jkoch2

jkoch2

Joined on Jun 6, 2006

Comments

Total: 432, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Frank Petronio: More Leftist propaganda... Block and deport the illegals before they ruin things further.

FP: Italy could recruit "native" volunteers, garb them in black shirts, and tell them to cleanse the country of immigrants with rocks, whips, and pistols. No need for expenses associated with police pursuit, incarceration, adjudication, transport, lost labor, or parentless kids. Let animal instinct rule. Such boldness would eclipse anything Il Duce ever attempted. Oh, and think of the photo ops!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 13:50 UTC
In reply to:

RichRMA: "Desperate migrants" are the creation of the mass communication world. Formerly, "desperate" meant, "we have absolutely nothing and need to move somewhere else now." Now it's, "We're ok, but we see online what the north has and we want it to."

All migration, in all ages, has been driven by hardship and home and rumors of a better life elsewhere. Most migrants are not at the very bottom, but those towards the middle or top of their place of origin, and have the ideas and means to hazard the move. People who call this "criminal" are themselves descendents of migrants and (very likely) direct or indirect beneficiaries of cheap immigrant labor. The biggest "drain" on social expenditures is likely to be older "native" residents who retire early and draw progressively heavy payments and sub sidies over more and more decades. They, of course, are the ones most anxious to cast the first stone at the "intruders."

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 13:38 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: If these people are trying to work the system or get away with something they're certainly paying a high price. That said, if Ken Rockwell posted social commentary his remarks would be on a level with the comments here.

Just to show that I've missed the point, I'm puzzled as to why the 17TS was chosen.

Are you KR's "sock puppet" posing as a critic? Never has a guy gotten so many site visits by innocent bystanders curious to see why anyone would merit such abrassive comments. Poor guy.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 13:28 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Why is the quality of the video so low? Hard to tell if the camera is any good if the uploaded video file is so compressed.

One can't see 4k without a (preferably large) 4k display, but 4k downsampled to 1080p is supposed to look much better than "standard" HD obtained by most existing 1080p cameras.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 19:40 UTC
In reply to:

tabloid: GH4 v the new full frame 4K Sony should be interesting.

The FF Sony requires an external recorder to capture 4k. The 4k FDR AX100, with a 1" sensor, is apparently easier to use, and readily edits with SMS 13, but hasn't all the features or add-ons of the GH4. The PXW-Z100 captures 4.2.2 4k internally, but costs more, and the stuff should only be edited by experts with lots of budget, time, and gear.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: The vast majority of hardware can't handle 4K video decently. It'll be years for it to catch on, as with 1080p HD.

Sony Movie Studio 13, and perhaps other programs, use lower resolution proxy files to allow one to edit 4k on "ordinary" multi-core W7 or W8 computers. Apple solutions exist too, though (as usual) more expensive.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: The man needs to get the late 2013 edition MacBook Pro with 1TB of SSD - that I am typing this on. Should handle the 4K video ok, although it will still get a little toasty until the fans kick in.

Pinnacle 17 is a 32-bit program, right? If it uses less than 4GB RAM, doesn't that require a 4k project to be very small to avoid hangs or slow navigation? Do either programs require proxy files to avoid those issued if a project timeline exceeds 30 minutes?

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2014 at 14:07 UTC
In reply to:

Alpha Whiskey Photography: I don't know anything about wildlife photography, but I always find that getting closer to one's subject makes for a more engaging, and thus more endearing, image. And if the viewer can connect with the animal they are more likely to care about it. Hopefully wildlife photography will encourage more conservation.

http://alphawhiskey.slickpic.com/photoblog/post/WildlifeCalendar

http://alphawhiskey.slickpic.com/photoblog/post/FloridaWildlife

"Wild" and "getting closer" are not easy to reconcile.

If more people get close to wild animals to take their picures, won't more creatures be apt to abandon their nests, be displaced from their habitats, or be "put down" because of additional biting or mauling incidents?

Not surprisingly, most people's animal photos were taken in zoos or "natural" enclosures. Anything else requires huge investments of time and ingenuity.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2014 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

jljones: A little disappointing that an interview with a photographer is so poorly shot, with little thought to backgrounds etc. Doesn't take much effort to make it better. Content is interesting, execution for me so disappointing.

Budget can trump content or execution. A short video with 100x as much editing or TLC might not draw any more "hits" either.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2014 at 15:11 UTC
On How Peter Hurley became a top portrait photographer article (49 comments in total)

A contender for Olympic sailing probably has a lot of neat stories to tell about learning the sport and all the challenges faced in finding sponsors or getting admitted to crews. Of course, no one imagines that sailing ever leads to money. Any boater knows that the hobby involves huges amounts of chores and drudgery. Big breaks can come from unpaid help to others for fixing, cleaning, maintaining, launching, stowing, and other labor intensive tasks. The helper may not become captain, but status as first mate confers many saling pleasures and honors without the monetary headaches of ownership.

Photography, on the other hand, draws a lot of people with the unfounded notion that success will come if they overspend on a camera and take pictures of stuff they like. They don't like help or advice, and cannot offer their "crew" any thrills at sea turns at the rudder.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2014 at 14:30 UTC as 3rd comment
On Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review preview (657 comments in total)
In reply to:

nerd2: Price is a joke. for $700 you can get a LOT of camera elsewhere.

Perhaps priced to compete with the $600 RX100ii or its $700 successor.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 20:18 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: The peasants who demolished the Montogolfier balloon evidently have many descendents. Perhaps they should also turn their passions against another insidious invention, the camera, which steals people's souls, and captures their misfortunes or oddities for the sake of condescension, ridicule, gawking, voyeurism, or prizes.

Isn't their a bit of hypocrisy though? Who isn't captivated by landscape flyovers or candid shots of private things? The two magical powers people dream about most is the ability to fly or the ability to be invisible. Either power enables one to witness things one otherwise cannot.

Let the biggest liar be the first to say no. Be less touchy about motes in other's eyes and more wary of the logs stuck in our own.

drummercam: You never call anyone names? You never look at flyovers video, or dream of flying, do you? Photo awards aren't given to Lewkowicz or others who peer upon private suffering or violence, are they? Answer "no" to all three, and ... well, truth becomes putty.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

The peasants who demolished the Montogolfier balloon evidently have many descendents. Perhaps they should also turn their passions against another insidious invention, the camera, which steals people's souls, and captures their misfortunes or oddities for the sake of condescension, ridicule, gawking, voyeurism, or prizes.

Isn't their a bit of hypocrisy though? Who isn't captivated by landscape flyovers or candid shots of private things? The two magical powers people dream about most is the ability to fly or the ability to be invisible. Either power enables one to witness things one otherwise cannot.

Let the biggest liar be the first to say no. Be less touchy about motes in other's eyes and more wary of the logs stuck in our own.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 14:15 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tony Bonanno: Totally agree with this ban. Anyone who truly appreciates the purpose and mission of our National Parks would readily agree (I think). Unfortunately, there are many out there who think the parks are "playgrounds" to do as they wish or are simply unaware of the legislative mandates regarding our National Parks. Even the military has acknowledged that there are severe restrictions regarding overflights in National Park areas and have altered their training missions, etc. to avoid the air space over the Parks. I was wondering how long it would take before the "drones in the parks" issue hit the media. Someone mentioned wilderness areas. Same restrictions will apply to them also.

Perhaps rules covering "training missions" don't encompass initiation rites and cadet pranks like flying under cable lifts (Aviano) or the bridge over the Royal Gorge. Wink-wink.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 13:58 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: "a license that demonstrates basic capability to operate a drone safely"

Every driver in America has a license showing capability to operate a vehicle, and what, we have 55,000-some fatalities a year? Millions of fender benders? I've already had a quad that some chucklehead was flying miss me by less than a foot, and I'm simply no longer interested in someone else's toys in my face, just like I don't want some kid's radio-controlled car underfoot on a public sidewalk.

That chucklehead obviously attracted a chowderhead gawker very close. Drones, being scarce, tend to be something one looks for by choice. A fool (licensed or not) who lofts one in a crowded area isi begging trouble. But presumably a license would explicitly demand that operation not be near any people other than the operator(s).

Unleashed pets, hurtled balls or rocks, and errant bicycles certainly result in more public injuries or mess.

Aren't cameras are a public nuisance too? Fine or imprison people who photograph people in public without their written permission and due compensation. Phones exempted, of course.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 13:52 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

imarollingstone: Great news. National Parks are not the place for this type of photography. There are plenty of places in Yosemite where you can get a birds eye view already. You just might have to hike a bit.

Hike, and then step back or lean, just a little further, just a little further, until ...

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 14:47 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

hydrospanner: I'd really enjoy being a drone ban enforcer.

As soon as there's reports of an illegal drone, you drive out to the location and blast it from the sky. Yep. That's the job for me.

In public areas, are gunshots less dangerous than drones?

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 14:22 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)

Swarms of drones hovering over landmark vistas certainly could become a nuisance, as well as a danger. In addition to noise, people grossly underestimate the difficulty of navigation and recovery. However, thundering caravans of motor vehicles (bikes in particular) are also an annoyance.

Drone enthusiasts might seek authorization to fly over remote National Forests, or even BLM wastes, but audiences probably won't credit anything oother than flyovers of stuff they recognize immediately. In Colorado, where any sort of private tresspass is enforceable by gunshot, weed may be the only legal way to fly high.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 13:54 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: A step in the right direction.

The Yosemite Valley is one of the most overused pieces of national park in the US. They should ban automobiles and tour busses from the valley as the next step.

If you want an aerial view, go hike to Cloud's Rest or North Dome.

Hike early mornings only, or be at risk of afternoon lightning bolts.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 13:39 UTC
On National Park Service bans drones in Yosemite article (170 comments in total)
In reply to:

alpha90290: If photographer want to take photos from the air, they should use a balloon.
Tied the camera on a weather balloon with string and let it fly to mid air with hand holding onto the string.
I remember seeing someone doing that but forgot where is the link.
It is more quiet and cheaper than drone.

Balloons cannot be lofted in any wind, don't steer, and also get lost. Tanks of helium are expensive. Hot air balloons must be large and can be hazardous. Not a cheap substitute. Perhaps one could train hawks or geese to carry POV cameras, but they have minds of their own and their predations or honking can be disruptive.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
Total: 432, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »