18. January 2013 · Categories: Apple

After a long wait and a lost package my dock has finally arrived. It looks beautiful.

With my trusty old iPhone 4, it works very nice, especially the low friction connector ensures that I can easily take it out with one hand. It is designed to allow you to use it with the iPhone in a case, so there is a 5mm margin to each side. This means that without a case the iPhone looks a bit lost on the dock, it looks much better with a bumper attached. The bumper however ever so slightly increases the distance to the dock receptor in the iPhone, which means that slight movements caused by interacting with the iPhone in the dock can displace it, and cause it to loose the connection. This doesn’t happen with a pure iPhone, the connection is then very robust.

Unfortunately, the current iPhone 5 adapter uses the original lightning cable, which has too much friction for one handed operations. So 5 users need to wait until their search for a better solution is successful.

15. January 2013 · Categories: Politics

After hearing the sad news that Aaron Schwartz committed suicide, much of the coverage has focused on how a prosecutor gone wild has contributed to this by cornering him. Despicable as this behavior has been, the real cause for this problem has not been this disgraceful human entity, but the congress of the United States as well as the Supreme Court.

It is the responsibility of the law makers to create laws that cannot abused by a bully, and the responsibility of the law’s guardians to rein them in when necessary. And the law that gave that bully the tools to intimidate Aaron was well known for being ridiculously broad, but is has not been changed. It has been defended by saying that people would not abuse its power, but this is obviously wrong. Just as people will abuse the tax code to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, prosecutors will overreach when given the opportunity by a bad law.

I believe that we simply cannot hope to keep bullies out of the prosecutor office all the time. Instead we should:

  • Allow the Supreme Court to judge on the constitutionality of laws once they have passed, and not years later when a victim of the law finally manages to appeal to the court.

  • Clean up the laws with tighter definitions to reduce their potential for abuse.

12. January 2013 · Categories: Apple

There is constant speculation that Apple will introduce a cheaper basic version of the iPhone to address more of the market, and to fend of price competition from Samsung. As Apple seems to be doing just fine with the old phones, it would only make sense as a way to get rid of the old dock connector, and switch the entire lineup towards the lightning adapter.

How would Apple differentiate such a phone from the main phone? Until now it has used the available memory as the key differentiator, and it could do that with a cheaper version as well. The iPod touch also has a slower processor, as well as a slightly worse back camera than the iPhone. I doubt they would skimp too much on materials and the screen, as they are what sets the Apple brand apart. After all they have never chased the volume market in computers, and the health of the app ecosystem is excellent, so there is no need to chase volume to get more developers to their platform.

Currently Apple is able to charge more than 100% profit markup on the iPhone, and this gives them a lot of room to reduce prices for a basic model and still turn a decent profit. What I do not expect the basic model is to be cheap, more a different take on the iPhone, maybe the robust phone? Still elegant, but tougher, heavier ( like iPhone 4 heavy).

I do not believe that Apple will cut its margins on the phone too drastically, and definitely not at the price of quality. You use your phone simply too often to be willing to endure quality compromises, and in the developed world people earn enough to support a $100 surcharge every few years to get the quality you want.

Based on iPad mini as well as iPod Touch prices, a $350 iPhone is easily achievable, possibly even $300. The question is what kind of pricing pressure it would cause on the main model. Say it would be the current Touch with phone radios ( no LTE) added. Should they also provide a 32GB option for $400, I can see 60% switching from the 5 to this model. After all it would match or best the 4S in everything but the rear camera.

24. December 2012 · Categories: Copyright

One of the great deceptions in the discussion about copyrights is its length. With a discount rate of just 4%, a 40 year copyright term would capture 80% of full value of the work. But when we look at the actual works, we see that most are popular for at most a year, maybe 5 years. So granting any longer copyright terms would not help much in generating revenues, and if a work is not popular within 40 years, it will almost never become it later, and it certainly will not provide the income that allows the creator to pursue further works.

The main argument used to justify longer terms is as an old age provision for the artist. Since a work would only generate a meager income 40 years later, it will not help the average artist very much. It would be much better to help them save for their old age. Sportsmen are in the same boat; after 35 they need a new carrier or live of their savings. Artists do not need a special deal.

The real benefactors are the lucky few holders to the rights of evergreens. They still generate a nice income, but we must not forget that the holders would already have been amply rewarded in the first 40 years. There is no need to keep rewarding people for their ideas forever.

The other argument used is brand protection. When you create a popular figure you want to keep the right to exploit it, and you do not want any imitators to produce low quality lookalikes. But this is a job we should not burden copyright law with; there are already frameworks in trademark law that can be used, and we need to make sure that we do not kill fan fiction with it as well. If we look at the successful Disney franchises, they live from renewing their characters, not from reprints of 40+ old stories. And they want to keep the control not for the old stories, but to retain profits and control over marketing tie ins.

The last point is about artistic integrity. But provisions about which versions can be called the real thing are completely separate from who should be allowed to produce them, and royalties.

When we talk about copyright, we should not loose sight that it is an artificial monopoly created by the state to encourage the creation of works. It costs money to police it, and it reduces the ability to interact with them. These are expensive enough that limiting the copyright term to 80% of the value of an infinite monopoly sounds like a brilliant deal. This is a 40 year term when assuming a 4% discount rate, an incredibly generous assumption. For example companies demand a discount rate of 8% to 12% when calculating whether to start a product, because of the inherent uncertainty in any projection of the future. Nobody uses the returns 40 years from now when calculating where to invest, the uncertainty is just too great. The terms are so long not because they would encourage more creative works, they are the result of lobbying by the lucky few millionaires and companies owning the few really profitable properties and wanting to extract extra rent from the public. Long copyrights are not for needy poor artists, they are for greedy rich bastards.

15. November 2012 · Categories: Photos

Nikon offers the WU-1b as a companion wireless adapter for the D600, which works with WMAU (Wireless Mobile Adapter Utility) on the iPhone to allow remote shooting. The app works well, but it is also extremely limited in what it can do, making you constantly wonder what it could have been.

The adapter itself is minuscule, only 3 grams and roughly the size of the flash shoe. It offers about 2 hours of battery life on the camera when you have live view on all the time, which means that it will last long enough for occasional use.

The interface is utterly frustrating. When you have live view on your device active, you cannot change any setting at all, neither on the device nor on the camera. The only thing you can do is tap on the screen to initiate focussing. This works, and is invaluable when you need to place your camera in odd places, but it could be so much better. Given Nikons history of artificially limiting their firmware ( bracketing comes to mind), I suspect they want to protect their PC remote program. But they should really keep in mind that this is future: Who wants to carry a laptop when an iPad mini can do the job just as well?

Macro/still images when shooting from odd angles

In practice I found it much less useful than I hoped for. Having a remote screen makes adjusting the camera easier, but you really would like to have both hands free for this. Here a Glif for your iPhone together with a GorillaPod will help.

Once the camera is positioned right, I was annoyed by the lack of feedback and manual control in the app. There is no ability to zoom the display to check on focus, and test photos download slowly, in like 10 seconds, so using this for your checks instead is also frustrating. I cannot change any camera settings remotely, tap to focus is supported, but no sign of manual focus adjustments, aperture or exposure compensation. And when you change a setting on the camera, you cannot simply do it, you need to first leave the remote view in the app.

Shooting wildlife and children

Sometimes your presence behind the lens will disturb your subject, for this a remote release can be great. This one has a problem: it is slow. Slow to update the remote view, you can have delays of up to 200ms, and slow to focus, as you only have contrast autofocus available, which can take a second. But with a static camera you will already be focused on a specific location, so in practice the update delay is most annoying. But you will also run into the problem that the Nikon mirrors are loud; a mirror less camera would be much better for this.

Self portraits

Tap to focus makes it quite easy to set the correct focus point, and with the human face having enough contrast, the camera will lock on correctly. And the live view makes it much easier to position yourself correctly for the shot. As you will do a few test shots anyways to get the composition right, it is much less annoying to have to change settings on the camera. Overall finally a niche where the adapter is enjoyable to use.

Improvements I’d like to see

As it is the adapter has too many little flaws to recommend it unless you really need the remote live view to help with composition. What I would like to see in the future:

  • Higher speed

    Slow live view updates and low download speeds are a constant irritation.

  • Better remote focus support

    The lens has an autofocus motor, this should be used to do remote manual focusing. And add the manual focussing aids: highlight the focus area in the image, and allow us to zoom the remote view

  • Remote settings updates

    Modern cameras have become quite complicated computers, and we do not need all settings remotely, but please provide the important ones: aperture, exposure compensation, ISO sensitivity, flash exposure compensation and shutter speed.

  • iPad support

    Especially with the mini out now, it would be great to able to use the larger display.

29. October 2012 · Categories: Software

I love typography, so the ability to use my own fonts on a web site is a very welcome recent addition. But there are a few issues I came across while trying them out.

Fonts only really work on high resolution displays

Making a font that also works well on low resolution displays is a lot of hard work, since it forces you to work with quite few pixels, and the low resolution requires you into a somewhat wider character width to keep the features easily distinguishable. Most fonts do not have this amount of attention put into them, and become relatively difficult to read at small sizes. Since you will not be able to notice much of the font with such a coarse display anyways, it is best to stick to default fonts for them. I know, Georgia and Verdana are getting a bit old on the eye, but they will be much more legible for your reader.

Your CSS should use media descriptors to use two differrent fonts depending on pixel density. The trick is to encapsulate your @font-face and font declarations in an @media block, then the fonts will not even load on low resolution displays:

Font Boxing

One potential problem with web fonts can be their metrics. The browser puts a bounding box around your text and uses that to calculate the position. The font designer determines where the characters will fit into this box, and the choice is sometimes quite different from the standard fonts, leading to layout problems. If there are issues, text inside styled buttons will show them. Remember to check both with and without ascenders / descenders to see if they look OK.

23. October 2012 · Categories: Apple

The iPad mini is close to what I expected from it, apart that it is sold as a full featured lineup. I suspect only the base models with 16 GB will sell well, given the lack of a Retina display. It has a nice new use in its much improved portability compared to the full iPad, and I have a feeling that it could become very popular as a companion on the go.

I am surprised that the iPad 2 is still in the lineup, is Apple selling off old stock, or are they required to keep it there to honor some contracts? The iPad mini would be a better buy if you need to look after your money, and the Retina display is just too big an update to ignore for $100.

The camera connection kit now comes with cables, and is split into two separate purchases. So it will be more expensive, and also have more bulk. Not a nice change, as the old connector was small enough to fit into an SD card pocket in your camera bag, and cables have a tendency to break. I wonder whether Apple is worrying about the stress when people put SD cards into the reader while connected to the iPad.

How long will Apple wait before they reduce the price they ask for more flash memory? On the MacBook Pro it is $2 per GB, with the iPads $6 or $3 per GB for memory that has a good deal worse performance. This leaves the door open for competitors to undercut Apple on price.

22. October 2012 · Categories: Apple

Tomorrow Apple is widely expected to introduce a smaller form factor iPad. I assume it to be engineered with cost reduction as the main goal, while keeping the requirements of schools in mind. I expect Apple to want to use the A5 processor with it, and this means that it will not have a retina display.

The prices need to be competitive with the 7″ Android tablets, so I assume that there will be two models, one with 8GB memory for $249 and one with 32GB for $299, and maybe a 64GB model for $379. I am not sure about wireless, I find it unlikely that it will be supported, given the high prices of data plans, and the focus on costs. It might be added once the line will have a retina display as well.

I expect it to have similar capabilities to the current iPad, with the same camera modules as the iPod Touch. I would not be surprised if Apple would provide more color choice than black and white with this model.

 

15. October 2012 · Categories: Apple

With iOS 6, Apple has introduced a new advertising identifier. You can still opt out of using it: Open the Settings app, go to General, then About, then Advertising, then set the option Limit Ad Tracking to ON. This works on the iPhone as well as the iPad.

More background can be found at Business Insider.

14. October 2012 · Categories: Photos

We live in a golden age of photography, with a lot of different options available, from very small sensors in phones to large ones in medium format cameras. We still have the classical mirror design, but now also modern options with pure electronic viewfinders, eliminating the chance of mistuned autofocus thanks to using the sensor for it.

Also thanks to better computers we now can get much better designed lenses and which are also purer with corresponding higher optical quality. This has made zooms with astonishing sharpness possible, as now all the elements can be positioned exactly, and so the penalty for having many more elements in a zoom has been greatly reduced.

But with all this choice comes the question how to choose from all these options, to know what you need. I always look at the following characteristics when deciding on a camera.

Weight

Never underestimate it. You can only take a picture if you have a camera with you, and you will only have it with you if it is light enough to just be there. The lightest camera by far is the phone, as you carry it anyways. Above it are four classes of carry-ability:

  • fits into a shirt or trouser pocket, e.g., the Sony RX100
  • fits into a jacket pocket, or hand bag, e.g., the Fujifilm X100, or a 4/3rd with a pancake lens, maybe even a Leica M9
  • camera on shoulder or neck strap still light enough to hand hold shots
  • so heavy that a tripod is required, e.g., the fast long tele-lenses like the 400 f/4, or large format cameras

The first two classes are realistically the only candidates for a camera that you will always carry. For me, the X100 just fits a jacket pocket, and is just that tiny bit too large to always be there.

The other advantage of a small package is that it is not perceived as professional, and makes it a lot easier to get good spontaneous shots of other people.

Low Light and Flash

To get good shots in low light, you have four options: increase the exposure, use a wider aperture, crank up the ISO and provide your own light. Increasing the exposure is the best option, but it only works with a tripod and requires a static scene.

A wider aperture comes with a shallower depth of field, which is often helpful for composition, but requires more discipline to focus correctly. It is often the best option, and you should first try f/2.0 or faster before thinking that you need to change cameras.

Cranking up the ISO’s will reduce the quality of your image. For indoor images, you will typically have ISO 3200 at f/2 with 1/40 s shutter. From my experience, the Nikon D90 was too grainy at these settings, and the D7000 just about acceptable.

You can reduce the ISO by adding your own light to a scene, which typically happens in the form of flash. You will want a standard xenon flash, as the light from the LED flash on a phone still has a unnatural feel to it. You will not want to use too much flash, so that the lightning does not look too artificial. This limits the gain to about 2 exposure steps, aka ISO 800 must look good. If you use a big camera, it its advisable to use a separate flash unit for the ability to bounce the light from a wall, as well as the longer battery life.

Nikon and especially the Fuji X100 have a good reputation for automatically getting the fill flash right.

Size and Resolution

To get high resolution images, you need high resolution optics. Digital cameras have now come so far that sensor resolution is no longer the limiting factor, it is again down to optics. And because a larger sensor can use larger pixels to get the same resolution, they can reach higher resolutions before they reach the optical limits of the lens.

But this only matters when you want to print huge sizes, wider than a meter. The largest size you will have on a desk is a two page spread, roughly A3. At 264 dpi this is 13 MPixel, so practically even 8 MPixel are enough for almost all normal uses. Beware that noise reduction at higher ISO settings will also reduce the effective resolution, this is a problem for most compacts for photos not taken in bright light outdoors.

Mirrors or Electronic Viewfinders?

Mirrors are a leftover from the analog days. They are loud, and cause unwanted vibrations for longer exposures. They are inaccurate in showing how the final image will look like as the eye has a higher dynamic range than the sensor. They limit the speed with which you can take consecutive photos, and interfere with autofocus. They cost space that makes lenses larger. They need autofocus fine tuning. They will die out in a few years.

But at the moment mirrors are still just a bit better. The main problem with the electronic finders is their higher energy consumption, in resolution and color accuracy they will soon be good enough, and they are much better at providing context info then the optical finders with the tiny LCD line at the bottom.

Also the cost for sensors have now come down so far that again the lenses will dominate your budget. Get the right lens for what you want to shoot, and get the corresponding body.

Ergonomics

This is a tricky one. The best interface I know is the iPhone. Just tap where you want your focus and exposure, and the rest is done automatically. Compared to this, almost all cameras are overloaded with options, and can be difficult to learn. To deal with this complexity, two features are very useful, first a custom menu where you can place the settings you actually need, and second the ability to quickly recall settings, to optimize the camera for differrent situations quickly.

Recommendations

If you want a good camera to upgrade from your phone, the Sony RX100 is a very good choice, light and with very good quality for everything apart from low light shoots.

As a separate camera for people, the Fujifilm X100 is excellent.

If you do not need telephoto reach ( or can wait for the lenses to come out), the light weight Fujifilm X-E1 is probably the best camera to buy when it comes out in November.

For the budget conscious, the half format cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony are a good choice. Sony stands out with very fast frame rates, and continuous autofocus even during video. Nikon has the 18-200, which is the highest quality all in one zoom currently on the market for half format. You might want to check out used bodies and lenses, the mirrors on these bodies are rated for at least 100 000 activations, and you can often find bodies with less than 10 000.

You should not need to go full format. They are better in low light, and have a large selection of lenses available because it is the professional de facto standard, but they are overshooting in quality for most people. You should only consider them or even larger formats only when you find a problem with your photos that it would resolve; often you will be better rewarded by investing in your photographic skills.