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: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraCarl: Every time I see a drone flying overhead, I wish I had done better in my antiaircraft marksmanship in the Army

Every time I see an armed anti photography nut on a photography site, I wonder why they don't shoot themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 06:40 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 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.

Okay, I've never seen a 2 foot diameter helicopter for under $100. Most of those are in the $400 range, and that's what I was talking about. For example:

http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/300-cfx-bnf-basic-BLH4650

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 18:02 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 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.).

In the US, the new rule is that you have to alert the tower when within 5 miles of an airport.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 15:38 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 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.

Because many people are gullible enough to fall for the "pro" marketing term?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 15:37 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 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.

Such cheapo helicopters are tiny and harmless. Heck, I've crashed mine into my son's face, and he just laughed. The blades weigh less than a gram.

Helicopters that can do some damage have more power, cost more, and thus are not bought by average people looking for a toy.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 15:22 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: 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.

And heavily regulated - required insurance, required licensing, minimum age limit, pollution testing, many required rules on the cars themselves, requirements on roads, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 15:20 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 (141 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 52nd 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 (758 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 (758 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 (758 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 169th 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
Total: 471, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »