Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 1039, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1050 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Just try to use a small sensor + computational photography to blur the *foreground* to blur-out something you have to shoot through, like a fence or wire mesh. Can't be done because the information of what's behind the mesh just isn't available to the camera. I use this capability of large aperture lenses all the time. The last time was literally yesterday.

It doesn't know what's behind the objects, so it's just guessing. It's like content aware fill in PS. I've literally had objects that were entirely hidden behind objects become visible with sufficient aperture. In fact, I have an example of that on my site. The object was entirely hidden. How can Google recreate an object that was not in the original frame? Put an animal's eye behind the object and Google will put fur or feathers in the place of the eye.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2018 at 00:56 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1050 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Just try to use a small sensor + computational photography to blur the *foreground* to blur-out something you have to shoot through, like a fence or wire mesh. Can't be done because the information of what's behind the mesh just isn't available to the camera. I use this capability of large aperture lenses all the time. The last time was literally yesterday.

They had the fence through exactly no detail on the background! Shooting "something" means something that actually has some semblance of detail in it, not just a solid blue shirt or solid tan background. I could do that with a simple rubber stamp tool.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2018 at 00:12 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1050 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Just try to use a small sensor + computational photography to blur the *foreground* to blur-out something you have to shoot through, like a fence or wire mesh. Can't be done because the information of what's behind the mesh just isn't available to the camera. I use this capability of large aperture lenses all the time. The last time was literally yesterday.

Stupidly simple example, as Google always chooses.

Try looking through tight, reflective, hexagonal honeycomb:

https://flic.kr/p/24dvbE9

Or seeing something behind wire mesh with detail, like bird feathers or animal fur.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 14:07 UTC
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1050 comments in total)

Just try to use a small sensor + computational photography to blur the *foreground* to blur-out something you have to shoot through, like a fence or wire mesh. Can't be done because the information of what's behind the mesh just isn't available to the camera. I use this capability of large aperture lenses all the time. The last time was literally yesterday.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2018 at 15:14 UTC as 259th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

noisephotographer: The second camera can't be a 54mm equivalent camera because HTC's official specifications indicate that the second camera has a 1.85x higher equivalent focal length.

https://en.letsgodigital.org/smartphones/htc-u12-plus-camera-test/
https://www.htc.com/us/smartphones/htc-u12-plus/buy/

4.28mm and 6mm from the EXIF data
1.4 micron pixels and 1.0 micron pixels from HTC

4.28/1.4 = 3, 6/1.0 = 6. That's 2x (6/3) in resolving power.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2018 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

Boomanbb: Before someone comes on saying for the umpteenth time that they no longer use Lightroom because of blah blah blah, save your breath. This article is not for you.

"I have to admit I have never used the CC version, because I cannot imagine using the cloud to store anything I am editing."

The CC version does not require that. It's just the rental version of the same software - data is all still stored locally.

I won't use it because I have a personal aversion to renting anything and to monthly payments.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2018 at 11:51 UTC
In reply to:

Boomanbb: Before someone comes on saying for the umpteenth time that they no longer use Lightroom because of blah blah blah, save your breath. This article is not for you.

Okay, I'll just say I don't drink coffee, and so have never taken a coffee break.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 16:34 UTC
On article Crystal clear: Inside Nikon's Hikari Glass factory (94 comments in total)

Point 2 isn't technically correct. These are positive and negative RIs relative to the target, not in an absolute sense as the sentence implies.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 13:15 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Up to 10m (because light doesn't penetrate water well). But the ocean's average depth is over 3,000m, and that's the main reason we know so little - because it's so deep and dark (and huge), and therefore inaccessible to long-range sensors.

No, RADAR and SONAR are very different - radar uses EM waves that don't penetrate the water while sonar uses sound waves that do penetrate the water. We use trailing "fish" near the ocean bottom to get around the thermal situation and to improve resolution of the ocean floor, which is poor because sound waves have a long wavelength.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2018 at 12:56 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Still next to useless without focal length control, at least for me.

Did any of you read?

"But will smartphones replace traditional cameras?

For many, yes, absolutely."

Then the only mention about focal lengths was:

"Dual (or even triple) lens units give you the focal lengths of a camera body and two or more primes"

The primary go-to lenses for traditional work are the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Some add a 16-35/2.8. None of these smartphones, even the triple lens ones, can come close to replacing the power and flexibility of a set of zoom lenses like those. Period.

We use ILCs precisely so we can use different lenses and that's why computational photography is not applicable to "will smartphones replace traditional cameras" for enthusiasts and pros.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 16:35 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (448 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Still next to useless without focal length control, at least for me.

You think any of those clip on lenses can cover the range I regularly use (180° horizontal to 960mm equivalent) effectively, in all lighting conditions, all with zooms?

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 13:45 UTC
On article Why smartphone cameras are blowing our minds (448 comments in total)

Still next to useless without focal length control, at least for me.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 13:24 UTC as 149th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Up to 10m (because light doesn't penetrate water well). But the ocean's average depth is over 3,000m, and that's the main reason we know so little - because it's so deep and dark (and huge), and therefore inaccessible to long-range sensors.

Neither radar nor lasers penetrate the ocean. The ocean is most transparent to blue/violet light around 400nm, but even there the absorption is quite huge. The only electromagnetic radiation that penetrates water well is extremely low frequency which is why that's one way to communicate with submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#/media/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 13:19 UTC

Up to 10m (because light doesn't penetrate water well). But the ocean's average depth is over 3,000m, and that's the main reason we know so little - because it's so deep and dark (and huge), and therefore inaccessible to long-range sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2018 at 19:02 UTC as 18th comment | 7 replies

The one and only reason I would upgrade my still-working phone is if the phone camera could replace my pocket compact. And the only way it could do that if its focal length range could approximately match that of my pocket compact (24-105 equivalent).

I don't care a bit if the image quality is better at 28mm - my Galaxy S5 is plenty good there, in good light. But a Pixel 2 is just as useless at 100mm as my S5 is.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 16:23 UTC as 97th comment | 2 replies

I already have that tool It's an assembly language instruction that goes by "NOP".

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 20:59 UTC as 9th comment

Finally someone besides ASUS has made a phone with actual modest optical zoom in a decent phone. Hopefully this will lead to a trend that will ultimately allow me to leave my pocket compact out of my pocket some day.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2018 at 14:52 UTC as 68th comment
On article Alien Skin Exposure X3 review (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "On the other hand, it means the metadata and edits don’t live with the image files. " (About Lightroom).

This isn't necessarily true. You can save almost all the metadata out to the files in LR, and you can even have it do it automatically (Edit - Catalog settings - Metadata tab - Automatically write changes into XMP).

In this way, your edits and most metadata are written to either the images files or to sidecar files in the case of proprietary raw files.

If you import those files into a new catalog (or someone else imports them to their catalog), they'll have the edits and metadata for those files already in LR's catalog.

You only lose two things if you let your subscription expire - Develop and Map. In fact, you can download and use everything else in LR for free right now even if you never subscribe.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 20:07 UTC
On article Alien Skin Exposure X3 review (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "On the other hand, it means the metadata and edits don’t live with the image files. " (About Lightroom).

This isn't necessarily true. You can save almost all the metadata out to the files in LR, and you can even have it do it automatically (Edit - Catalog settings - Metadata tab - Automatically write changes into XMP).

In this way, your edits and most metadata are written to either the images files or to sidecar files in the case of proprietary raw files.

If you import those files into a new catalog (or someone else imports them to their catalog), they'll have the edits and metadata for those files already in LR's catalog.

Your catalog is not your photo library. It does not contain your photos.

If they remove LR tomorrow, no problem, I own a perpetual license. If somehow I lose that, I can always export processed versions of my processed images if I want them and either way I still have my originals.

It sounds like you don't understand the cataloging system. It's just a database that stores metadata about your images thus making fast searches across the entire image library possible. It doesn't affect your images at all.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 07:14 UTC
On article Alien Skin Exposure X3 review (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "On the other hand, it means the metadata and edits don’t live with the image files. " (About Lightroom).

This isn't necessarily true. You can save almost all the metadata out to the files in LR, and you can even have it do it automatically (Edit - Catalog settings - Metadata tab - Automatically write changes into XMP).

In this way, your edits and most metadata are written to either the images files or to sidecar files in the case of proprietary raw files.

If you import those files into a new catalog (or someone else imports them to their catalog), they'll have the edits and metadata for those files already in LR's catalog.

A backup on the same machine or, worse, on the same drive isn't a backup.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 23:09 UTC
Total: 1039, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »