Lee Jay

Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 349, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Blood moon eclipse: Night of April 14-15 news story (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."

Not partially.

"The longer lens you can get, the better. "

Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.

"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "

Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.

"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."

At totality, it will be very dark.

"...the moon is bright white"

The moon is a dark charcoal gray.

"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."

That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.

"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."

You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.

"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."

That's almost total baloney too.

Professional telescopes are built in places like Mauna Kea because of dark and stable skies, allowing far shorter exposures for dim objects, and far higher resolution of tiny objects. The moon is neither dim nor tiny. Many outstanding images of Jupiter (much, much darker than the moon) have been taken from white zones (the highest, worst class of light pollution). For the moon, the largest component of the light pollution will come from the moon itself.

Light pollution simply isn't an issue for the moon. Not so for DSOs, as I said.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2014 at 17:29 UTC
On Blood moon eclipse: Night of April 14-15 news story (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."

Not partially.

"The longer lens you can get, the better. "

Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.

"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "

Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.

"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."

At totality, it will be very dark.

"...the moon is bright white"

The moon is a dark charcoal gray.

"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."

That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.

"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."

You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.

"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."

That's almost total baloney too.

"Really? And you think that your DSLR AF system(s) are so good that they won't focus-hunt *at all* during the dark eclipse stage of this event? I call BS."

The way to shoot this is to use AF (PDAF or CDAF, in this case) while the moon is full, target on the moon's edge. Then switch to manual and leave it. Focusing by eye is a very hit-and-miss unless you have a focus assist tool.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2014 at 17:26 UTC
On Blood moon eclipse: Night of April 14-15 news story (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."

Not partially.

"The longer lens you can get, the better. "

Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.

"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "

Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.

"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."

At totality, it will be very dark.

"...the moon is bright white"

The moon is a dark charcoal gray.

"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."

That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.

"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."

You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.

"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."

That's almost total baloney too.

Haze and/or water vapor/clouds has relatively little to do with cities. Seeing can be affected by ground objects, especially if they are warm, but that's pretty easily avoided.

I've shot the moon in white sites and in blue/black sites, and there's no appreciable difference. Now, DSOs are a whole other story, of course, because they can be very dim and easily get mixed in with the background light pollution.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On Blood moon eclipse: Night of April 14-15 news story (64 comments in total)

"The large apparent size of a moon low on the horizon is partially an optical illusion."

Not partially.

"The longer lens you can get, the better. "

Filling the frame with the moon will require about 2500mm equivalent.

"With a big lens and a subject at such a distance even a small amount of motion results in an out of focus photo. "

Not "out of focus", motion blurred. They are different.

"The moon is very bright, even during an eclipse."

At totality, it will be very dark.

"...the moon is bright white"

The moon is a dark charcoal gray.

"Even a little bit of ground light can ruin a shot of the moon."

That's just total baloney. The moon (except during totality) is far, far brighter than the worst light pollution.

"Bring a flashlight with a red bulb or gel."

You don't need good dark-adaptation for the moon.

"Shoot with manual focus. The moon is tricky to focus on and it’s best to rely on your eyes instead of the camera’s autofocus."

That's almost total baloney too.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2014 at 14:34 UTC as 16th comment | 14 replies
On Engineering a Difference: Ben Von Wong Part 2 article (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, a carefully preplanned setup shot is just as bad as CGI. Neither one is real or spontaneous and they look equally fake.

Nothing wrong with CGI, but it's not photography and it generally leads to uninteresting things like Avatar (great CGI, horrible movie). But artificially-created photographs, whether done with computers or setups, are just totally uninteresting to me. They look fake and, for me, photography is about being as real and natural as possible.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 19:45 UTC
On Engineering a Difference: Ben Von Wong Part 2 article (38 comments in total)

To me, a carefully preplanned setup shot is just as bad as CGI. Neither one is real or spontaneous and they look equally fake.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 13:11 UTC as 14th comment | 5 replies
On MWC 2014 - The Highlights post (13 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "All those new features and technologies mean that smartphone cameras can not only compete with, but in some areas even surpass dedicated compact cameras."

Not even close to true. The IS is poor, where it exists at all. The handling is poor. You're stuck with a fixed lens with a fixed focal length. Only a few have real flashes. The ergonomics makes steady handholding virtually impossible. None have built-in tripod mounts.

If these were compact cameras, and they were missing these basics, DPReview wouldn't review them for the same reasons they never reviewed the $40 fixed-focal-length Vivitar's and such you could buy at Walmart five years ago - they're too low end.

Obviously, I haven't tried them all, but I get about a 95% hit rate at 0.6s and 24mm-equivalent on my compact. Can these phones do that? That's about 4 stops better than 1/f.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 22:55 UTC
On MWC 2014 - The Highlights post (13 comments in total)

"All those new features and technologies mean that smartphone cameras can not only compete with, but in some areas even surpass dedicated compact cameras."

Not even close to true. The IS is poor, where it exists at all. The handling is poor. You're stuck with a fixed lens with a fixed focal length. Only a few have real flashes. The ergonomics makes steady handholding virtually impossible. None have built-in tripod mounts.

If these were compact cameras, and they were missing these basics, DPReview wouldn't review them for the same reasons they never reviewed the $40 fixed-focal-length Vivitar's and such you could buy at Walmart five years ago - they're too low end.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 04:28 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
On Eye-Fi Mobi Wi-Fi SD card review article (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "If you're looking for a Wi-Fi card that's simple to setup and blasts images off into cyberspace in a matter of seconds..."

Unless you are a real-time photo-journalist, there's no good reason to do this, and it's generally a bad idea for multiple reasons.

Never heard of Snapseed, and I'd never process an image on a tiny uncalibrated screen anyway.

People share photos instantly for the wrong reasons - for their own egos.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 15:09 UTC
On Eye-Fi Mobi Wi-Fi SD card review article (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "If you're looking for a Wi-Fi card that's simple to setup and blasts images off into cyberspace in a matter of seconds..."

Unless you are a real-time photo-journalist, there's no good reason to do this, and it's generally a bad idea for multiple reasons.

I do astrophotography, and I connect with a USB cable. I'm out there with the scope anyway, so there's no harm in using a cable.

I never, ever post un-processed images, and I generally like to look at them with at least one "sleep" in between looks. And when I'm on vacation, I don't tell anyone that I'm leaving except those that have to know, and never post pictures until I get back, and usually not for a week or two after that. I don't want anyone to know that I'm gone. I also would never post real-time images of what I'm doing even when I'm not away from home - too invasive and having them be a day or two later makes no real difference.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 19:31 UTC
On Eye-Fi Mobi Wi-Fi SD card review article (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: Why should we still use Eye-Fi cards now in most places we can use a 4G network?

Next to that in todays world not only your phone has wifi already, but most (consumer) camera's have wifi too.

Few years ago these cards came in handy, but nowadays aren't these eye-fi card mostly redundant? Its only a matter of time before Eye-fi will be out of business.

"This cards wont be out of buisines until people will own cameras without wifi" --Sochan

I don't own any camera WITH WiFi. Maybe I will someday, but at the moment, none of my 6 active cameras have WiFi, nor do I need it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 14:46 UTC
On Eye-Fi Mobi Wi-Fi SD card review article (96 comments in total)

"If you're looking for a Wi-Fi card that's simple to setup and blasts images off into cyberspace in a matter of seconds..."

Unless you are a real-time photo-journalist, there's no good reason to do this, and it's generally a bad idea for multiple reasons.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2014 at 14:08 UTC as 29th comment | 10 replies

Leaving your computer on all the time is an energy-inefficient thing to do. I put all of mine in sleep or hibernate any time I'm not actually sitting at them, and I recommend everyone else do the same.

It's possible to connect a hard drive to my router and leave both on. Together these use around 8 watts compared to around 45 watts for a running laptop or more like 300 for a running desktop. But the problem there would be syncing my internal hard drives with the external all the time.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 03:53 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On 10 essential time-saving Photoshop tips article (88 comments in total)

By far the biggest thing that sped up my Photoshop workflow was to start using Lightroom instead. I now use Elements instead of CS, for the 1 of 1,000 images that need some pixel-editing. But tip 2 (space bar for drag) works in Lightroom as well.

And the bonus? Both have perpetual licenses, and likely will for the foreseeable future.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2014 at 03:10 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse news story (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Great stuff.

I'd like to see how the focal length changes were done and how the motion 360° around the tree was accomplished.

Cropping and stabilizing in post is what I was guessing (since I couldn't think of another way) but it certainly wasn't clear. I love VirtualDub's Deshaker plugin for that.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2014 at 01:55 UTC
On Wyoming's stunning weather and landscapes in time-lapse news story (231 comments in total)

Great stuff.

I'd like to see how the focal length changes were done and how the motion 360° around the tree was accomplished.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 15, 2014 at 07:01 UTC as 115th comment | 3 replies
On Battle of the titans: Top ball heads tested article (269 comments in total)

I'll never own or use another ball head for moving subjects. Video heads (fluid heads) are just so much better at doing the same things. I'll keep my pistol grip ball head as a faster solution for stationary subjects than a 3D head, but a ball head for moving subjects is a dead issue for me.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 14:32 UTC as 100th comment
On Things we found stuffed down the back of CES 2014 news story (18 comments in total)

It's been possible to control your telescope with a mobile device over WiFi for quite a while, using SkySafari and SkyFi from Southern Stars. Have a look:

http://www.southernstars.com/products/skysafari/
http://www.southernstars.com/products/skyfi/index.html

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2014 at 04:28 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

tkbslc: The 340HS is so small and thin that it really should be compared to 4-5x zoom cameras of a year or two ago. It's no bigger than an ELPH 100HS for example. And while the 300mm end is a depressing f7.0, the 120mm end of the ELPH 100HS was f5.9. Surely this camera will be no slower than that at only 40% of it's zoom range.

An S100 is not an ultracompact. Don't know about the other two.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: The 340HS is so small and thin that it really should be compared to 4-5x zoom cameras of a year or two ago. It's no bigger than an ELPH 100HS for example. And while the 300mm end is a depressing f7.0, the 120mm end of the ELPH 100HS was f5.9. Surely this camera will be no slower than that at only 40% of it's zoom range.

"You'd find ANY compact of this class pathetic. What's better in the true ultracompact category?"

My 3-year-old Elph 500 HS, because it's 24mm equivalent and f/2 at the wide end.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 20:39 UTC
Total: 349, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »