TheDreamingWatchman

Lives in Austria Vienna, Austria
Joined on Nov 6, 2012

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

(unknown member): The picture is great, one of the subjects isn't. The ISS is a $200 billion (and counting) albatross that has sucked the life out of the U.S. space program, so threadbare now they need to pay Russia to launch their men to that orbiting white elephant. Just THINK of how many productive and cost-effective space probes could have been built for what that thing cost. A drilling probe to Jupiter's moons (to search for life) could have been done for about $3 billion.

The ISS really is quite cheap - if you compare it to the Iraq war, which did cost over $1 trillion.
"Just THINK of how many productive and cost-effective space probes could have been built" instead of killing half a million Iraqis.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

Mavots: NASA, or whoever controls the orbit of the ISS, went to a lot of trouble to adjust the orbit so that it would cross right down the middle of the Sun at just the right time.
Not only that, but they had to position a NASA photographer at the precise spot on Earth to capture the image.
Whatever they had to do, this is really cool!!

I don’t think the orbit of the ISS was adjusted (or needed to be adjusted).

The partial solar eclipse in the picture was visible across the entire North American continent along with parts of South America, Africa, and Europe.

The ISS orbits the Earth in 90 minutes, so the chance for some place on Earth to see the ISS in front of the sun is quite high.

You just have to find the right location in any of those continents and go there.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 08:40 UTC

It's a great picture and I don't want to diminish it.
However - as far as I know - the French astrophotographer Thierry Legault was the first to make these kind of photos (ISS, Space Shuttle in front of the Sun or the Moon).
Check out his website: http://www.astrophoto.fr/

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 08:42 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

eMTi: WOW...wow...people. Way don't you have your space station and you can call what ever you want. That is Rusia Space Station, not International Space Station. You do not have technology (all of you on the planet Earth, except Rusia), that needs to get there and to get beck. That is ONLY..ok..ONLY Rusia Space Station. You did not do nothing towards building the Rusia Space Station. No one thing in both Rusias Space Station. And you give it the name like you build it. You do not have technology duduly dudes. Way the Rusia aloud you to call there technology yours? If you can not make it you steal it and label it as you did it.

Just to remind you that this is second space station that Rusia build. The first was build in middle of 80s, which suggest that you are about 30 years behind Rusias space technology, The next year will be 31 years behind, and year after will be 32 years behind...etc...

I am not Rusian. I am educated southern Europian that live here.

You know nothing, eMTi!
“The ISS is made up of 15 pressurized modules: five Russian modules (Zarya, Pirs, Zvezda, Poisk and Rassvet), seven US modules (Leonardo, Harmony, Quest, Tranquility, Unity, Cupola, and Destiny), two Japanese modules (the JEM-ELM-PS and JEM-PM) and one European module (Columbus).”
(Wikipedia)

*Most* of these modules were added to the ISS by Space Shuttles. In 2016 a Falcon 9 brought one module into space. The rest of the work was done by Russian rockets.
The ISS truly is an *international* Space Station.

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

PeterFree: He starts war in Syria and Ukraine, leaving a refugee crisis like Europe has never seen before, with raped women and crime now the norm in most EU countries. He shoots down a Russian military aircraft while on legitimate mission defining it's ally against terrorists, nearly starting world war He divides the US on racial lines leaving chaos in his wake. Then he tweets a quote from a great man to whom he is the polar opposite, and earns the praise of idiots across the world!

Obama did not do any of those things.
Get out of your Fox-bubble.
You will be amazed how different reality is from what you have been told.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

Reinhard136: One conspiracy theory goes that the likes of PETA and Sea Shepard are or have been infiltrated by False Flaggers out to make their causes look ridiculous. This case makes that sound more plausible. Makes it a lot easier to walk past their collectors in the street .....

I don't think PETA needs any help in looking ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

Majauskasson: Nasa publicity stunt. With all the satellites pointing all over the place Nasa can place itself in orbit with the moon in eclipse any time it wants and get clear space shots. Baffles over satellite lenses can get eclipse shots anytime. The eclipse happens constantly in relation to satellites and other points besides the odd "over the Earth" eclipses. Nasa keeps releasing these highly publicized events to keep the gullible masses hyped up. Using 1950's vintage planes is appropriate since the they are as old as the first young people who grew up during that first big lunar hoax, Apollo. Most people have figured out that great joke on humanity (Mars is the other one) but Nasa keeps going with these idiotic performances for the benefit of the remaining "true believers".

To believe Apollo was a hoax it is not enough to be stupid.
You also must be unwilling to educate yourself and you must be sure, that you are smarter than anybody else.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

Contra Mundum: "An Iñupiaq whaling crew cleans the hide of a polar bear that attacked their camp the previous day. Many Iñupiaq believe that declining sea ice has lead to these animals starving."

And many civilized people believe that savage killing has lead to declining wide life population.

Wow, that's stupid on so many levels.
In the US alone about 1 million(!) animals end up as roadkill.
Every day!
I could also talk about animals killed because of pollution, about empty seas because of industrial fishery, about cut down tropical forests and about a dozen other threats to wildlife.

But you think the "savages" are responsible for the declining wildlife population.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 14:36 UTC

In the US they love to incarcerate people. That’s why there are more people in prison in the US than in any other country in the world. (Talk about ‘Land of the free’).

So, I don’t think jail-time is necessary or appropriate. But of course, they should get a serious fine that really hurts.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 16:32 UTC as 55th comment
On article Photokina 2016: Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: Hasselblad would certainly win the beauty contest. But it just seems the Fuji is better developed, better priced, has better lenses and IMO, some better features. If it weren't for the fact Fuji was about to release their own system, they would most likely be making lenses for this Blad. The Blad lenses are slower, and the systems leaf shutters mean their lenses will remain slower. I prefer the way the Hasselblad looks, but the Fuji is the camera I will buy.

You are right, the Fuji really is an ugly beast.
However, looks aren’t everything.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 10:39 UTC
On article Lytro Immerge VR footage showcased for the first time (17 comments in total)
In reply to:

CopCarSS: So this is how NASA faked the moon landing? They did Lytro 47 years before Lytro? ;^)

@HB1969: I hope you are kidding, because all those conspiracy lunatics who are unwilling to learn and unwilling to accept facts really are a nuisance.

PS.: It’s embarrassing to ask “where are the stars” in a photography forum. Every photographer knows that even modern cameras don’t have enough dynamic range to capture a blazing bright foreground and tiny stars in a pitch black sky in the background in one shot.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 14:24 UTC
In reply to:

Nick8: 1 billion ???????

Or 120 $ per Image, sold to 500 different clients.
Which is not at all unreasonable.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

OvinceZ: Things blown out of proportion. How on earth can Highsmith justify damages of one billion dollars? This is the theater of the absurd.
She put her photos in the public domain and now has figured a way to sue for a huge sum of money. Gotta love photographers and lawyers. If anyone is going to get some money here it will be the lawyers.

According to Wikipedia Ms. Highsmith has donated her "life’s work of more than 100,000 images, royalty-free, to the Library of Congress" which has called her act “one of the greatest acts of generosity in the history of the Library.”

Getty illicitly is claiming rights to 18,755 of Ms. Highsmith's photographs.
LSC wanted to sell Ms. Highsmith her own picture for 120 $.
18,755 times 120 is 2.2 M. If Getty sold (what they did not own) 450 times, Getty profited 1 B.

Maybe they did not charge fees for each and every photo in the collection but on the other hand a license often is far more expensive than 120 $.
E.g. they try to license Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" (which is also in the public domain and can be used by everyone free of charge) for 5,000 $

Also the public could think that Ms. Highsmith tries to profit from her donation and that she's a hypocrite. So, Getty did damage Ms. Highsmith's reputation.

All in all, the 1 B. seem quite modest to me.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2016 at 10:35 UTC
In reply to:

stromaroma: Why didn't they use a hasselblad like last time they went to the moon? Oh wait, they didn't go to the moon, it was a hoax!

@stromaroma: I hope you are kidding.
The moon landings are a well-established fact. There's a ton of evidence.
Only very ignorant people think the moon landings were fake.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:43 UTC
On article Ona launches Clifton leather backpack (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

alcaher: I wish this company the worst with this new product and their other leather products... After all it seems they dont wish the best to all the innocent Cows and animals.

Cows are not innocent; they are vicious animals.
In fact, last year more people were killed by cows than by white sharks.
So, if cows are transformed into backpacks – they had it coming ;)

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 09:28 UTC
In reply to:

adengappasami: Dji is the only company that makes you get nice used drones at cheaper price if you learn to wait the right minimal time.

I an sure the 4 will be old by a year before they release 5. But now waiting to see the craigslist price drops of the 3 series.

Welcome news for those who were waiting to get the 3. Thanks Dji.

The Phantom 3 4K is really not the same as the Phantom 3 Pro.
The 4K uses WiFi, the Pro uses Lightbridge. Therefore the maximum distance is about 5 km for the Pro and about 1.2 km for the 4K.
Also Lightbridge is far more reliable.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 10:07 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2492 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bueche: After having done some pixel peeping, it's clear that not even Fuji know how to process their own x-trans files. Strange artefacts and 'worms' are all over the place and there's hardly any trace of what can be called 'details'. At pixel level, the images look like water paintings. This is even worse than x-trans I&II.

Check this Image (sample gallery, DPR).....

https://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/3383178.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWXD4UV3FXMIDQLQ&Expires=1453732410&Signature=ylP3bmjuRLqTQPAivOJJDBvbpyY%3D

What you are doing is ridiculous on many levels:

Firstly, you are looking for detail at 400%. That’s funny, but it’s not pixel peeping. It’s microscoping!
Secondly, you use a JPG-file. JPG-files have artefacts so you never know if some noise was created by the camera or by the JPG compression.
Thirdly, you choose some remote part of the picture which may or may not have been in the plain of focus.
And lastly, you don’t take into account that the lens may have had some effect on the picture quality.
If you were trying to do some serious testing – you failed.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 15:36 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2492 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: Whoa what happened these images are seriously horrible. Surely this can't be the true output from this camera can it ? My little walk around Nikon D 3300 with cheap kit lens destroys this Fuji and I only paid $499 for it. Something is wrong here I just can't image it really being that bad.

The first law of dpreview:
No matter what camera is tested, there are some people who claim, that this is the worst camera they have ever seen. Even their phone can take better pictures.

You can bet your live on that. It happens every time!

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2016 at 12:37 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2492 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raphot: I think it's tedious and futile to compare the X-pro2 to other mirrorless cameras and slate it because of its lower specs. I think it's basically a cutting-edge digital camera in a sturdy analogue body with an amazing amount of direct control,. As such it won't be suited for all purposes. For example, it won't be suited at all for sports photography despite its fast fps. But once you slow down and think about every shot, you'll start taking better pictures. At least that's what happened with me, I have an XT-1 and for me its the best camera I ever owned. I've been increasingly using it with vintage Leica R lenses and it's been an absolute joy.

@kforever
Wi-Fi is stable if the smartphone sits right next to the X-T1.
I tried do take some pictures of birds on a branch. (Wi-Fi could be amazing for this purpose.) The distance between camera and smartphone was about 4 meters and I lost connection every time after several minutes. (And yes, I did disable any kind of power saving.)

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

mosc: This shows the advantage Fuji has over Canon and Nikon in not selling a FF system. Fuji makes a much more reasonable APS-C telephoto compared to buying a heavier piece of FF glass and throwing away most of it's light mounting them on a D500 or 7D. Long APS-C glass is almost non-existent. Pentax has a couple lenses but even they seem to be switching back to FF. I doubt we'll see ANY new long (500mm+ equiv focal length) glass from them.

This lens shows how overpriced long m43 glass is too delivering the same focal range from a larger physical aperture for less money and similar weight on a format with higher resolution sensors.

I don't think this + a Fuji T1 is going to focus well enough for birders but if it did, it would make a lot more sense for shooting at 600mm than what they typically use.

Where is the advantage? I don't see it.
Canon's EF 100-400 mm (1st generation) is about the same size and the same weight. But it is FF!

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2016 at 08:26 UTC
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »