Dan Tong

Lives in United States Chicago, United States
Works as a Computer Consultant, Photographer
Joined on Jan 3, 2003
About me:

Olympus 2100UZ
Minolta Dimage 7i
Canon S400
Canon EOS 300D


Total: 223, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

I would be far more interested in getting the 3D model data than to have the figurine. That way you could use your own 3D software (e.g. Maya, AutoCAD3D, or even the free DAZ Studio, Maya etc.) to modify the pose of your character, use the character in a virtual environment of your choosing, and even make a CG movie.

At some point when higher res 3D printing becomes more affordable you could at that point create a mannequin. This would of course assume, that the 3D data is in some standard form, that you could import into your 3D software program.

PS Check out the technology in DAZ Studio which is free (Windows or Mac)

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 21:56 UTC as 10th comment
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Back in the good old days of rocket research, we used to rely on a high fps rate camera called a GSAP to study rocket engine firings. It's total running time was a matter of seconds. It cost a fortune then.

Now there may be one for less than $700? What possible use can an amateur
photographer have for such a device once he has taken a picture of a hummingbird in flight or a bullet shattering a light bulb? It's a marvelous achievement in price vs. performance, but it's long term use to the average photographer will be in bragging rights only.

Someone said he'd pick one up in a heart beat. And do what with it? Do you have any idea how quickly it will fill a 32GB card at 18.500 fps @ 2560 x 2048 pixels per image? I would imagine we are talking in terms of seconds.

It has a profound scientific future and I cheer for the inventor, but aside from that who in amateur photography needs it? Who will want one is another matter.

Some people may use it for Art !

I have seen some amazing photos with swirls of water and splashes that was truly beautiful superimposed on dancers for example.

One should never underestimate artistic creativity.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 19:01 UTC
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

chewdoggydog: These dummies with all the negative bs...sdaniella, if you are so damn smart, go work for NASA.


Good for you. We need more people who are curious and know how to use their brains, and we especially need women to show youngsters, that when it comes to creativity, brains etc. females are every bit as capable as males!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:58 UTC
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: What we should be striving for is 240 fps video on true 240 fps monitors. The result would simply blow you away.

You are confusing spatial resolution with temporal. The visual system does not change with improvements in technology.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:51 UTC
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

MediaDigitalVideo: What it the best relation between number of fps and shutterspeed to get the best quality out of every videoframe.

For one, amount of light is a major factor since with very short exposures, you get less light.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:49 UTC
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

MediaDigitalVideo: Are those camera's gona be used at the next Olympic Games at the finish line :) ?

Single shot is fine when you can trigger the time of the shot, but not when you want to see a sequence such as water balloon, or some other event. With multiple frame (video) you are guaranteed the ability to pick the most interesting set of frames even if you just want a single frame. Hence, for many applications the multiple frames of video are a better choice of tool. You can always not use multi frame if you wish, but a single shot device does not give you a choice.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:47 UTC
On article Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps (137 comments in total)

Excellent presentation without any BS, or eardrum shattering loud crappy music. Just the facts.

I also think it is very well designed from the customer viewpoint:

1. Use your own lens
2. Power supply is easily available standard USB type battery / charger
3. LCD screen is built in
4. Various models available with increasing pixel and speed resolution to fit the buye's needs and budget.

Overall an excellent idea, design, and marketing.


Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:43 UTC as 4th comment
On article ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced (53 comments in total)

I had used an earlier version of the basic ACDSee image managers but got sufficiently annoyed because they would not update their RAW converters database once a newer version became available, making the one I purchased useless for working with newer cameras.

The RAW converter updates were freely available to download but would not work with the no longer freshest version. It was not a technical compatibility issue, but a business decision.

Sure I probably could have used the free Adobe DNG but that would have involved a lot more time.

It turns out that programs such as the excellent free FastStone Image Viewer/Manager (or XNView) continuously upgrade their RAW converters so you can always view RAW images from the newest cameras.

FastStone is extremely fast, with a great interface and does some very good basic image editing. I would rather donate money to these programs than to keep having to purchase ACDSee annually or purchase a subscription.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 21:03 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

DonnaRead54: While the law may be on Wikipedia's side, the goodwill certainly isn't. The photographer made the trip to Indonesia, took his gear, found the monkey and almost lost the camera. Without the photographer, Wiki wouldn't have jack. How rude! And l_d_allan has an excellent point! Do photos taken using a motion trap not count as copyrighted material either? After all, the photographer didn't 'really' take the shot. And to cite NG as an example is dead on! I'm surprised at the lack of integrity that Wiki showed us here.

Not Wikipedia!!

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

audiobomber: The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.

Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.

It's Wikimedia, not Wikipedia -you might want to correct your comment.

"The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is an American non-profit and charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California, that operates many wikis. The foundation is mostly known for hosting Wikipedia, an Internet encyclopedia which ranks in the top-ten most-visited websites worldwide;[5] as well as Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, Wikimedia Incubator, and Meta-Wiki. It also owned the now-defunct Nupedia."

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:55 UTC

Wikimedia is just another greedy bunch of &*()#$E#$.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:50 UTC as 224th comment | 2 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review (901 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.
Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.

First of all the video may not be as good with the DSLR's


Second a really good 18-200 will be very expensive and certainly slower and probably of lower quality.

However, for still pictures I would have to agree with you, the APS-C stills will be much better quality and low light sensitivity will be incomparably better.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:35 UTC
On article Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits (112 comments in total)

A quick query about small, high quality video heads, that would fit these lighter travel tripods.

Has anyone had any experience with such video heads for a camera such as the Panasonic GH3 or GH4 which weighs under 0.68 kg (1.5 lbs) with a zoom lens ?


Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:26 UTC as 13th comment
On article Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits (112 comments in total)

An excellent review far more detailed and professional than the usual DPreview job.

I had purchased a heavy duty aluminum Gitzo tripod and the concentric leg locks took more time and effort to set than the lever locks that I kept seeing.

I envied the Manfrotto lever leg locks, until the plastic leg locks on a cheaper Manfrotto tripod broke and the tripod became totally useless and pretty much un-repairable. It got very little use and I'm guessing age was the primary cause. I had another cheap no name tripod fail the same way, although it lasted a much much longer than the Manfrotto. Now I understand why the concentric locking mechanism (almost always metal) is far superior even though, without fast screwing feature, it takes longer to tighten and loosen.

I would personally always stay away from any lever locking tripods and I now fully appreciate the Gitzo concentric metal leg locking mechanism.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:20 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On article Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Very welcome review, since it tries to make a measurable comparison, finally. I have read also a German article on a similar comparison of Feisol, Manfrotto and Gitzo Tripods through a laser pointer mounted on the tripod. I would like to suggest to share more details, so that anyone could make a similar comparison:
1. Shape of the aluminum block and the way it and the ipad are mounted.
2. data on solenoid hammer - power rating, core weight, voltage, etc.
3. Where exactly the vibration is applied - mm-s from the ground.
4. Name the seismometer app used.
5. Try spikes, extend column, etc. A photograph of the setup is very very welcome.
In fact DPReview can end the "endless" and meaningless increase of the weight rating by manufacturers by setting standards for tests!

Your review is excellent, very detailed and very much appreciated. I only have one suggestion that would make it even better.

It would be EXTREMELY useful to have a single graph summarizing the vibration tests. It's very difficult to make the comparison otherwise (one would have to flip back and forth between each graph). For example you could normalize the some of the values (perhaps averaged over a standard time period) and then present it all in a bar graph with different colors for each brand of tripod. Because these measurements are very unfamiliar to just about everyone, the values do not have much meaning to most photographers, hence the need for RELATIVE comparisons.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:09 UTC
On article CreativeLive to host free one-day event with Art Wolfe (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaykumarr: I am not able to see this live video.. will it be of great quality when i try after payment?

Absolutely fantastic HD quality streaming and you can download it.
The content is superb and pedagogically far better than just about any video seminar I have watched.

Don't listen to the naysayers, who talk big and when you look at their images, you realize they have never learned much about anything except being negative.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 00:45 UTC
On article CreativeLive to host free one-day event with Art Wolfe (33 comments in total)

It's excellent and here's a photographer who isn't limited to landscapes only, but follows his inspiration to any place it takes him.

Because Art Wolfe always views photos from the point of view of the general purpose graphic artist, and far less about technical details I found these tutorials far more helpful than other's I have viewed.

I also thought that the critiques of student work was especially good, even if some have commented that it is somewhat repetitious. It is repetitious because students keep making the same goofy things (lack of dominant subject leadingto too many competing objects and areas, poor framing etc.)

I highly recommend this incredibly great video seminar! Absolutely worth $49 to purchase or $59 without the special discount. I purchased it.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 00:42 UTC as 3rd comment
On article A GoPro Hero's journey into a dishwasher (167 comments in total)


Wow, fantastic!
Great job, perfect exposure, framing, casting etc.

I never knew how these things worked.
Congratulations to you. Inquiring minds work in creative ways.

Hope this does not invalidate your GoPro warranty. Maybe they would like to license it from you and use it for promotional work.

Perhaps you could use a more catchy title like:

COMING CLEAN - The Inside Story

Thanks it's wonderful!


Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 19:51 UTC as 32nd comment

Great stuff and the video is very pretty too!

Link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 19:25 UTC as 14th comment
On article Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future (142 comments in total)

Interesting as usual, especially the idea of light field microscopy to compute three dimensional volumes of tiny transparent things, as well as use in video in the future.

iBut beware of the always negative, thoughtless..let's be honest, the stupidly unimaginative, commentary -almost always from people who don't understand the idea of lightfield imaging in the first place.

It wasn't that long ago that a hot shot engineer on dpreview said that based on his calculations sensor based stabilization would never work with larger sensors (APS C or Full frame), or the shortsighted people who thought that adding video to a still camera was a total waste of time and nobody would be much interested in it.

Why is it that if people are not interested in something, or some feature of a new camera, then they think that no one else could possibly be interested?

Perhaps others can add some additional technology that was believed to be just another useless waste of time...

Link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 05:44 UTC as 38th comment
Total: 223, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »