Biowizard

Biowizard

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Total: 440, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »

As someone who is on the verge of buying a multi-rotor photgraphic platform, I am torn between the "does everything automatically with extra safety features" of items like this, and the raw "flying beheading machine" variety.

As I probably want to keep my fingers on my hands, this model has its attractions. But ultimately, I think I want to take (at least) a micro-4/3rds camera up to several thousand feet, grab some serious areal stills, and then get it back in once piece.

Yes, away from flight paths, airports, and #10 or Buck House.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 17:58 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article DxO ONE real-world sample gallery (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.

My camera is easier to hold than that combo, has a bigger sensor, and a large built-in touch screen. And it can transfer images to my iPhone or iPad wirelessly - or even be controlled from them.

With NO fragile connector to break.

Brian

If so, that's good to know - especially as I am about to buy my first Lightning devices (iPad Pro and maybe iPhone 6S). Up till now, I've been on 30-pin devices.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 16:23 UTC
On article DxO ONE real-world sample gallery (185 comments in total)

I worry enough connecting a USB lead to a camera, for fear of stresses breaking the plug. Using a tiny, fragile lightning connector to join two individual, relatively bulky items together, strikes me as putting way too much faith into the strength of tiny PCBs.

My camera is easier to hold than that combo, has a bigger sensor, and a large built-in touch screen. And it can transfer images to my iPhone or iPad wirelessly - or even be controlled from them.

With NO fragile connector to break.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2015 at 19:22 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies

If I want to strap a camera on to go snorkeling or splashing around in a pool, or send one up in a drone or on a kite I'll use my GoPro. If I want to hand-hold photos with a waterproof camera, I'll use my TG-1. And for any real photography, not in and around the pool, my OM-D E-M1.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 12:51 UTC as 48th comment
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Simple reply: #whatever

Serious reply: #yeh_right

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 22:59 UTC
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Roland, go and learn about fish-eye lenses. It should then be obvious! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2015 at 09:33 UTC
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Roland, I think you miss my point.

A TRUE 180 degree fisheye lens (say, with an image circle that is 100% in frame, is measured across the DIAMETER of the image. From 90 degrees down to 90 up, is 180 degrees. From 90 degrees left, to 90 right, is 180 degrees. It is NOT measured around the CIRCUMFERENCE.

And yet this is EXACTLY what "Kodak" is doing here. Pointing a 180-degree lens at the sky, then marking out the points of the compass around its periphery, with distortion software to make it look like an all-round image ... which EVERY shot on a classical 180-degree fisheye, already is/was.

Again: we measure lens field of view ACROSS the diagonal of the image circle, NOT around the DIAMETER.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
On photo Humble Church and the Universe in the My Best Photo of the Week challenge (6 comments in total)

Beautifully conceived and executed - lovely image! :-)

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 08:46 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (79 comments in total)

Falacy somewhere, I fancy ...

Since when does pointing a (nearly) 180-degree fish-eye lens at the sky, convert it into a 360-degree lens?

In photography, is is conventional to measure a viewing angle cross the frame, corner to corner (if the frame is filled) or the diameter of a circular image: in other words, measuring the angle of a viewing "cone" who point is at the camera's focal plane.

It is NOT normal to measure the viewing angles as degrees around the (circular) base of the viewing "cone" - it it were, then by definition, every full-circle fish-eye could be called a "360-degree" lens.

So all Kodak has done, is put the lens on the top of the camera, rather than the front. #excitingNOT

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 08:42 UTC as 10th comment | 8 replies

Sony has always loved compression - look at the investment it put into MiniDisc all those years ago, when the rest of us were trying to get our hands on uncompressed recording solutions.

Performing any kind of lossy compression at the point of original capture is bone-headed beyond belief: once lost, the data can never be recovered.

Poor move, Sony.

Brian

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 18:07 UTC as 261st comment | 5 replies

24 hours in, and the more I think about this, the more I like it. At last a quick way to attach/detach from my assortment of roller-skate dollies, microphone stand adapters, drum kit stands, table tripods and more.

KUDOS to the inventors and Bah Humbug to the predictable and ultimately dull and boring naysayers.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 20:20 UTC as 5th comment
On article Holga Digital camera project launched on Kickstarter (150 comments in total)

NOOO!!! Please NOT more lo-fi, blurry lens cameras - digital or otherwise.

You wanna take crappy shots? Buy an old 1st gen DSLR, wash its lens in the dishwasher and then sand-paper the front and rear elements.

Or just use a decent camera, and ruin your photos in Photoshop.

Toy Cameras are for Toy Photographers.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 19:58 UTC as 64th comment | 1 reply

Trouble is the whole of Facebook, Twitter, Instragram and more is stuffed with N'th generation copies of images, with the result that most re-posts and shares have disgustingly corrupted photos or even text slogans.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 13:00 UTC as 13th comment

Sorry All, and don't get me wrong - I love the fact we have a "Royal Family" and our amazing "Queen".

But hey, why get all prissy of a few dozen (or more) low-life hack paparazzi want to take pics of your grand kids? Some or your "subjects", who pay for your existence, want to see what they are paying for.

So let them.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss either way. Small kids are small kids, end of.

I was totally SICK of all Diana's bleatings, while she actively wooed the Press with her poses, pouts, and sidelong glances. She was ONLY who she was because of her carefully managed press coverage. Her death was sad and premature, but ultimately of her own making.

Back to now - if you want to live the privileged life of a British Royal, on money contributed by everyone living in your realm, then PUT UP with photos for those of your contributors who can be assed to want some value for their money.

And for the rest of us, I couldn't give a [Fluffy Bunny] either way.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 21:16 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies
On article Rough and ready: Olympus Tough TG-4 review (280 comments in total)

Love my first-gen TG-1 ... would buy the TG-4 in an instant if the latter got damaged or stolen.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 21:38 UTC as 63rd comment | 2 replies
On article Graava action cam automatically edits POV footage (47 comments in total)

You can get the same effect by simply not turning your GoPro on ...

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 09:10 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

pavinder: A simple look at the video should silence the critics...anyone still left complaining seems like a troll to me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bPuT7R7JVxk

Shame the Youtube video is itself only 360p - gets no-where near showing off the resolution even of this 2MPixel camera.

Brian

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 14:54 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: Pity this camera managed to lose 90% of its telephoto power from the dpReview news headline (24-6000mm (equiv)) and the actual overiew/impressions (24-600mm (equiv)).

At least it didn't end up as a common-or-garden 24-60mm (equiv)!

Brian

I see the headline is now fixed!

Brian

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 13:58 UTC
On article Shooting with the Canon PowerShot G3 X (322 comments in total)

Pity this camera managed to lose 90% of its telephoto power from the dpReview news headline (24-6000mm (equiv)) and the actual overiew/impressions (24-600mm (equiv)).

At least it didn't end up as a common-or-garden 24-60mm (equiv)!

Brian

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 15:17 UTC as 72nd comment | 1 reply
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1114 comments in total)

I'd be first in line for a TRUE MONO version of this camera.

Brian

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 15:50 UTC as 337th comment | 2 replies
Total: 440, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »