Virvatulet

Lives in Finland Finland
Joined on Jul 25, 2005

Comments

Total: 120, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Virvatulet: Sorry to be a bit critical, but the DJI's DL-mount has problematic construction, namely the location of electrical connection pins. Embedding the lens contacts into the metal lens mount ring will introduce reliability issues.

Even with professional holistic approach in use and preventative care of equipment there will eventually be build-up of metal doped dust and even chips inside those contact pits when repeatedly attaching bayonet mounted lenses. Electrically conductive dirt might lead to short circuits and impedance imbalance, the latter being relevant with high speed in-circuit data links.

I know that this type of design has been used before, Pentax comes to my mind, but nevertheless I would have liked to see safer design decisions with these new developments.

There is good room for many alternative arrangements of the connector, even with these dimensions. I would say the chosen construction reflects designing inexperience, style over function attitude and maybe, just maybe manufacturability considerations.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 22:29 UTC

Sorry to be a bit critical, but the DJI's DL-mount has problematic construction, namely the location of electrical connection pins. Embedding the lens contacts into the metal lens mount ring will introduce reliability issues.

Even with professional holistic approach in use and preventative care of equipment there will eventually be build-up of metal doped dust and even chips inside those contact pits when repeatedly attaching bayonet mounted lenses. Electrically conductive dirt might lead to short circuits and impedance imbalance, the latter being relevant with high speed in-circuit data links.

I know that this type of design has been used before, Pentax comes to my mind, but nevertheless I would have liked to see safer design decisions with these new developments.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 13:50 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: One more reason to not use a "protective" filter. I'm sure all that torque on the lens didn't hurt anything.

I'm pro UV/protector filter guy and I use them my self extensively too. I have never had a problem with persistently stuck filters. Hard to remove sometimes yes, but not permanently attached.

However, your notion about the torque on the lens (its internal mechanism) is well founded and one should always support the lens from that front part (usually the lens hood bayonet) where the filter is screwed in when removing or attaching a filter.

Optimally during the process the lens or camera combo should be supported in a way that allows it to move easily should there be any residual force transmitted to it. For example, using a neck strap or placing the camera on a soft surface like bed or soft furniture cushion works well (note: a loose pillow can be unstable, so be careful).

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Holly: The image quality of compact with all the convenience of a DSLR

The optical formula of the lens may limit achievable stabilization effect. Tamron is not neccessarily skimping, just making a reasonable compromise. That said, I was a bit puzzled about the VC performance too.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 09:58 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces development of EF-X500 flash (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: Probably a beginner question regarding wireless - does this mean that the flash can be located anywhere in the room, and it can be triggered with the camera, within a certain range? Does the camera need to be wireless capable?

What one will need for wireless remote control is any compatible (that would be a Fujifilm system) flash that can operate in master mode (or a pure remote controller unit without flash functionality).

This Fujifilm flash has both master and remote modes selectable, so one would need for example at least two of these; one flash unit attached to the camera working as a master and the other unit as a slave in remote mode.

BTW, I don’t know how Fujifilm has implemented it and I have not exclusively tested it with my Canon flashes, but my real life experience is that the master flash doesn’t light up the subject because there is a small intentional delay after the master’s communication optical pulse train has completed transferring remote commands. I should specifically test this to be certain.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 00:20 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces development of EF-X500 flash (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

Digimat: long overdue.

but why the hell do all on-camera flashes have to look like they came to us in a delorean?! i mean its not the 80s anymore...a bit more compact, quality and design isn´t something bad...its 2016 after all.

and why is there no radio communication? even those cheapo china things can do it pretty reliable...

To me this Fuji flash looks like a tool with pleasing and stylish utilitarian form language. By the way the compactness comes with limitations, particularly within the power-recharge department and heat management. One can’t have it all, I’m afraid.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 23:07 UTC
On article Fujifilm announces development of EF-X500 flash (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

arhmatic: Probably a beginner question regarding wireless - does this mean that the flash can be located anywhere in the room, and it can be triggered with the camera, within a certain range? Does the camera need to be wireless capable?

Well, actually optical remote control of flashes can and often will work reliably also thru reflected light, particularly when operating in a relatively small confined space like a room in an apartment.

If optical communication is used in outdoor environment or there are very strong other light sources like sunlight coming thru windows then direct optical path from master flash to the slaves is required for reliability.

I have used optical remote control (Canon) successfully even in a church, so I wouldn’t necessarily deem this as a disadvantage, especially because optical communication is free from regional regulatory problems and your neighbours’ WLAN, microwave oven etc. won’t ruin your day.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2016 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

johnsmith404: This might be the future of photography. Taking multiple 'sequential' exposures and extracting all kinds of information is the way the human brain does it vision job. Related mechanisms lead to high resolution (hyperacuity) and low noise.

I wonder if I'll live long enough to see the first neuromorph processing engines in cameras.

@ newe

...of you.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 03:34 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

Indeed, that is quite a "choice" to be required to point the camera against one's desired direction when operating at public places.

One could formally argue those from being truthfully public anymore, and I know that the right to use public space is stronger justice principle than a copyright, or at least I thought that I knew. This copyright issue has spun out of control because of incompetent and influenced decision making.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

That's great; you have excellent foundation for appreciating how a view is formed into our awareness, starting from the stray photons etc.

FYI, only a very few people of those owning registrable IPR succeed in making any significant income stream out of it, I would say less than 2 %. Most of the inventions and applied scientific discoveries are made in tight connection with employers that de facto have secured their position with assignment accords.

But hey, at least it's always fun to invent something new and solve problems! (The reality might be sweat, tears, sleepless nights and agony though...)

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

I take it that your background is not from natural sciences with firsthand experience from working with IPR. I have worked for a technology transfer company, call it a patent troll if you will, and am personally a holder of IPR from the discipline of applied physics.

Now you know why I deem a view as a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 16:00 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

Lucky for us, the OP is always welcome to rectify my elucidation, should there ever be a need for that.

When you state "...if buildings and works of art in public spaces were not protected by copyright laws", you'll give readers the wrong impression that I would like to remove their copyright, which is not the case at all.

What I do, is promoting the principle that nobody can claim IPR ownership of naturally occurring phenomenon, like a view in this particular case. This doesn't mean that a shady contractor would be OK with building a copy of neighbouring building etc. Even if risking it, I'll make another assumption that you actually have already comprehended it.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.

Step 0: Learn to read
Step 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completely
Step 2: Interpret what you read
Step 3: THINK what you read
Step 4: RE-THINK what you have just read
Step 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is written
Step 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...

And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT

Touting learn to read to others doesn't bode well for the prospect of intelligent discourse.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Triggerhappy2: Copyrighting buildings in public spaces is as stupid as giving a patent to a rounded rectangle shape. Maybe the copyright holder will gain few Euros extra in selling post cards but will also loose a lot of publicity when images of the building cannot be shared freely. I think also that many of the buildings that get a copyright if this law passes has no economical interest to try to capitalize it. They will only loose the free publicity that they might now have in Wikipedia. In addition also humanity will loose a lot of historical images if this law passes. Images that are not freely available as in Wikimedia Commons has a bigger risk of disappearing in the future.

I believe the point from OP was that copyright of a building shouldn't extend to its pictorial presentations in the first place; the picture is an independent artwork.

This suggested legislation change aims at giving tools for reinforcing and implementing this unjustifiable and otherwise problematic inheriting nature of current copyright interpretation. A change with copyright law is needed but not into this direction.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 12:17 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

Whether or not a building technically resides in public space is really more of semantics as long as it can be seen using public space. I recon that what you said convey this notion too.

From a philosophical and equality viewpoint there is also a reciprocative principle, put something into public space without asking its other users and don't expect the others to ask anything further. Obviously legislation doesn't directly recognise this.

Indeed there are many logical discontinuity problems with the current legislation concerning IPR, usually giving bizarre rights like the possibility to claim ownership of a view or even worse, just a colour.

A thorough overhaul is needed and copyright should be in most cases limited to the original intent of an artwork. For example meaning that a photograph, painting or sketch of a building can not infringe its copyright, but another building might do so.

Something that is unlikely to happen, thanks to those mentioned special interest groups...

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

@ nixda
The copyright concern is inconsequential compared to the underlying fundamental principle on the right to use public space, something that has to be evenly and justly shared. No one should be able to take a position where they could arbitrarily dictate what others can or can not do in public places. It doesn't matter if one chooses to do something for monetary compensation.

For example an artist or an architect consciously chooses to put something into public space, and usually gets paid for doing it, which is their way of utilising public space. Likewise a photographer might get paid for taking pictures using the public space or a sightseeing guide takes a tour with a group of tourists paying an attending fee.
These all are examples benefiting from the view.

As has been said many times before, the solution to the copyright concern is to refrain from using the public space; the only possible way having full control without arbitrarily restricting others' freedom to choose.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

And for further clarification, the mentioned initiator could be e.g. an artist, a sculptor or a property developer using the public space for their needs.

BTW, this 1000 character limit makes it quite painful to maintain solid argumentation on complex subjects; especially for a non-native English-speaker like myself.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 17:32 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

The legal action you are referring to as model release is all about privacy protected under the law, not about copyright even though that can be mentioned in such agreements. It's a universally recognised premise that non-living objects do not have feelings and therefore can't have need for privacy and protection thereof. Thus not applicable.

But if I play along with your idea for a moment: Has the building given its consent to be placed out into public view to begin with? This silly sounding question is logical continuum from the approach you are trying to use.

The fact that something has been considered in a certain way for a long time or in many countries doesn't make it more rational as such. The legislation is influenced by different interest groups and seldom reaches logical integrity.

There shouldn't be any restrictions on how one can use public spaces based on intangible principles, the responsibility for protecting such values should always be a priori within the initiator.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 17:11 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: If presenting a view from a public place of a "copyrighted" building for monetary gain is not ok without permission, it wouldn't take much to say that taxi drivers need to get permission from all the buildings that a passenger might see through the window during a paid ride. That's nuts.

I can imagine issues with simulating a trademark, or implicit endorsement of a product, but existing law would handle those cases reasonably. Explicit restrictions on use of photography typically are about an expectation of privacy -- extending that concept to inanimate objects (buildings) is a huge stretch.

The national park and Disney examples are fundamentally different in that those involve views from specially-designated areas. For example, there are military bases where photography is restricted in marked "sensitive" areas. I've never seen a copyright notice posted on a building so that it is clearly visible from all public areas that might view the building....

The taxi driver analogy is just a logical consequence of such legislation since commercial use won't be classified or fixed to only some information relaying platforms. And if it would be, that would merely underline the logic deficiency behind this proposal.

Furthermore, at least here in Finland we have a precedent from Supreme Court ruling where taxi drivers are obliged to make a certain type of copyright compensation if their customers can hear taxi driver's car radio. And it didn't matter that radio stations have already paid the same fees.

Pure prowling this is, when there is no sound logic behind copyright claims the extension possibilities are virtually endless.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

Wubslin: Why should you be able to exploit other peoples' property for your own commercial benefit?

Because public space can not be nobody's exclusive property and therefore putting something in it comes with an inherently formed accord on the prospect that that something will be seen and even touched by others in uncontrolled ways and means.

In other words, if you don't want it to be seen by others, keep it locked-up and covered-up.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
Total: 120, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »