PIX 2015
Valiant Thor

Valiant Thor

Works as a Research Scientist
Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 300, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Panasonic confirms Lumix G 25mm F1.7 article (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteveY80: I'm surprised they haven't included stabilisation, like they did with the 42.5mm 1.7.

I'm not saying that OIS is essential on a fast standard prime, but it would have done more to set it apart from the 20mm 1.7 or Olympus 25mm. It might have made it a little bigger, but anyone who cares that much about a few extra mm/grams would probably go for the pancake lens option anyway.

"People keep saying that Panasonic is using IBIS henceforth but I've seen no evidence of it!"

My GX8 has IBIS. That's rather compelling evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 3, 2015 at 12:59 UTC

Could be a new standard . . . Arca Turkish.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 00:23 UTC as 2nd comment
On Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens article (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

holyfan: Full-Frame sensor with 34 f/1.4 lens with fast silent focus, on-sensor steady shot. 36 megapixel.

Also, 1080 60p and 4K video.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2015 at 15:50 UTC
In reply to:

lacikuss: A fantasric litlle camera with a good selection of high quality Canon affordable lenses.

Thanks Sparky, what a swell comment!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2015 at 02:02 UTC

This just in . . . both the Smithsonian and The History Channel just ordered one.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 13:19 UTC as 115th comment | 1 reply

Well hey, at least the Canon loyalists have a little encouragement, something to look foreword to, and may even be able to reduce their depression medication dosages.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:58 UTC as 116th comment
On Crazy 8: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 sample gallery article (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: The GX8 is a nice camera. I just find it hard to overlook the fixed lens offerings from Sony at the moment when the price of cameras like the GX8 is so high.

I can buy a GH4 for the price that Amazon lists the GX8 at right now. That decision is a no brainer.

"I can buy a GH4 for the price that Amazon lists the GX8 at right now. That decision is a no brainer."

I agree, I can buy a Polaroid 600 at the Goodwill Store a lot cheaper than the GX8. Now that's a real no brainer!

But anyway folks, I pre-ordered the GX8 from B&H yesterday evening which was in stock and will ship today. Most of the YouTube reviews on the GX8 show it to be outstanding.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2015 at 14:10 UTC
On iFixit tears down Sony's new a7R II to find its secrets article (290 comments in total)

Putting it back together is not as easy as disassembly due to the fact that it is almost impossible to re-align the six hydrocoptic marzul vanes with the malleable logarithmic casing which would result in exposure duractance.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2015 at 04:20 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.

@BadScience "But, what exactly has this got to do with anything with people living now?"

Everything. The current Royal Family presents themselves as the House of Windsor (a pure English Family) when in fact they are not, which is why they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gothe. Most people like to know when they are being deceived.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.

"Valiant, I am English and you are entitled to you opinions but the Royal Family are not Nazis and your comment is one of libel, ignorance and an idiot not a Scientist, by all accounts superb at your job!"

Comments like this show the lack of clarity and mental confusion of some posters. I did not say that the Royal Family were Nazis, it was the original Saxe-Coburg-Lineage as historically documented genealogically.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.

Why are so many offended as if this were my personal opinion? The Saxe-Coburg-Gothe Royal Family Nazi ties are all genealogically and historically documented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Edward,_Duke_of_Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha

and

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/lineage-british-royal-family

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 02:01 UTC

This family of dysfunctional sociopaths, originally Nazis from Germany, changed their surname from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and are no more "royal" than any of us. The public and paparazzi should stop giving them any attention.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2015 at 16:32 UTC as 23rd comment | 22 replies
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

@BadScience

Your user name says it all. It's obvious that you don't understand that electronic camera sensors and filtering techniques can "see" more than you can with your eyes.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 17:53 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

My job is a scientist in electro-magnetic bioresonance and I develop frequency and resonance technology for NASA AMES and others and I can say without equivocation that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 03:36 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

re: BadScience: Yes, I'm sure. I'm merely saying that HDR can be used to enhance what is at the ends of and slightly beyond our normal ocular capability.

Also, your first comment indicates that you totally missed the point of my original post. Your tirade regarding radio telescopes and distant galaxies was not related to the scope of the discussion.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 23:53 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: You might as well just show us some stills from a Pixar movie, that's about as much as this technical exercise has to do with reality.

Although to criticise these as "bad examples of HDR" is over-simplifying the technique involved. I think the multiple exposures taken were really just a small part of the process........obviously hours were spent photoshopping every pixel of these images, and the multiple exposures simply gave the photog the "best" exposure to choose from for photoshopping each area of the image.

Neither, just go to his website and he shows you how he does it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 23:37 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

"He has not exended the visual spectrum of humans - thats impossible"

Oh really sparky? If that's what you think then you are the clueless one. Still and video cameras can clearly see beyond what you can see. Just look through an electronic viewfinder at the end of a TV remote control IR emitter with the button pressed. The camera can see it lit but your eyes cannot.

Also, the possible spectrum can be extended even more with the proper coating on a filter. Intelligence agencies have known for years that by coating a filter with Dicyanin A, it will allow you to photograph the complete bio-electric field around any living organism (and NO, I'm not talking about the fake aura cameras used at new age fairs). Don't try to purchase any Dicyanin A however as you need an above top secret clearance to get it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: You might as well just show us some stills from a Pixar movie, that's about as much as this technical exercise has to do with reality.

Although to criticise these as "bad examples of HDR" is over-simplifying the technique involved. I think the multiple exposures taken were really just a small part of the process........obviously hours were spent photoshopping every pixel of these images, and the multiple exposures simply gave the photog the "best" exposure to choose from for photoshopping each area of the image.

Not so Sparky, he uses simple presets in Photomatix Pro and Lightroom and all is accomplished in a matter of minutes.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 19:11 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

aekn: Why not just use a paint brush or crayons? Not a fan.

Because then it would be crayon or paintbrush art, not HDR photography. Make sense?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 18:16 UTC
On The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff article (233 comments in total)

The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 16:48 UTC as 78th comment | 11 replies
Total: 300, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »