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: 471, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)

"We were taking vertical aerial photos using autopilot. Suddenly the eagle came and chasing our drones, so I decided to take over and switch to manual control. After few minutes we discovered that the eagle did not attack the drone but chasing and playing with it." - The winner

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 14:24 UTC as 15th comment
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

69chevy: "The winning photo just makes it very clear why banning drones from national parks is a very good idea."

Calm down Chicken Little...

The only thing clear is that someone took a picture of a bird.

And just what do you suggest that he do to get away from the far-faster and far-more-maneuverable bird? Any harsh movements might put the bird at risk. I'd very gently slow down and only descend when the bird had moved to a safe distance.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 19:38 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

24bit: Great pics, but what happens when the drones motor fails and falls on the crowd of people in the stadium below !

Very little, and very little chance of that happening.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 19:27 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Higuel: only in a country were people does not respect the animals could they allow a drone almost hitting an eagle in a National Park!

Makes me wonder if the publishers of the contest and also dPREVIEW think it is ok to applaud all the way to first place a picture taken at the expenses of the safety and well being of a wild animal?!?
Where are the sacred rules of Animal Photography: "Thy shall not bother or threaten the animals!"???? :L

Did you notice there were two of them? I'll be they were distracted by, ahem, other activities.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 17:38 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)

Oh my goodness. Many of the people below are utterly clueless.

The eagle was chasing the drone, not the other way around. Birds are MASSIVELY better fliers than even high-performance R/C airplanes, much less these relatively low-performance multi-rotor copters.

From the author:

"We were taking vertical aerial photos using autopilot. Suddenly the eagle came and chasing our drones, so I decided to take over and switch to manual control. After few minutes we discovered that the eagle did not attack the drone but chasing and playing with it."

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 14:52 UTC as 44th comment
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Higuel: only in a country were people does not respect the animals could they allow a drone almost hitting an eagle in a National Park!

Makes me wonder if the publishers of the contest and also dPREVIEW think it is ok to applaud all the way to first place a picture taken at the expenses of the safety and well being of a wild animal?!?
Where are the sacred rules of Animal Photography: "Thy shall not bother or threaten the animals!"???? :L

You're freaking kidding me, right?

Which do you think is faster and more maneuverable, a quad copter or an Eagle?

I've flown far higher-performance vehicles than these and had birds fly in formation with me, and there wasn't a thing I could do about it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.
With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…
The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.

"Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely." -- Tom Hogarty (Adobe)

It would be very hard for them to go back on that promise.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

KHemmelman: And to think I have full functionality forever with my non-cloud version of Lightroom.

The advantage to rental is more rapid updates.

Yeah...the disadvantages far outweigh that for me too. So I own the perpetual stuff (Lightroom and Elements).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 01:33 UTC
In reply to:

Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.
With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…
The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.

You're confused. There has been an LR for CC since CC was launched. The statement from Tom Hogarty is about having perpetual licenses available *also*.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2014 at 01:31 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.

True. Thankfully, I don't do design.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Not good enough. My Photoshop CS6 will never expire, as long as it runs on my computer's OS. I paid 210€ for the upgrade, so for the next 5 years it costs me projected 3.50€ per month. I could use it 10 years - that amounts to 1.75€ per month. You'll never beat that, Adobe.

Lightroom (perpetual license version) will never expire either, and it costs less than half of what you paid for CS6.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Couple comments from Tom Hogarty of Adobe:

"This will not impact your previous standalone version of Lightroom and we will continue to provide upgrades to the perpetual versions of Lightroom."

"This post has no impact on our perpetual commitment and just reassures those customers who have chosen to adopt the membership model going forward."

And, as a reminder:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

As far as anyone knows, Tom's claim that "future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely" is true, and I can't imagine a reason to doubt that statement.

The one thing that has changed is, the CC versions of LR will stay partially working if your CC subscription expires. If you have a perpetual version, then nothing has changed.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: CC is fine for professionals who can expense their subscription fee. For vast majority of photographers who upgrade their cameras every two years, and Lightroom's current price at $80, the max a person would shell out for an annual subscription of CC is $40. For people like me who can only afford to upgrade the camera around 5 years, the CC is only valued at $16/year, not the $99/year Adobe is charging.

This means most people would either stop upgrading to newer cameras that Lightroom 5 can no longer support or stop using Lightroom all together. It looks like I would be using my current cameras until they break. This move would indirectly slow the camera sales by a bit, and probably start making people with new cameras more likely to accept out-of-camera JPEGs, instead of processing RAWs using a software.

So, W5JCK, do what I do - use Lightroom (perpetual) and PS Elements (perpetual). Very powerful and cheap combination.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: OK - so now I'm confused a bit. I have the stand-alone version of Lightroom (5.5), along with Photoshop CS-6 (which I at least continues to get ACR updates). I don't have CC, nor do I believe in any type of "subscription based" services.

Am I to understand that future major versions of Lightroom will now be only available through CC?

That's not what it says, and Tom clarified. I posted his quotes above (a little too late, it seems).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 17:15 UTC

Couple comments from Tom Hogarty of Adobe:

"This will not impact your previous standalone version of Lightroom and we will continue to provide upgrades to the perpetual versions of Lightroom."

"This post has no impact on our perpetual commitment and just reassures those customers who have chosen to adopt the membership model going forward."

And, as a reminder:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 17:14 UTC as 48th comment | 6 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

quezra: This article goes to show that people will believe what they want to believe, and all the detailed evidence and careful explanation in the world won't change that. The enormous number of posters jumping in to flatly assert the article is wrong (or make claims that clearly show zero understanding of the article) is getting into the double figures now. Fun to watch actually :D

That's because DR is very insensitive to pixel size.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2014 at 12:45 UTC

Staff Sergent Reid is likely to be the new most-hated person on DPReview.

I suppose he gets that a lot!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 13:08 UTC as 25th comment
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

Because you're not looking at pixels, you're looking at images.

The columns of this sample should help. Examine them carefully, including the labels.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Constant%20aperture%20comparison%201-6%20crop.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:49 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jylppy: Wow! 1000+ comments. What a great article!

I think there is a minor error in the paragraph about diffraction. Diffraction is pixel size, not sensor-size, related. Sensors with smaller pixels (ie. more pixels per area) suffer from diffraction "earlier" with smaller F-number. Usually smaller sensors (i.e. larger crop-factor) use smaller pixels to reach "required" MPx-levels (who would buy 5MPx m4/3rd when FF cameras have 20MPx+? These would have roughly same-sized pixels).

Good read about diffraction at excellent Cambridge in Color site:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

For the final image, diffraction is image size dependent.

Pixel size is only relevant if you are pixel-size limited in the final image (meaning, you're final image is pushing or at 1:1 already).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:19 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

nigelht: Physically masking a 36MP FF sensor to the same size as a m43 sensor results in an equivalent 9MP m43 sensor.

You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor which indicates that "total light" has little impact on noise or DR because it should be well understood that these characteristics are based on sensor/adc design and pixel size.

The "idea of equivalence" doesn't tell you anything about the noise potential low light performance of the sensor (relative to same generation sensors). The pixel size does. Larger pixels = less noise.

"Equivalent aperture" only addresses DOF equivalence.

"You won't see increased noise in this masked sensor..."

Yes, you will.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 02:17 UTC
Total: 471, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »