tony brown

Lives in Ireland Ireland
Works as a technician
Joined on Nov 21, 2001

Comments

Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

"Recently, .... we were granted the enormous honor .... ." The vendor now becomes the Master!!!!
We, the consumers, provide the money and they, the manufacturers, provide a service. The author of this article has become entirely brainwashed - interesting as it was.
I must sign off now as CocaCola has graciously allowed me, as a chosen customer, to purchase one of their diet drinks. This must truly be my lucky day. Perhaps Reader's Digest will choose me as one of their lucky winners too.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 00:00 UTC as 6th comment
On photo Fox ran across the lake.2jpg in the My Best Photo of the Week challenge (4 comments in total)

The fox prints turn a pebble into a gem!
A real keeper.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 14:40 UTC as 2nd comment
On photo Dad and the Kids in the A Big Year - birds challenge (5 comments in total)

Outstanding quality and conveys such emotion!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2017 at 03:51 UTC as 2nd comment
On photo Valley by the light of a blue moon in the Down in the Valley challenge (30 comments in total)

Truly magnificent image of a view I have only seen in many photographs through my life. Worth crossing the Atlantic for this view alone! Ansel would have been impressed himself.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 16:29 UTC as 11th comment
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.

You don't require the 185 Amps at 230V but just at the battery (Capacitor) volts for which you use a drop down transformer. E.g. at 9V out you need 7A in - entirely feasible.
185 A at 230 V would be 42 KW which would charge a typical car battery in 1 minute !!!!!!!!! A cell phone battery is NOT expected to equal a car battery in capacity. Unless that's what you envisage, is it?

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

CQui: Where is the red dot?

3 possibilities, either;

It's in there, amongst the pips. 5 minutes dedicated search will eventually impress any bystander;

Or, perhaps the company is loath to be associated with this model;

Or, perhaps that would add another $5,000 to the price.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 07:54 UTC

I should explain the 'pip' material design concept for those that have missed it. The diameter of the mini-pips and their length determines the motion that automatically happens when the factory adjusted pressure required to fire the shutter takes place regardless of the manual grip on the camera. This provides a carefully calculated pixel shift during the exposure which negates the absence of the anti-alias filter.

As a further benefit , this effect is removed when the camera is mounted on a tripod, when it isn't required. This provides optimum definition for landscape and architectural photography without having to consult a menu to switch it off. Thus this leap forward in integrated ergonomics keeps the manufacturer at the forefront of modern cameras as implied by its $15,000 nominal price, also committee designed to ensure exclusivity.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 07:48 UTC as 95th comment | 1 reply
On photo Tactical Approach in the Wildlife - Birds in Flight challenge (33 comments in total)

Says so much about the Puffin in just one capture. Brilliant timing/viewpoint et al.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 04:50 UTC as 14th comment

With my Mk I version of this lens when shooting wildlife, I can focus and zoom continuously with one hand without repositioning - push/pull for zoom and rotate for focus.

Now with rotary focus AND zoom, do I not have to reposition hand for each control separately?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2016 at 03:57 UTC as 42nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Photo-Wiz: I'm still yawning. Maybe it's just me. But I don't understand the raison d'etre for this camera. Has Kodak not heard that while it was hibernating the world has moved to pretty cool video cameras on virtually every phone and every camera?

"Raison d'etre" indeed? Is that an old Kodak expression?
Thank goodness English is still the "lingua franca" of the Web! Whatever that means.
(:-}

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 14:18 UTC

I wonder if Kodak would consider reviving the Daguerreotype? There was something about the tone range, the whiff of Mercury vapour and adequate time to really get to know your subject during the extra long exposures, that has vanished from modern 'instant' photography.

Failing that Kodak might also like to revive 'Bromoil' or 'Carbro' printing process for the same 'Pseudo-8' cine customers who appear to have time and money to spare.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 17:22 UTC as 36th comment | 3 replies
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

tony brown: 2+1/2 mins of Super 8 movie for $50 from a $500 camera? I think the director must have had a boozy night out with his Grand Father in a bar!
The alternatives with modern cheap point and shoots can outdo that without having to add sound separately later when edited - onto what - well, digital video of course. How else do you expect anyone to view the result? Hope that copy of Dust & Blemish remover will work on video.

Can't believe the thinking. It sounds like the Family got together for Christmas and someone accidentally left their recorder on.

What on earth is supposed to be the advantage, please? Not price; not running costs; not battery life; not replaying unless you kept a silent Super-8 projector in that cupboard along with your first 1960's mobile phone. Since the sound is recorded separately, it won't play on a Super-8 projector will it? Or perhaps there is an external sound input from a audio player. Synch those too!

I agree there might well be a small niche market but for the once biggest photographic company in the world to see this as a way forward from their current difficulties is a disappointment. To me it seems like clutching at straws.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 12:47 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (359 comments in total)

2+1/2 mins of Super 8 movie for $50 from a $500 camera? I think the director must have had a boozy night out with his Grand Father in a bar!
The alternatives with modern cheap point and shoots can outdo that without having to add sound separately later when edited - onto what - well, digital video of course. How else do you expect anyone to view the result? Hope that copy of Dust & Blemish remover will work on video.

Can't believe the thinking. It sounds like the Family got together for Christmas and someone accidentally left their recorder on.

What on earth is supposed to be the advantage, please? Not price; not running costs; not battery life; not replaying unless you kept a silent Super-8 projector in that cupboard along with your first 1960's mobile phone. Since the sound is recorded separately, it won't play on a Super-8 projector will it? Or perhaps there is an external sound input from a audio player. Synch those too!

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2016 at 09:29 UTC as 121st comment | 2 replies

I see nothing in the rules about size requirements (max or min) and when I download one of your sample images , there is NO border.

What is the border requirement you speak of?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2015 at 19:33 UTC as 1st comment

Another false insurance scam goes wrong! ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 15:33 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Leandros S: If they could make it skin coloured, maybe that would help...

What, for only $6,200? Surely your expectations are too high my friend. It's lucky it has the right number of fingers!
(;-}

Link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 04:35 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: 60% Fail Rate is totally off the scale for a precision instrument.

Quality Control total fail.

.

I quote: "The bottom line is that 4 of the Canon T6s and 2 of the T6i cameras we received had to be sent back because of a defect in the sensor stack (the layers of filter glass over the sensor). This is out about 10 copies of each; the others were absolutely perfect."
That's 6 out of 20, i.e. 30% !!!

Link | Posted on May 1, 2015 at 09:44 UTC
On article Nikon D5500 real-world samples (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

earthbound_ca: Why is it the long grass and rocks have been viewed 956 times (as I write this) and the young lady on the stairs has been viewed almost 2,500 times? People don't like rocks?

It is because of the composition of the grasses picture. No point of interest unless it's the TINY ship on the horizon; the eye just drifts off to the left with nothing to stop it but most of all, the horizon midway up the image.
That's my excuse anyway.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 11:56 UTC
On article Mid-range Mirrorless camera roundup (2014) (30 comments in total)
In reply to:

lawamainn: When it comes to value for money, this camera is unbeatable! The resolution power alone makes it a winner. And the feature set is pretty awesome as well. I love it!

To which camera are you referring?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 21:19 UTC
On article 1939: England in Color (part 1) (222 comments in total)

I have just viewed and enjoyed Parts 1 & 2 of your 1939 photo restorations - the year of my own birth. Particularly, I enjoy the thread of your family's story connecting these widely distributed pictures together just like a gentle soundtrack. It brings them to life and together and much more than otherwise.
Very well done and thank you for sharing!

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2014 at 20:08 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 25, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »