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: 519, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

gunkan: I really love -and used- bridge cameras! SX50, FZ200, the beasty Fuji X-S1 but i think they are all doomed because of m4/3. I got now an E-PL5 with 28-300mm equivalent lens and is so small and powerfull that i can't even think about going back to bridge cameras like this or RX10 or FZ1000.

At least in Spain, the Canon SX510 was a real bestseller. So, there is a lot of market/profit for these cameras.

Fuji... why did you make so expensive and so bad IQ camera like S1????

Do you really think an E-PL5+14-150, at $1,048 (current B&H prices) competes against these cameras?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2014 at 12:32 UTC
On Readers' showcase: Landscape photography article (90 comments in total)

2,3,8,11,12 - what is attractive about the over processed over contrasy over vignetted over saturated look? It's repulsive to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 04:01 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

Heh...I was going to tell him that I just divided a specific number by itself and got 1. What was my number?

:)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

The reason you can't run it backwards is because information is lost in the forwards direction - it isn't just "scrambled".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Mike Davis: I suspect the label "Diffraction Correction" exaggerates the effectiveness of this feature. No amount of processing can magically recreate actual subject detail that was lost to diffraction as the light passed through the aperture. It might be able to simulate what appears to be genuine subject detail, but it won't be accurate.

For example, assuming that all other variables affecting resolution are up to the task... If diffraction at a given f-Number is just bad enough to prevent you from discerning the date "2014" on the face of a coin lying on a table several meters from a camera equipped with a normal FL lens when viewing at 100%, "Diffraction Correction" isn't going to reconstruct that data from thin air when the data never got past the aperture in the first place.

You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.

Distortion correction doesn't violate any fundamental laws of physics. Diffraction "correction" does. It's most likely just sharpening.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2014 at 13:13 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

ipecaca: Great pics. Retarded comments.
I wonder if all those nature "protectors" have any idea how many habitats are destoyed to provide the fuel for electricity they use to write those silly coments about just one bird. Wake up, the trace gases from your car kill (yes, not just virtually disturbs) dozens of animals every year, highways interrupt migration rutes. Every time you put a new pack of a4 paper in a printer a tree is cut somewhere.
You can't afford to be so naive. Fight real problems, let the people have some fun

"You know, there's a reason for existence of national parks. It is to preserve those few natural habitats that are left relatively untouched and protect the wildlife within."

Better not drive your car to one, then. And certainly you shouldn't enter one on a bike or on foot. All those people around are making paths and trails and ruining the area for the wildlife. Oh, and make sure you don't let the clattering of your shutters scare the wildlife. That's another thing that should be banned - photography.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 13:09 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

webber15: To pierre the idiot,,,yes people eat chickens for dinner,,but your comments show your lack of brain resolving capacity,,so let me get this straight,,just because we eat chickens nd turkeys its OK to harass a wild bird?? I am a birder and I know and understand bird behavior,,the eagle would not investigate this drone,they are nervous birds by nature and only chase their own kind to get them out of their territory,,I do not believe the photographers argument,,,as I said in Europe harrasing raptors would be law breaking,,I hope its a one off incident the like of which does not happen again,,,to add anyone who thinks its acceptable is an idiot...

You are wrong. I've had a Eagle fly within 2 meters of my slope soaring R/C aircraft, and stay there through maneuvers for more than 30 seconds.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 11:34 UTC
On Dronestagram contest winners announced article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

webber15: Well now u know lee jay that raptors are in the area I suggest u refrain from flying your drone in the area...

I don't have a multirotor copter and the only camera equipped airplane I have hasn't had the camera on it since the late 90s. It was a 35mm film point and shoot.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
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
Total: 519, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »