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: 445, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artpt: Wonderful to push the boundary of digital photography with this article.....if anyone is interested in purchasing drone liability and collision insurance, I may have an off shore account that you can wire the premiums to....:)

AMA membership is very cheap.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 15:03 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

digiart: Quite interesting article. There is a warning about safety but I think the legal side of flying drones should be discussed. Everyone can fly a drone outdoor in the USA? No license required? No limit on the size of the drone?

These things are dangerous! If a person gets hit in the face there can be serious injuries, specially if it hits the eyes. I would never buy one without propeller guards. Just think what damage a high speed propeller can do!

Since accidents are inevitable, I suspect soon people will be forced to buy an insurance to fly drones outdoor.

Most people that fly serious model helicopters in the US belong to the AMA, and thus do have liability insurance - 2.5 million dollars worth.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/membership/overview.aspx

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Red G8R: They should be licensed based on power and range.

They are - they have to be under 55 pounds to be recreational.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 14:08 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adrian Harris: SAFETY (or lack of it) is the one word that springs to mind. I would like drones only to be legal if they have propeller guards fitted.

Spinning props make a nasty mess of the face. I can not believe that companies sell drones without them. I hope the manufacturers of 'guardless' ones do get sued.

PS. I am all for drones, they are a great idea, but choose safety, else all sorts of stupid laws will be forced on us (as if we haven't got enough restrictive laws as it is.).

And, I suppose, you'd be opposed to all R/C aircraft, since propeller guards don't add much to safety?

Propeller guards are there to protect the propellers.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 14:07 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

racin06: I’m an experienced RC airplane and helicopter pilot/enthusiast. I want to clarify the legalities of performing aerial photography with multi-rotor RC helicopters (MRRCH)…I hate the term “drone.” There is no license required to fly a MRRCH as a hobby or for not-for-profit. Currently, it is only illegal if you are flying MRH commercially and/or for pay. Now, even though you may be conducting aerial photography as a hobby or for not-for-profit, there are still rules that must be followed to fly RC aircraft in a safe manner. I strongly encourage visiting the Academy of Model Aeronautics (http://www.modelaircraft.org), which is the sanctioning body for the RC aircraft hobby. These RC aircraft are not toys and command respect and proper training to learn to fly. Anyway, below is a rent video of my flying my electric-powered 87” Sbach 300 RC airplane. This is a fantastic hobby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeDB6q4t6vg

Many of us call them "quads", short for "quad copters" or "quad rotor helicopters". Of course, if they have more than four rotors, you might use "hex..." etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 14:06 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artpt: Wonderful to push the boundary of digital photography with this article.....if anyone is interested in purchasing drone liability and collision insurance, I may have an off shore account that you can wire the premiums to....:)

Joining the Academy of Model Aeronautics will get you liability insurance.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 13:44 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

racin06: I’m an experienced RC airplane and helicopter pilot/enthusiast. I want to clarify the legalities of performing aerial photography with multi-rotor RC helicopters (MRRCH)…I hate the term “drone.” There is no license required to fly a MRRCH as a hobby or for not-for-profit. Currently, it is only illegal if you are flying MRH commercially and/or for pay. Now, even though you may be conducting aerial photography as a hobby or for not-for-profit, there are still rules that must be followed to fly RC aircraft in a safe manner. I strongly encourage visiting the Academy of Model Aeronautics (http://www.modelaircraft.org), which is the sanctioning body for the RC aircraft hobby. These RC aircraft are not toys and command respect and proper training to learn to fly. Anyway, below is a rent video of my flying my electric-powered 87” Sbach 300 RC airplane. This is a fantastic hobby!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeDB6q4t6vg

Drone sounds way stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 13:43 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

christiangrunercom: I'm sorry, but calling the Phantom a serious platform is a joke. And calling the reviewed quads for camera-platforms, well, no, they are trainers and toys.

So when is a platform a "serious platform"? When it can lift a gimbal providing close to perfect stability with no vibration and ability to lift a camera providing pro grade footage with room for postprocessing.

I would equate these to low-end front-facing cell phones, and the Phantom a fixed-focal-length compact. Any device analogous to an entry-level dSLR is going to include a stabilized camera gimbal and be capable of lifting an entry-level interchangeable lens camera attached to that gimbal.

Example: http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/aircraft/luckyduckfloatfly2012/20D50533.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 13:40 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (137 comments in total)

The biggest problem with most camera toting quads is that they are way too easy to fly, due to active stability and in some cases GPS and barometric positioning. This leads to everyone being able to fly them, which leads to safety problems and a ubiquity that will see them heavily regulated. If they were as hard to fly as an R/C helicopter, we wouldn't have these problems.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 12:53 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies
On Surf's Up: Clark Little's incredible wave photography article (54 comments in total)

Can someone explain number 6 to me? I'm having a hard time understanding that one.

Getting hit by a breaking is a little like getting hit by a slow-moving car. It hurts just to look at these because I know what came next.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 02:39 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (693 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, as usual, Sony gets the optics and sensor right, and messes up the user interface and JPEG engine.

They've had the very same problem for a decade now. I bought a Canon S3IS (look it up) when it was new over the Sony competitor (I can't even remember the model number now) for the very same two reasons.

You'd think they'd eventually get with it in these two areas.

Saying it's as good as the Alpha range isn't exactly a glowing recommendation, and the very next sentence points out that a well-thought-out touch screen menu system would be a reasonable thing to provide in a camera of this cost.

The control dial is part of the User Interface.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 14:45 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (693 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, as usual, Sony gets the optics and sensor right, and messes up the user interface and JPEG engine.

They've had the very same problem for a decade now. I bought a Canon S3IS (look it up) when it was new over the Sony competitor (I can't even remember the model number now) for the very same two reasons.

You'd think they'd eventually get with it in these two areas.

Regarding elements of the UI, the article concludes:

"However, having spent time using all its major competitors, we maintain it's the biggest single factor in making the RX100s the least satisfying to use cameras in their class."

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 14:05 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Review preview (693 comments in total)

So, as usual, Sony gets the optics and sensor right, and messes up the user interface and JPEG engine.

They've had the very same problem for a decade now. I bought a Canon S3IS (look it up) when it was new over the Sony competitor (I can't even remember the model number now) for the very same two reasons.

You'd think they'd eventually get with it in these two areas.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 23, 2014 at 13:52 UTC as 155th comment | 7 replies

So, Canon supports a whole 4 of their own cameras, while Adobe supports around 300 cameras from many manufacturers. Heck, Canon isn't even supporting half of their current models!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2014 at 13:54 UTC as 27th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

bigdaddave: Extremely good tutorial thanks. LR is a fabulous program, it's a shame so many blame it when in reality they just don't know how to use it.

If people don't know how to use it, more often than not it's Lightroom's fault for not being "discoverable". There are many hidden features like "T" and "\" in Library - features that are actually essential.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2014 at 19:42 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: This wouldn't be necessary if Apple weren't such a bunch of morons.

I still can't figure out why anyone buys anything from them. Their devices stink and their "our way or the highway" attitude is repulsive, and always has been.

They're attitude is "make something that works for us, but isn't compliant with any standards and doesn't work with anyone else's stuff". They have to have their own special connectors, their own special operating system that only works on their own special hardware, their own special protocols, etc.

That attitude is repulsive.

Not to mention than they charge double for most things.

They're whole design philosophy is around making things that dumb people can use without knowing they are being bilked out of their money.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 20:53 UTC

This wouldn't be necessary if Apple weren't such a bunch of morons.

I still can't figure out why anyone buys anything from them. Their devices stink and their "our way or the highway" attitude is repulsive, and always has been.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 13:43 UTC as 24th comment | 11 replies
On LG releases G3 with QHD screen and laser-AF post (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I pretty much hate marketing people.

Those dimwits redefined quad HD nonsensically. QHD is four HD screens arrayed in a 2x2 fashion, which is 3840x2160. But no, that's 4k when actual 4k has 4096 horizontal pixels, and QHD is now 2560x1600.

The did the same with phones. 4G LTE is actually 3G LTE, they just renamed it to make it sound cooler, even though it meets none of the 4G specs.

2560x1600 was WQXGA and QHD was 3840x2160.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 21:04 UTC
On LG releases G3 with QHD screen and laser-AF post (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I pretty much hate marketing people.

Those dimwits redefined quad HD nonsensically. QHD is four HD screens arrayed in a 2x2 fashion, which is 3840x2160. But no, that's 4k when actual 4k has 4096 horizontal pixels, and QHD is now 2560x1600.

The did the same with phones. 4G LTE is actually 3G LTE, they just renamed it to make it sound cooler, even though it meets none of the 4G specs.

You can't find it because it was changed! It used to say that everywhere.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 20:54 UTC
On LG releases G3 with QHD screen and laser-AF post (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I pretty much hate marketing people.

Those dimwits redefined quad HD nonsensically. QHD is four HD screens arrayed in a 2x2 fashion, which is 3840x2160. But no, that's 4k when actual 4k has 4096 horizontal pixels, and QHD is now 2560x1600.

The did the same with phones. 4G LTE is actually 3G LTE, they just renamed it to make it sound cooler, even though it meets none of the 4G specs.

Not always has been. As I said, a while back, QHD was defined as 3840x1600. It got redefined to be lower-res, and then 4K did as well.

Direct link | Posted on May 28, 2014 at 17:24 UTC
Total: 445, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »