John Bean (UK)

Lives in United Kingdom Waterfoot, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 29, 2003

Comments

Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tape5: To call something visible one has to appreciate what "visibility" means. For something to be visible, the human eye must be capable of seeing "reflected" light from a thing, and not "emitted" light.
Since the human eye can only see the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation and the size of an atom is way too small to interact with the visible photons, only the following conclusion can be reached :
An atom is not visible, ever, under any circumstances with any tech trickery.

It is like claiming that a torchlight is visible five miles away with naked eye. The claim would be true if you could see the torchlight when turned off by the visible light reflected from its surface and not when turned on and emitting light. In the latter case you cannot claim to have seen the torchlight.

The whole claim then is that a single atom has been trapped, and stimulated with photons. The atom then throws its own photons back at us.

But this has been done before.

Tape5 said "people who do not really understand physics..." in a reply to me. I just thought I'd mention that although now retired my qualifications are in... physics. People who do not really understand much of anything often jump to (wrong) conclusions without testing their hypotheses.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Tape5: To call something visible one has to appreciate what "visibility" means. For something to be visible, the human eye must be capable of seeing "reflected" light from a thing, and not "emitted" light.
Since the human eye can only see the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation and the size of an atom is way too small to interact with the visible photons, only the following conclusion can be reached :
An atom is not visible, ever, under any circumstances with any tech trickery.

It is like claiming that a torchlight is visible five miles away with naked eye. The claim would be true if you could see the torchlight when turned off by the visible light reflected from its surface and not when turned on and emitting light. In the latter case you cannot claim to have seen the torchlight.

The whole claim then is that a single atom has been trapped, and stimulated with photons. The atom then throws its own photons back at us.

But this has been done before.

'For something to be visible, the human eye must be capable of seeing "reflected" light from a thing, and not "emitted" light. '

Hmm. I often wondered whether the sun and stars were really visible to the human eye. Apparently they're not, according to your assertion.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2018 at 09:46 UTC
In reply to:

janist74: No offence, but as I see it, the "IPhone is the best tool for me" originates mostly from laziness.

Is the most important aspect of photography to fast share the photos on internet?

If not, then even an old RX100 would give you more possibilities and technically better photos, in a marginally bigger package. But then yes, you need some extra steps to post your images...

Good luck making a phone call with it, or checking your email, or... Well, you get the drift.

The real argument in favour of the phone camera is that you always have it with you anyway, for many reasons other than photography.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 16:14 UTC

Unnecessary ad hominem attacks on the photographer or for that matter on his work; *you* might not like the pictures, others (like me) will find them interesting.

That said I'm getting tired of all the "all you need is a NEW iPhone" ads posing as articles* these days on DPR.

* paid or unpaid they're still ads for Apple.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 15:40 UTC as 269th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Retzius: I need this for posting unboxing videos to youtube

How about 'Unboxing Schrodinger's cat"? Ticks an extra box...

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

Alex Permit: I wouldn’t call 110 volts a “shock”. Its more of an annoyance. I’ve been “shocked” with 110 volts dozens of times. Unless you wet your hands and grab each pole by a seperate hand (sending the current through your heart) you will be fine. In any event, good to see Fuji doing the right thing.

220 volts is another story. I have been shocked with 220 volts. That will really wake you up :).

For power sources the amount of current delivered into a resistive load is directly proportional to the voltage applied (Ohm's law) so it's not true to say it's not the voltage that matters since the two are very closely related.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2018 at 09:41 UTC
In reply to:

eyeport: I have heard too many good things about huawei phones....but I am still skeptical about android devices because of my horrible experience with Sony Xperia phones...they are just so darn slow after a few month of use.

True. I have a cheap Umidigi Z phone running plain Android 7 and a Samsung Tab S2 tablet running Samsung's Android 7. The cheap phone works perfectly, the much more expensive tablet is buggy, lacks many features like scdeen casting and has memory management problems that need a reboot to resolve. And that's without even considering the annoying changes to the user interface.

I like the tablet's hardware but when the time comes its replacement won't be Samsung.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:24 UTC
In reply to:

AWG_Pics: If we combine these thin metal lenses, with mirrorless and wireless tech, we will soon be able to reach into a pocket, pull out a metal disc, about the diameter of a skoal can, and take amazingly rich photos of our cats.

If you want the your photo assistant to actually understand what you want I would suggest an alternative implant from Amazon or Google rather than Apple ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 11:51 UTC
On article Sony releases silver version of the popular a6300 (211 comments in total)
In reply to:

justmeMN: Didn't the Sony 16-50mm get a DPR award for Worst Kit Lens? :-)

Yep. I have an excellent 16-70 and a good 16-50 that took only three attempts to find - the first two were dire. Maybe it was just third-time lucky :-)

The 16-50 image quality is not really up with the 16-70 but it's not at all bad. It's also tiny, weighs practically nothing, and cost next to nothing into the bargain. I like both, in their own ways.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

AWG_Pics: If we combine these thin metal lenses, with mirrorless and wireless tech, we will soon be able to reach into a pocket, pull out a metal disc, about the diameter of a skoal can, and take amazingly rich photos of our cats.

Meta-lens, not metal lens. The cats won't care though ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2018 at 09:08 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (383 comments in total)

I agree to some extent with many of the critics of the article and disagree with much of its content, but I also have respect for the the author's right to express those opinions.

There are times that making no comment at all is far more telling than posting negative - and sometimes offensive - ad hominem attacks on the author for daring to show some enthusiasm.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 14:08 UTC as 39th comment
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

Slapstick Noir: No matter how fast it is, the interface, the OS, and the mouse/keyboard are an awful experience. Going full screen is still a novelty, and it's accompanied by a ridiculous animation which can't be turned off. Browsing in finder is an experience which reminds me of the early windows, circa mid-90's: can't go back and forth with the mouse, you have to click everything, unless you use their comically small, and awfully uncomfortable touch mouse which sometimes works, but sometimes - doesn't. The keyboard is like something made by aliens - it's like a flipped copy of a normal layout and it feels upside down even after you get use to it - imagine if you swap Alt and Ctrl...
Windows allows you to change the looks and behavior - you can literally tweak everything. With the Mac you can't even delete files without going through the thrash bin, because apple cares for you... Can't change the height of the monitor, and it's 27" is not enough for a high-end machine.

But it matches your iPhone...

"With the Mac you can't even delete files without going through the thrash bin"

Strange, because I do this all the time - and until a couple of weeks ago I had never used a Mac so I'm cerainly no Mac expert :-)

Lots of misinformation gets put out there in the Mac-Windows wars - from both sides, I might add.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:14 UTC
On article A fully loaded iMac Pro will cost you $13,200 (572 comments in total)
In reply to:

gehairing: Seem's to be a superb machine !
I have bought an 27" Retina iMac 1 and a half year ago to replace my MacBook 15" Retina. The screen and all in one integration was the reason. But my iMac is slower than the MacBook. That was a surprise for me.
So i'm now tempted by a faster model. But i think i'll definitly don't give my money again to Apple. Mainly due to the reason they earn so much money and don't want to pay his taxes here in France (same in other european countries).

I recently bought an iMac and the sluggishness is largely down to the slow internal HD it uses. As a cheap experiment I cloned the internal disk to a small SSD in an external USB 3 case I had lying around and booted from that instead. The difference was jaw dropping.

Worth a look... :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 09:36 UTC
In reply to:

ravikiran532: Gadgets and Cameraa in same sentence ..Oh wooww

A camera is listed in a list of "gadgets". Well it means TIME is not seeing Sony a7R III as a professional equipment but as a flaunting device ..( if one looks at the list all products are for flaunting only )

Or in TV studios everywhere... unless all those TV cameras and associated gear are just "gadgets" and not "real" cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 19:59 UTC
In reply to:

Edymagno: If MkIII had a dual-axis articulating screen, it could have approached perfection for me. Too bad it is a must have for me.

And a complete turn off for me.

Fully articulated screens are like Marmite - either love them (you) or hate them (me). The only thing worse (for me, of course) is a fixed screen; I'll take tilting screens every time.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 19:54 UTC
On article The Leica CL is (almost) what the TL should have been (424 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biowizard: SERIOUS TECHNICAL POINT: quote "... 18mm F2.8 pancake, ... and the ~F4 aperture (in 35mm terms) limits ..."

No, the F rating does NOT undergo some weird "crop factor" division. F2.8 is F2.8, and never F4 or F anything else. Because it's a ratio of Focal Length divided by Lens Optical Diameter, and has nothing to do with frame size.

Jus' sayin'

Brian

Done to death, but here goes anyway. The exposure (light per unit area) doesn't change but the exposure (total light falling on sensor) certainly does. The former is what the meter reads and the latter is what influences things like image noise.

As Richard rightly said, the equivalence is demonstably true.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 10:02 UTC
In reply to:

wolfloid: I don't think DPR should become an advertising site for all Kickstarter scams. How about some intelligent filtering?

Scam is probably the wrong word - they will quite probably deliver the promised camera if enough people think it's worth the asking price.

That's a big "if' though...

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 14:30 UTC

"a clickless manual focusing ring"

Now why don't they all adopt this? Oh, wait... :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 11:05 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

BobT3218: Looks like Adobe are trying to make their cloud thingy a little more palatable. Not much good for me. I've only got about 5Mbps.

5Mbps? Luxury!

Despite living within eyeshot of a fibre cabinet it doesn't serve my address; as I live about three miles from the telephone exchange I'm lucky to get 3Mbps download and 800kbps upload. Cloud computing and storage is a bad joke for me.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 08:17 UTC

Nice one Barney. Naturally you will soon become a whiskery old salt yourself - you're (at least) half way there already :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:33 UTC as 155th comment
Total: 295, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »