chaos215bar2

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 145, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

beavertown: When will Apple release one too?

Technically speaking, the Thunderbolt 3 ports double as USB 3.1 ports (or vice versa). They're two entirely different protocols that just happen to use the same port out of convenience.

Also, this drive is USB 3.1 Gen 2, so 10 Gb/s, not 5 GB/s (which, though I know you didn't mean it that way, is actually 40 Gb/s — bytes vs. bits and all).

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 07:11 UTC
In reply to:

chaos215bar2: This is a very interesting lens indeed, but I don't think you actually understand the implications of the mechanical designs of either this lens or traditional "modern" zooms. In fact, you seem to have things quite reversed.

Starting with traditional (or "modern") zoom lenses, the lens groups *do not* necessarily need to track along a true helicoid. The inner barrel that the groups track along actually forms a cylindrical cam, and the tracks absolutely do not need to be linear or maintain any kind of a fixed ratio between moving groups. I certainly haven't torn open many lenses to have a look, but I would suspect this is the key to many modern, high quality zoom lens designs.

It's probably also worth noting that with the increasingly prevalent focus-by-wire lenses, of course, any groups hooked up to the AF motor(s) can do pretty much whatever the lens and camera software see fit to have them do.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

chaos215bar2: This is a very interesting lens indeed, but I don't think you actually understand the implications of the mechanical designs of either this lens or traditional "modern" zooms. In fact, you seem to have things quite reversed.

Starting with traditional (or "modern") zoom lenses, the lens groups *do not* necessarily need to track along a true helicoid. The inner barrel that the groups track along actually forms a cylindrical cam, and the tracks absolutely do not need to be linear or maintain any kind of a fixed ratio between moving groups. I certainly haven't torn open many lenses to have a look, but I would suspect this is the key to many modern, high quality zoom lens designs.

However, a gearbox like the one you claim this lens uses, with no cams or other nonlinear devices, *must* in fact move all of the lens elements in a fixed ratio to one another. Now, it may well be that the gearbox design allowed this lens to operate in ways that a traditional zoom design couldn't (for instance, allowing both the focus and zoom controls to move certain groups in concert), but the mechanism you describe cannot operate in the manner you're implying.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 21:42 UTC

This is a very interesting lens indeed, but I don't think you actually understand the implications of the mechanical designs of either this lens or traditional "modern" zooms. In fact, you seem to have things quite reversed.

Starting with traditional (or "modern") zoom lenses, the lens groups *do not* necessarily need to track along a true helicoid. The inner barrel that the groups track along actually forms a cylindrical cam, and the tracks absolutely do not need to be linear or maintain any kind of a fixed ratio between moving groups. I certainly haven't torn open many lenses to have a look, but I would suspect this is the key to many modern, high quality zoom lens designs.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 60th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Stephen McDonald: Why are photographers allowed to charge money and enforce copyright restrictions, on images taken in public places?

Why are reporters allowed to charge money and enforce copyright restrictions, on articles written about public places?

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 00:22 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: Why oh why do so many photographers insist on annoying people. It's hard to enjoy a concert with with them getting in the eye-line. Meh!

This has nothing to do with rules against photographers getting in the way, blocking people's view, etc., and the comparisons to intentionally and obnoxiously loud vehicles (which should be illegal in residential areas, IMHO) are irrelevant. This is about the blanket ban on "professional" photography equipment, including a whole swath of devices which could easily be used in a fashion that doesn't interfere in any way with other people's enjoyment of the concert.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Bambi24: "fine art photographs"

Oh god, this again, stop trying to glamorize photographs into something they're not. These attempts to form a wedge between the photography community to try to distance oneself from others with overprocessed and garish looking photographs reeks of desperation. They are awful overprocessed shots, just looking through them is an assault on my senses.

There are some in the collection I would call over-processed, but they're always alternate versions of a photo that's available in a much more natural form.

Most of them look quite conservative to me in terms of processing style. There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of dynamic range compression, local tone-mapping, or anything else going on beyond pretty standard color correction and of course all the work that goes into stitching a seamless image out of tens or hundreds of parts.

Actually, I think a number of the images could do with more dynamic range to avoid blowing out the highlights, though that's probably an artifact of the camera used and not wanting to further complicate things with multiple exposures per shooting direction. It's bad enough taking 100+ individual shots in changing light. Doubling or tripling that seems insane.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 21:25 UTC

So, has there been any further clarification on what's meant by a "holographic" display? Clearly we're not talking full light-field display (that's quite a ways off for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the bandwidth you'd need to drive it), which is what a true holographic display would be, so what *are* we talking about?

It's a little frustrating to see one media outlet after another repeating RED's use of the word "holographic" without even momentarily stoping to consider what that actually means.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 18:25 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

biza43: Don't understand all the fuss really. I have been doing this for years now at several airports, where it is required to place electronic gear in individual bins. Not a problem to me.

Most here, as you say it, understand that this is a huge inconvenience with no return. Do you honestly think the TSA screener would even be able to see the difference if someone carefully replaced their batteries with explosives of similar density? (And of course no one could ever simply short the battery out with a small nail to start a lithium fire.)

This is what chemical sniffers and — much more importantly — all the intelligence work that goes into discovering this kind of plot before it happens are for. Even the TSA itself admits that much of what they do is of little value by having an entire program dedicated to allowing people to skip these parts of the screening.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Much ado about nothing, really. If taking out your camera gear at an airport is one of your life's problems, you can consider yourself lucky.

Ahh, the classic "nothing matters because someone else always has it worse" argument (a.k.a. "first world problems"). I hate to think what the world would be like if everyone thought that way.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 20:50 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron801: Why am I not surprised? It seems very clear to me that the MO of this administration is to tightly control the information that gets out to people. If the president doesn't like the idea of some ugly truth getting out, he's going to do everything that he can so that it doesn't... Free access to information is not a high priority here...

So confiscate the cameras. Requiring photos to be deleted on the spot is still illegal.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 20:18 UTC

Celebrate for sharpness!

(Also calibrate. That's good too.)

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 16:02 UTC as 19th comment
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

Impulses: DJI should've stuck to FAA zones for consumer products and either not applied the same firmware to higher end pro grade drones or simply applied a one time Part 107 verification, that email runaround is ludicrous.

Brendan, the fundamental complaint is that you don't *need* anything. Legally, this is not DJI's responsibility; it's the operator's. No one is placing these requirements upon DJI except itself.

Now, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with geofencing on a fundamental level, but to act as if your hands are tied and you have no option but to handle things the way you are is disingenuous at best. To impose these restrictions via firmware update after the fact is deeply problematic, unless you intend to offer a full refund to anyone who purchased a DJI product before DJI took it upon itself to try to enforce everyone else's rules.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 04:09 UTC
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ranger Danger: I imagine these are the sorts of discussions that happened in the early days of horseless-carriages
'Why should I have to register my horseless carriage, there's not many around'
'How dare they tell me I can't ride my horseless carriage through the public square, I drive it safely'
'It's not fair, I bought this horseless carriage and could drive anywhere now they're telling me I can only us it on roads'

Does your car make a habit of disabling itself because it believes there's a chance you might be doing something illegal (when in fact you aren't)?

Right.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 03:43 UTC
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (416 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: Wow. Bunch of whiners. Almost as bad as photographers who think they should be able to photograph anything, anywhere.

Would you buy a camera that disables itself automatically on all private property, requires a convoluted process involving written permission from each property owner to be forwarded to the manufacturer to obtain temporary unlock codes for each exception, and sometimes decides you're actually on private property when you're on a shoot in the middle of nowhere, miles from cell service, in a national forest?

Or did you just not bother to read the post? Because that's pretty much the complaint.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Since it is a Nikon Rumor, I will believe when I see one in the market. Curved sensor is imagined technology.

This is a patent, nothing more, nothing less, and its existence certainly isn't in question. A rumor would imply information suggesting Nikon actually intends to manufacture this design, and I don't see anything of the sort.

All this patent implies is that Nikon is researching curved lens design (which we already knew), came up with something they thought might be valuable, and filed a patent to protect the idea. The similarity to the Sony RX1 is certainly interesting (and may have motivated the research into this specific design), but a patent still doesn't guarantee plans for an actual product.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 19:14 UTC

This feels suspiciously like "on a computer" patents.

Is there anything actually innovative going on here, or are we just seeing well-understood lens designs being targeted at a curved rather than flat sensor?

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 18:08 UTC as 56th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

M Chambers: Every time you buy from third party market places you just have to accept the fact that you may never see your money or good ever. Hence I never buy or sell anything expensive online.

As a buyer, you have many levels of protection. At the very minimum, your credit card company should be able to reverse a charge as long as you're reasonably able to demonstrate you never received the good and the seller doesn't have clear documentation showing you have. Realistically, very little is required here *unless* the seller is either a big company rather than an individual seller, which the credit card company will tend to trust more (to a fault, in my limited experience), or comes back with good documentation.

The trouble as a seller is that all this does tend to fall on the side of the buyer. It's very difficult to "prove" (impossible in a technical sense) that a package was received by the correct person and contained what they bought. And you're generally liable for anything short of that, including mis-deliveries, lost or damages packages, etc.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
In reply to:

Rensol: For everyone. Be careful. Another type of scam. I sold a camera on Ebay. Shipping thru USPS via Signature verified INSURED Priority Mail.
You might think it is safe to ship right?
Not so.
Buyer somehow managed to receive package (you will see why I think so) BUT tracking record indicates that passage refused by addressee. And that is it!
Camera does not track beyond that point. So camera box diapered!
USPS somehow denied my insurance claim!!! NO EXPLANATIONS. Web site said letter of explanations sent while I did not receive a single letter from them! Calls to 1-800 yeld nothing as they are not the one who handle insurance claims!

Now listen to this. As one of USPS employees told me off record it is possible for postman to deliver the camera BUT scan it not as delivered but as REFUSED!
So buyer got the camera. Seller does not have proof of delivery. Mistake or insider job by a postman????? I do not know.
What we have for today is that the camera got disappeared!

IANAL and all, but it sounds like the only course of action here would be legal action against USPS and/or the buyer. (Also maybe don't use USPS in the future.)

I would agree with Ebay that a "lost" package is not their problem, but USPS has clearly mishandled the situation. Scanning a package as refused and then handing it to the customer, if that is indeed what happened, sounds like a clear case of fraud. Regardless, insurance should have paid out if you did your due diligence and documented everything properly. It sounds like you paid for a service (signature on delivery with insurance) and did not receive what was promised.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 23:09 UTC
In reply to:

Robert1975: This machine destroys the "competition" of good, original art photographers - this is good development. Finally, formulaic "pro" landscape shots will be devalued as they should be. Shooting focus stacked 14-24 or 11-24 in RAW does not make you a "pro".

Only man can create artwork... Because man is free from "algorithms"!

("designing" -> "design". Yay for editing time limits that don't show up until it's too late to do anything about them.)

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 22:05 UTC
Total: 145, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »