Lee Jay

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

Comments

Total: 829, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

AstroStan: As regards Bayer and astro-imaging (the following is of little or no interest to general photographers):

For serious astro-imagers there are additional problems and failures of Bayer not mentioned in the article. For example, non-terrestrial colors of astro-objects are poorly rendered by the Bayer filters. Green is arguably the least interesting astro color (esp for pretty pics) but green is over-represented by Bayer to the detriment of red (very significant Hydrogen-Alpha nebula emission). The Bayer filters themselves are absorption dyes with poor transmission and non-optimal passbands compared to optimised interference or dichroic astro-filters. The permanent Bayer filters virtually preclude science grade narrow band filters. There are other important issues but not enough space here to go into further detail.

Bayer is OK for casual nightscape/starscape using camera lenses or small fast scope but Bayer is poisonous for deep space imaging via real scopes.

Bayer doesn't do too bad for planetary imaging also.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 16:21 UTC

This is a really good article, but I would have liked to see a discussion about both types of dichroic filter approaches to solving this problem (multiple sensors, and filters at the pixel level) to make it more complete.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 60th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Simple - if I could only have one focal length for the rest of my life, I'd give up photography as a hobby.

Been married for a long time. An individual isn't one-dimensional the way a single prime lens is.

I have nothing against primes, as long as you have many of them. I used to have many, but zooms and sensors have improved to the point where I sold all but one of my primes (and then bought a different one so I have two now).

Focal length range is a HUGE deal to me. My basic carry-everywhere kit includes 180° horizontal fisheye through 640mm equivalent with no gaps. My total range goes much longer than that, out to something like 9,000mm equivalent before cropping in post.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 18:16 UTC

Simple - if I could only have one focal length for the rest of my life, I'd give up photography as a hobby.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 14:54 UTC as 161st comment | 3 replies

Good article, and I pretty much agree with everything except the part about dynamic range.

I much, much more often struggle with dynamic range in low light than in bright light. This is for two reasons:

- Low-light tends to be high-contrast light (dark, unlit areas contrasting with areas lit by spot lights or the lights themselves are in the scene).
- Cameras have much reduced DR at high ISO than at low ISO.

In other words, fitting a high-contrast scene into the 7 stops of DR I might have at ISO 6400 is way harder than fitting a modestly-high-contrast scene into the 12+ stops of DR I might have at ISO 100.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:08 UTC as 330th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (391 comments in total)

My first camera was a Canon AE-1 kit with 50/1.8. Having one focal length drove me crazy so I quickly bought a 28/2.8 and a 70-210.

My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-120. I used a friend's DC-50 before that.

My first "real" digital camera was the Nikon Coolpix 950 with both afocal adapters (wide and tele) giving me a range of something like 24-210.

My first digital SLR was the Canon 10D.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 13:15 UTC as 246th comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (891 comments in total)

The lag and visual artifacts of an EVF makes one just about unusable to me for almost everything I do. Plus, I can't see a reason NOT to have an SLR which is the only way to have both a true TTL-OVF and an EVF of either type (LCD or eye-level) in the same camera. I have that now and use a Hoodman to turn my 7D Mark II into an eye-level EVF camera for shooting video. But the second I switch away from video, I remove the Hoodman and revert to shooting through the OVF because it's so vastly superior to any EVF I've ever tried. I do use the LCD to compose in certain, edge-cases like when the camera is mounted to my telescope and the viewfinder is inaccessible.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 20:59 UTC as 237th comment
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very cool, but there's a little piece of this that's really unfortunate. But 99% of people (at least) would never notice.

Because of the frame-rate he used, the aliasing caused every one of the wind turbines to be rotating backwards.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 17:25 UTC
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)

Very cool, but there's a little piece of this that's really unfortunate. But 99% of people (at least) would never notice.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:36 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies

I don't get it. They formed a big grid and a little smiley face, and basically did nothing.

The Intel ones at the Superbowl and Disney were orders of magnitude better.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 16:27 UTC as 31st comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with the Canon EOS 77D (449 comments in total)
In reply to:

paulfulper: No more mirror cameras , there is no reason whatsoever to use mirror with digital , it makes cameras giant and obsolete .... and more expensive.

Until EVFs stop sucking, I'll be buying cameras with OVFs.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 15:08 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I sort of have one made from 78,400.

I have a piece of this, in 1/4", that's 70" x 70" (it's actually 4 35"x35" sheets put together):

http://www.plascore.com/honeycomb/honeycomb-cores/thermoplastic/pc2-polycarbonate-honeycomb/

Well. We made two, actually. Now we're making a third, but different.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 01:34 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I sort of have one made from 78,400.

I have a piece of this, in 1/4", that's 70" x 70" (it's actually 4 35"x35" sheets put together):

http://www.plascore.com/honeycomb/honeycomb-cores/thermoplastic/pc2-polycarbonate-honeycomb/

No....take a look.

https://flic.kr/p/GDS7qX
https://flic.kr/p/HutPW6
https://flic.kr/p/GyTkR3

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2017 at 18:59 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I sort of have one made from 78,400.

I have a piece of this, in 1/4", that's 70" x 70" (it's actually 4 35"x35" sheets put together):

http://www.plascore.com/honeycomb/honeycomb-cores/thermoplastic/pc2-polycarbonate-honeycomb/

It isn't a camera, just the same type of material.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)

I sort of have one made from 78,400.

I have a piece of this, in 1/4", that's 70" x 70" (it's actually 4 35"x35" sheets put together):

http://www.plascore.com/honeycomb/honeycomb-cores/thermoplastic/pc2-polycarbonate-honeycomb/

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 18:29 UTC as 37th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

peterwr: The 4.1Mp 995 was the end of the line, if memory serves. Man, I *wanted* one of those, but by the time I could afford it, it was out of production.

The swivelling lens unit was a work of genius. I wish Nikon would make an updated version. An 8Mp version with a 2/3" chip and a 3" screen would do nicely.

Nope.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cp4500

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 00:42 UTC

My first really decent digital camera. I had both afocal lenses for it which, IIRC gave it a range of 24-210 equivalent.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 00:41 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, taking a 50mm equivalent only is like eating the same food for every meal of the trip. I did it for 13 years when I started with film. Never again.

My travel range is 180° fisheye through (usually) 640mm equivalent (sometimes 216mm, 400mm or 960mm, depending on where I'm going), and it's very common for me to use all of it in a single day.

It isn't very big. All of it fits in a ThinkTank ChangeUp, which allows me to distribute the weight over both of my shoulders and both of my hips at the same time.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 02:56 UTC

To me, taking a 50mm equivalent only is like eating the same food for every meal of the trip. I did it for 13 years when I started with film. Never again.

My travel range is 180° fisheye through (usually) 640mm equivalent (sometimes 216mm, 400mm or 960mm, depending on where I'm going), and it's very common for me to use all of it in a single day.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 17:53 UTC as 94th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

junk1: Is this any more reckless than people playing baseball in a neighborhood? Ever get hit by a baseball in the head? Or imagine what a baseball could do to a window or siding. Would we charge the person with reckless endangerment? I'd rather have a drone hit me than a baseball "line drive".

Not really. Some very, very simple rules (which this idiot wasn't following) are all that is needed. Of all the things that threaten my kids, this is the last one on the list as far as actual danger, and we participate in high-performance R/C events with vehicles that actually are capable of hurting or killing people upwards of 50 pounds and 200mph or 120 pounds and 110mph).

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:48 UTC
Total: 829, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »