Ultan

Joined on May 11, 2012

Comments

Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

it looks like the side cameras are arranged in portrait mode, each of the 8 left-hand cameras covering part of a pinwheel of slightly overlapped fields view, each a bit over 22.5 degrees, with the right-hand cameras being part of another pinwheel of FOVs going the opposite direction. So the vertical field of view of each side camera will be a bit over 45 degrees, ~45mm equiv., with the top camera filling in without stereo vision over the top up-to-135 degree cone. This should give quite decent resolution for virtually all situations, a stereo cylinder perhaps 6-7k around and 2k high from which 2 4k video streams, one for each eye will be dynamically cropped, often with some loss of resolution around the top or bottom edge.

The overall camera may not be insanely expensive, perhaps as low as $3500, given that the cameras are 1/2.3, lenses are little ~7mm f/11 equiv. primes. The specs note a monster host computer is needed, likely close to $2000, even without the VR goggles, though.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 21:26 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

NickyB66: Great idea, responsible drone users will have nothing to worry about, just the stupid few 'pilots' out there. FAA/CAA or government agencies need to slap heavy fines and a prison sentence, that way the message gets out.

Not you, lilBuddha, NickyB66 for proposing to "slap heavy fines and a prison sentence" to send a message to any who resist this Orwellian scheme.

You can be sure that this monitoring will not apply to the drones used by the military and police, but will apply to those members of the public keeping an eye on the military and police and will be used to punish those who might expose the authorities' actions.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 12:15 UTC
In reply to:

NickyB66: Great idea, responsible drone users will have nothing to worry about, just the stupid few 'pilots' out there. FAA/CAA or government agencies need to slap heavy fines and a prison sentence, that way the message gets out.

You are a bad person.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

retr01976: Forced diversity doesn’t fix the underlying issues, instead it attempts to simply to put a bandaide on things.

The real problem is our education system. For decades our school systems have pushed the idea that females (for example) should be school teachers or nurses. Our inner city schools are poorly managed and underfunded. Our schools need more STEM and creative arts programs. I grew up poor and today I am a very successful IT manager, unfortunately public education failed me and I couldn’t afford college so I took it upon myself to teach myself the skills necessary.

I think college should be free and we don’t need to raise taxes to do it. Corporations could be provided tax exemptions if they donate a portion of their profits to free college education. It’s a win win for everyone as people in our society from all backgrounds become educated and companies in turn have better candidates. We would have lower crime, a more diversified workplace and a more productive society.

@Wintermute
Intelligence has been studied with progressively more advanced methods over the past century. Intelligence measures the difficulty of problems one can answer, which correlates highly with all types of problems. IQ is the best predictor of success not only on tests and in school, but nearly every job, even menial ones. It is moderately correlated with longer life, good looks, better health, more ethical behavior and higher income -- with virtually everything good.

Variations in intelligence are due to genetics to a degree several times larger than is due to environment, such as would be shared within a household. Adoptees resemble their parents' IQs, not their adoptive parents, with which they have no correlation as adults. Intelligence is not raised by training on tests to any measurable degree, though training may increase performance on particular types of problems (usually soon leveling off ), the training does not give better performance on other types of problems.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonandmore: :
OK so no trolling and no bashing disclaimer before the sticks and bats come my way..

Just a simple image analysis:
- 1,3,5 are ridiculously over-sharpened and over-processed.
- 1,4,5 are basically all noise and soft everywhere.

Yes these are "just" JPGs and yes RAWs will be endlessly better and yes future firmware updates might improve things. But is this a good start for a camera hyped like it's the seconding coming of Christ? I have nothing against Nikon and have exclusively shot Nikon for many years (not anymore) but quite frankly I think a lot of people are somewhat blinded with excitement and not really taking a closer look at the camera's obvious overall mediocre IQ.

Is this camera the life-changing breakthrough fever that seems to have swept the photography world by storm? I don't see it.

Will this camera save Nikon from its downhill? Hopefully, I want them stick around for long time and they make some truly awesome glass & cameras.

Would I ever buy this? Positively not.

Not mediocre. Crap, utter crap. I have done better with 95% of my shots using. a 10-year-old compact camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

mirthseeker: From a former volunteer firefighter's perspective:
FACT: Aerial support is withdrawn if a drone is sighted near firefighting operations.
FACT: Aerial support is vital for early knock-down of fires in inaccessible terrain, and is a vital part of ongoing wildfire fighting, for suppression, protection of structures, and in emergencies for protection of people. Vital! Hundreds of homes here in Australia have been directly and indirectly saved through water-bombing wildfires in built-up and rural areas.
One idiot with a drone can, and has removed a vital component of modern firefighting processes, whether in USA, Australia, or elsewhere.
Consider whether it might be YOUR family, house or business which was lost because aerial support was unavailable.

Withdrawing aerial firefighting support for a risk that is utterly negligible compared to the existing risk in most cases is just cowardice and the consequences of that cowardice should not be assigned to the drone operator. People have the right to fly over public lands and that right, while balanced by a need to operate safely, is not erased by some power-mad bovine bureaucratic safety-officer who thinks they get to tell everyone where they may go and what they may photograph or they'll let the forest burn down. Safety does not require excluding drones from areas that planes aren't actually in, a few hundred meters away at most, but they make the no-fly area far larger than it needs to be.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 19:01 UTC
On article Finishing the line: Nikon 28mm F1.4E ED sample gallery (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cameracist: "now has 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 58mm, 85mm and 105mm options – it looks pretty complete to us"
...not complete without 40, 70 and 95mm lenses!

Probably a Fuji user. I hear they're into "color science".

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: Hey Sigma, I wanted your 24-70 2.8 lens but I'm now waiting since months to get anything like a review or a possibility to test it. Now Tamron comes up with a new 24-70 2.8 VC and I will definately wait for this lens as comparision. As you often don't seal your lenses (but Tamron does) I'll tend to the new Tamron instead. Your fault.

@WastingTime: A corporation legally is a person.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (819 comments in total)

I had a great time using the Minolta 7000i in the Costa Rican cloud forest for a couple of months shortly after the camera came out in 1988. Great camera. There was a Nat. Geo photographer there the whole time, but I think I got better shots of the hummingbirds at 1/2000 - 1/4000 in natural sunlight with ASA 800 Fuji film pushed to 3200. Not grainy at all, though it was only standard prints. Amazing place for birds, I wish I had had a longer lens than the Tamron 70-210mm.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 00:49 UTC as 158th comment
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: When I came on active duty in the Air Force in 1958, I was stationed in the Bronx making a base pay of $222.30/month, so the pay rates seem fairly generous. At the time I retired in 1980 as a bird colonel, my pay was about 32K/year. I worked for Boeing for the next 24 years as a software, systems and test engineer. I came to Boeing with 5 degrees in engineering and physics, including 2 masters from MIT.

The pay rates in this article still seem generous, but no mention is made of pensions, healthcare insurance, sick leave, vacations, etc.

But if you love what you are doing..., that makes all the difference in the world. My Air Force pension, thanks to the magic of inflation, is now , more than twice my pay when I retired, and I have nearly free healthcare, via TriCare, not the VA. I see any doctor I want when I want, no copays, no deductibles, no nothing. P.S. The Air Force paid for nearly all my education.

Please feel free to sign up.

I'd like to point up the implication that:
Today's $1000 pay for a self-employed person will buy the same amount of MIT education as $11 cash in hand would buy in 1958, which at the time one could net from less than 15 hours at the $1/hr. minimum wage. That gives the 1958 minimum wage the educational buying power of $67/hr. in 2017.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: When I came on active duty in the Air Force in 1958, I was stationed in the Bronx making a base pay of $222.30/month, so the pay rates seem fairly generous. At the time I retired in 1980 as a bird colonel, my pay was about 32K/year. I worked for Boeing for the next 24 years as a software, systems and test engineer. I came to Boeing with 5 degrees in engineering and physics, including 2 masters from MIT.

The pay rates in this article still seem generous, but no mention is made of pensions, healthcare insurance, sick leave, vacations, etc.

But if you love what you are doing..., that makes all the difference in the world. My Air Force pension, thanks to the magic of inflation, is now , more than twice my pay when I retired, and I have nearly free healthcare, via TriCare, not the VA. I see any doctor I want when I want, no copays, no deductibles, no nothing. P.S. The Air Force paid for nearly all my education.

Please feel free to sign up.

$1000 today is the equivalent of
$120 in 1958 ($22 if you're buying MIT tuition, was $1100, now $50k)
$354 in 1980 (your $32K = $90K in 2017)

$1000 dollars in salary and benefits cost to an employer gives about $700 in gross pay to an employee, which after tax gives the employee about $540 in spendable money. Since photographers are self-employed, they basically get to spend only half of what they are paid. So a $600 day rate means $300 spending money, the equivalent of $36 in 1958 or $106 in 1980. That's without looking at direct expenses for equipment, travel and lodging. Also, this is the top tier of the profession, only a few million dollars per year is paid to photographers by all the top publications combined, there probably aren't more than a couple of thousand photographers in the world that gross over $100k in such day rates per year and they spend like someone who makes less than half that much, less than US GDP per capita.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
In reply to:

Mr Bolton: IF the drone was really 276 feet in the air, and traveling versus hovering, then it seems like it shouldn't have been shot at. The shooter should reasonably have to pay for the drone, and that should be the end of it.

But this is America, so facts (telemetry data, in this case) don't matter because FREEDOM.

brycesteiner: "I doubt birdshot could come close to travelling 276 feet, especially at a vertical angle."
276 ft vertically has only 133 fps (40.6 m/s) less velocity than the same distance horizontally. The initial velocity is between 900-1200 fps. Horizontally, 276ft is close to the limit under ideal circumstances (full choke, center of tight pattern) for breaking a clay with birdshot, but drones are more delicate than clays. One pellet through any essential trace on a printed circuit will take it out, there are hundreds of pellets and at least a few square inches of drone vitals. Not reliable, but not unlikely, especially over several shots.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 17:03 UTC
In reply to:

Magnar W: Many photographers don't know why art is something else than commersial photography or amateur photography. They 'know' that art is 'fake', they don't even have to argue, and they typicelly claim that they themselves or their children could have done much better! All this even without examining what modern art is, it's present status, or how photography is used as a technique and a medium by those highly trained artists who are critically and analytically looking into 'our' medium - those who work within the tradition called art and the field called contemprorary art.

Why not just check out what this is all about before commenting?

Diving into this field is exciting and challenging, and what I have found has surprised me over and over again, made me question how I look at and how I read photographs and other kinds of visual work, and learned me a lot more about pictures, also about my core interest, photography! ;-)

You made no argument that today's art isn't fake. Objectively, art before WW I was far better than anything that critics praised after WW II. Aesthetics is not merely subjective. The academics, curators and critics are posturing politically for each other. The aim of these people and their patrons is to destroy the idea of beauty itself, of objectivity, of standards, of Western culture. It is a mode of warfare designed to atomize, to alienate, to make ugly, to destroy the spirit of the target peoples so they can more easily be persuaded to commit national suicide. And it's working.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Edmond Leung: How come so many people jealous... Those people should learn how to admire.

The question is why so many people are supporting this BS, pretending to some great sophistication. A bunch of words can't somehow turn these contrived, mediocre, "message" pictures into great art. Those who parrot the opinions of "art experts" reveal not only their lack of esthetic judgement but their hollow pretense of humanity. Only bad art has been acceptable to the "experts" for the past 80 years or so, those who claim to like such attacks on beauty are either liars or without souls.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:09 UTC
On article Nine tips to help you win at photography competitions (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: I've won several competitions, always with photos that are not the greatest (not even my best). Here are my observations (some of which are at odds with the tips given here)

1) Judges LOVE cliches. If you are submitting, say an Autumn theme, crank up the oranges. Doesn't matter that those colours don't exist in nature - most of the time a saturated, fake photo will look more appealing than a natural one. This is the current fashion. Things may change.

2) Cute children - always a winner

3) Beautiful young women

4) Cliched ethnic tropes - gnarled asian man in market selling peppers; hunters etc.

5) animals. (Not cats)

6) For news stories : Misery and/or poverty always tend to be preferred over happiness and affluence. When was the last time a good-time story won a press or news photo competition?

7) Drones are in fashion. They used to be called remote control helicopters when I was a kid. Now they are drones. If you can combine one or more of the themes above with a drone...

*Be somewhere there is likely to be something worth photographing.
*Be there when the light is good.
*Take lots of pictures, if it's worth looking at, it's worth shooting
*When you have the light and the subject, find new angles, experiment with composition
*Check one now and then, but time spent checking is time not shooting
*Be ruthless in culling after the shoot, but don't cull good compositions that have minor flaws that can be fixed in post.
* Crop. Composition isn't just for the viewfinder.
*It may not need it, but if it isn't /worth/ spending an hour or three dodging, burning, tweaking curves, etc. then it's probably not going to be an art photo competition winner.
*edit on a color-calibrated IPS monitor
*try variations in post, but don't make final selections the same day you edit, come back with fresh eyes

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

John Koch: Perhaps a WIP. The supplied link enables one to see a few dozen HQ images, not 375,000.

Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg (born to modest means, self-made, cordial, generous) donated funds for this philanthropic venture. Might he have made a great president?

NYC used to be mostly British/Dutch Americans once upon a time, now that's a few percent at most. Better to keep that from happening to the whole country.

His type is not what made NYC or the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bloomberg is an oik.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ultan: Why don't they put a transparent grayscale LCD where the iris would otherwise be? Then you could set not only f-stop but also the gradient width between the central clear aperture and the opaque surrounding region. Anybody who wants to patent it, be my guest, but contact me to put my name on the application.

I'm easy with terms, up-front fee $10K, $10 royalty per unit, or let's talk.

Thanks. I would have figured the screen-door effect wouldn't happen, that it would be out of focus and just make it a bit blurrier. B/W should be smoother than color LCD. With sufficiently high resolution, perhaps thin (under 10 micron) circles/arcs as pixels in a bulls-eye pattern it might work.

Other ideas: glass iris blades with gradient edges, maybe made similarly to Sony's apodizing element.

something something electrowetting

Two flats with index-matched oil between them, a stretched flexible membrane separating the oil into two flat volumes, the oil in one of those pigmented with a dark gray colloidal suspension, the other side clear. Varying the amount of clear oil from 100% to ~60% bends the membrane from being entirely pressed against the gray-side flat (open) to just having a small central region against / close to that flat (closed aperture). The curvature of the membrane where it is not pressed against the flat gives a catenary gradient, close to parabolic.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

Ultan: So much idiocy in the comments. The winning photo does not glorify anything.

#2 on the other hand, gives an entirely false impression of what happened and is happening with the (only violent criminal) Black Lives Matter (unless killed by another Black criminal). It glorifies a violent movement based on lies that has forced innocent people out of their homes, cost hundreds of retirees their life savings in Ferguson, Missouri by making their houses unsaleable, killed cops and made the rest reluctant to arrest Blacks, resulting in thousands more murders of Blacks by Blacks.

Shootings they protest were nearly all justified, but the BLM mob lies. Black officers are more likely to pull the trigger in such incidents, White suspects are more likely to be shot in similar circumstances. The photo lies, implying cops are violent and Blacks are peaceful, cops are cowardly and Blacks are brave. Truth is Blacks are over 25 times more likely to attack a White than the reverse (DOJ victim survey).

1. Nah, no TV.
2. Is that technically stereotyping or "othering"?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:57 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)

Why don't they put a transparent grayscale LCD where the iris would otherwise be? Then you could set not only f-stop but also the gradient width between the central clear aperture and the opaque surrounding region. Anybody who wants to patent it, be my guest, but contact me to put my name on the application.

I'm easy with terms, up-front fee $10K, $10 royalty per unit, or let's talk.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 03:26 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

So much idiocy in the comments. The winning photo does not glorify anything.

#2 on the other hand, gives an entirely false impression of what happened and is happening with the (only violent criminal) Black Lives Matter (unless killed by another Black criminal). It glorifies a violent movement based on lies that has forced innocent people out of their homes, cost hundreds of retirees their life savings in Ferguson, Missouri by making their houses unsaleable, killed cops and made the rest reluctant to arrest Blacks, resulting in thousands more murders of Blacks by Blacks.

Shootings they protest were nearly all justified, but the BLM mob lies. Black officers are more likely to pull the trigger in such incidents, White suspects are more likely to be shot in similar circumstances. The photo lies, implying cops are violent and Blacks are peaceful, cops are cowardly and Blacks are brave. Truth is Blacks are over 25 times more likely to attack a White than the reverse (DOJ victim survey).

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 00:42 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
Total: 39, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »