_post-processing script_onto the camera and
get all that done_by the_camera without having to bother with_it yourself, all
that processing__will__cost battery life, as well as_response time. Having to
charge your DSLR_every day is a huge_cost_in_convenience, and making a
_dedicated_ imaging_machine unresponsive would be terrible.

Additionally, you_are always going_to move your pictures out of the_camera_for
proper viewing, so it doesn't make_a_lot of sense to provide the_best_possible
picture_already in the camera.

I don't_know if the software they bundle_with the camera is any good