lesnapanda

Lives in Poland Pruszkow, Poland, Poland
Works as a IT
Has a website at lesnapanda.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 10, 2012

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

maximme: Dear Nokia

Pleeeeease do NOT give us a thin phone.
Make it a thick enough battery to last the whole day.
I am tired of lugging a battery bank around.
JUST put the 2 in one device...

oh, make it a 4.5 in screen.
Guys can't take 5.5 in screen cause we DON'T carry handbags

@badi - sure. If you strip a modern phone of all the features besides the basic ones like calls and sms - you'll get plenty of battery time. But the world has changed in the last 15 years. While I dislike many of those changes - it is what it is. I use a single handset for both personal and professional activities in order not to carry around two big phones. So yes - I really need this email as soon as possible. This allows me to do other things or to be in different places while still being available for work related topics. That is something that modern communication technology enables, and which would not been possible with a dumb nokia phone from 10 years ago. So there is no real comparison.
So I would much more prefer a 4500mAh battery phone than a "worlds thinest" phone. I can live with those 1,5mm more and 40 grams more. Because it would allow me to get over 24 hours of battery life, even if heavy used.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

maximme: Dear Nokia

Pleeeeease do NOT give us a thin phone.
Make it a thick enough battery to last the whole day.
I am tired of lugging a battery bank around.
JUST put the 2 in one device...

oh, make it a 4.5 in screen.
Guys can't take 5.5 in screen cause we DON'T carry handbags

@badi - I think people would appreciate phones that have decent battery life while maintaining the full feature set. I need emails to be pushed onto my device (worst case fetched every 5 minutes). I need whatsapp/skype/messenger/etc to be working. I need two sim cards active at the same time. I want to be able to snap a couple pictures once in a while. I listen to music for an hour per day on my phone. Oh and I use bluetooth for connectivity to wearables. Result is a sub-1-day battery life. 3kmah does not do the trick.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 09:00 UTC
In reply to:

Prognathous: Nokia, be bold. Use an APS-C sensor and an f/8.0 lens. It would be pocketable (when turned off, lens retracted to phone), and image quality in daylight would be far far better than anything ever seen on a smartphones. It won't be any worse in low light too, as APS-C has about 4~5 stop advantage over cellphone sensors. f/8.0 in this case would be equivalent to a cellphone equipped with an f/2.0 or f/1.4 lens.

Also, call this model "The Weegee" (of "f/8 and Be There" fame, to those not familiar).

Personally I don't think that going from f/2.8 to f/8.0 would greatly reduce the size. And certainly not the thickness of the device when the lens is folded. It might of course reduce a little the weight, etc. But it won't transform the Ricoh into a smartphone size device.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

amd: Fingerprint sensor plus supported memory card that allows on the fly encryption without a penalty.
I also love the idea to make cameras unusable for thiefs. Let's also lock expensive lenses to specific bodies with the same credentials.

Fingerprint is certainly worse than a password in any scenario where both the journalist and the camera are in the same place. Of course - it would be great for locking the device against a thief.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: Dear 150 Filmmakers, Photographers, and Media Workers Around the World,

Believe me - you will gladly give away the password protecting your gear facing the barrel of a gun or after getting beaten up badly. Or after getting drugged. Not to mention just how easy it is to get a device unlocked that is protected by fingerprints (say goodbye to your thumbs). It just protects you in case of camera theft or loss.

That being said - I admire the courage of some of you. You must have balls made of steel!

I was just pointing out that what they are asking for is not going to solve their problems. What you propose is, in the realms of current photo technology, next to impossible. And even when implemented correctly, it still wouldn't help to solve the problem in most of the scenarios that come to mind.
And no - https does not help pedophiles. And no - I'm not asking anyone to remove any features from any product. Nor am I saying that encryption as such shouldn't be implemented. But it just does not solve the problem presented.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: Dear 150 Filmmakers, Photographers, and Media Workers Around the World,

Believe me - you will gladly give away the password protecting your gear facing the barrel of a gun or after getting beaten up badly. Or after getting drugged. Not to mention just how easy it is to get a device unlocked that is protected by fingerprints (say goodbye to your thumbs). It just protects you in case of camera theft or loss.

That being said - I admire the courage of some of you. You must have balls made of steel!

I thought about it. But then - the bloody regimes/gangs/crimelords/etc knowing that this feature is supported by the particular camera type might suspect something, don't you think? So while it might save a pedophile from being prosecuted in a country of law, it will not necessarily help the photojournalist if she/he is caught.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 15:13 UTC

Dear 150 Filmmakers, Photographers, and Media Workers Around the World,

Believe me - you will gladly give away the password protecting your gear facing the barrel of a gun or after getting beaten up badly. Or after getting drugged. Not to mention just how easy it is to get a device unlocked that is protected by fingerprints (say goodbye to your thumbs). It just protects you in case of camera theft or loss.

That being said - I admire the courage of some of you. You must have balls made of steel!

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 14:26 UTC as 26th comment | 6 replies

why not go a step futher? No buttons at all. AI will determine if the scene makes a shot worth taking and will trigger the shutter? Making you (the user) a moving tripod or a sort. Never knowing when the computer decided to take that pic... and if it turns out good enough for the other developer AI to be considered. Perhaps a third AI to decide if it's a good idea to show it to you (for those "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas moments").

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 08:48 UTC as 119th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

lesnapanda: to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

@Melgros, Phil- I'm not "worried" about the internal resistance of the capacitor as much as about the resistance of the cables and connections in the PCB.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

@Tony - check your math. Take the capacity of your current smartphone battery. Multiply by 5 (full week operation from a single charge). Now see how much power you have to apply in order to charge that in say 5 seconds. That's exactly why this claim is so ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

@falconeyes - while the comparison is interesting, I find it a little flawed. I'm not saying 185 amperes (or double that in the US) is not possible. It's simply not possible at home, with normal diameter electrical cabling. Also - it's not possible to have that charge move into the capacitor without generating heat that would fry your charger/phone/etc. (you might have a problem using superconducting materials in a phone). Why are cars not fried because of such currents? Well, it is becuase they are big and you can use thick conductors in them. Nothing you can even try to think of in a mobile phone.
Not to mention the size and cost of the charging unit. And a hundred other reasons why this "charge in seconds, use for a week" BS is just that... BS.

Now battery technology is the major bottleneck in a lot of computer science areas (IoT especially). So any progress in getting more dense energy sources, better charging, etc. is more than welcome. But this is just PR done in a wrong way.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 13:39 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The math doesn't work.

“If they were to replace the batteries with these supercapacitors, you could charge your mobile phone in a few seconds and you wouldn’t need to charge it again for over a week,”

My cell phone battery holds 11Wh and lasts a day. I'd need 77Wh to last a week.

To charge a 77Wh capacity in "a few seconds" (I'll give them 5 seconds) would take 55.4kW of power, or 120V at 462 amps with 100% charge efficiency.

My main panel is 200A at 240V or 48kW so even all the power that can pass through my main breaker couldn't accomplish that charge rate.

not to mention the conductor diameter required to pass through 10kA at 5V. Unless of course you want your phone to also be a welder.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:10 UTC

to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:03 UTC as 26th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

razadaz: An old lecturer I had at university once said to me “art is art by consensus”. Basically it doesn’t matter what you paint or photograph, if you can find enough influential people to say its good art, your laughing all the way to the bank.

well... great art for me is something that strikes you, takes your breath away, strikes that certain tone that resonates so well with your emotions. A lot of influencial people won't make your work great art. But they can indeed form a sort of consensus that will make people buy your prints, paintings, etc. Also - day to day objects that we surround ourselves with do not necessarily need to be great art. "Just pretty" will do fine. Experiencing art is a process that requires attention, energy... in that sesne surrounding yourself with Art might be bad idea. Whereas if you put that surfer photo in your office - well... might add some character to it :)

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 09:06 UTC

Can't wait to see results of the lens in combination with Sigma cameras. Ultimate detail!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 11:10 UTC as 144th comment | 1 reply
On article 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-900 (341 comments in total)

Where is the Sigma sd quattro?

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 20:08 UTC as 46th comment | 5 replies
On article YI M1 Sample Gallery (137 comments in total)

So we had a couple of preview articles, now a gallery. Soon a review, I presume. Why nothing of this kind for Sigma SD Quattro- one of the most interesting cameras released this year?

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2016 at 06:34 UTC as 20th comment | 6 replies
On article Going wide: Irix 15mm F2.4 sample gallery (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: Isn't the IRIX 15mm just a rebadged version of the recently announced Samyang 14mm F/2.4? After all, if this "Swiss" lens in made in South Korean, just who do you think is making it?

@Brendon- yes, but because of the ownership structure and who is distributing those lenses people earlier suspected this to be a samyang brand. Guess this will pop-up as a thread once in a while.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 07:01 UTC
On article Going wide: Irix 15mm F2.4 sample gallery (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: When people complain about dpr testing exposure latitude and go on how nobody is really pushing 4 or 5 stops in post, they forget that that also applies to vignetting correction, which is incredible at almost 4 stops in corners with this lens. So, if your camera can tolerate 4 stops push - that's it, you are already at the limit. If it can tolerate 6 stops you have an extra two stops for shadows in corners, etc. If you can do only 3 stops - whoops...

Vignetting is pretty heavy with this lens. There were tests published already showing this in absolute numbers. So depending on the particular usage scenario being able to push shadows considerably might be a huge benefit.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2016 at 06:56 UTC
In reply to:

Nebiros: The choice to go with Bayer is interesting. Any sensor tech buffs around?

So, from a technical perspective, in the interview it's stated that the readout and processing is easier for Bayer than for X-trans. Seems that processing speed is still one of the bottlenecks in today's cameras. This *could* hint at a future in which the GFX line may shift to X-trans, given the processing catches up?

Or is there a rather more deeply technical reason? I don't know so much about the theory of X-trans, but may be it has some advantages that don't scale as well to larger sensors? I feel reminded of BSI sensors, where it was stated that the benefit is larger the smaller the sensor is, which is why (IIRC) the last APS-C Samsung was the only BSI APS-C sensor, and just recently the Sony A7R II has a 35mm BSI sensor.

I think this will also make their raw files editable with pretty much every software from day one.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 19:46 UTC
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »