santamonica812

Lives in United States CA, United States
Has a website at www.pbase.com/santamonica
Joined on Jul 26, 2009

Comments

Total: 912, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Slapstick Noir: When you're going down - do it with style!
This is some weird joke.

Whom/what are you talking to/about?????

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

sts2: Kind of similar to passing off cheap composites off as "art". I've seen quite a few that try to mimic "one-in-a-million" timed shots but were actually created through layers in photoshop. Same thing... but what do you do about it?

I see them as different. I have no problem with composites, AS LONG AS they are clearly labeled as such. But these posed images are *always* passed of as real (ie, not posed). If someone wanted to enter a competition with one of these and label it as, "Posed image of passenger...model paid for his participation.", then I would have no problem with this as well.

In other words; it's the deliberate deception that bothers me.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 21:59 UTC

Ideally, this article would have been posted on April First.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 04:38 UTC as 64th comment
In reply to:

santamonica812: What is an "enterprise drive?" (I suspect that everyone in the industry knows this as a matter of fact. But for us laypeople? . . .)

Anyone with a short and clear definition? (Google is no help)

Eric,
That's why Googling was no help. Lots of articles about the Enterprise starship, and about driving cars from Enterprise Car Rentals. LOL

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2018 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: What is an "enterprise drive?" (I suspect that everyone in the industry knows this as a matter of fact. But for us laypeople? . . .)

Anyone with a short and clear definition? (Google is no help)

Dave,
Much thanks. :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 21:41 UTC

What is an "enterprise drive?" (I suspect that everyone in the industry knows this as a matter of fact. But for us laypeople? . . .)

Anyone with a short and clear definition? (Google is no help)

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2018 at 21:29 UTC as 24th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Egregius V: A tragic situation that underscores the responsibilities of tour leaders. Hard to be sure, but it looks as though they all found themselves in a remote area entirely unprepared to handle a health crisis - and might even be facing criminal charges for their negligence. I wish everyone involved peace, strength, and wisdom. I'm sure Mr. King is terribly missed and his loss is painful. God bless them and keep them.

Well, the person killed was the *owner* of the business. And the story makes it sound like it's a very small business. Not saying that the recklessness of not having proper equipment (assuming that itself is true) could not rise to a prosecution for negl. homicide...it clearly does in some cases. But who would be prosecuted? The deceased victim?!?

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2018 at 18:23 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: "... Three ND filters are built-in and can be dropped into the light path at the turn of a dial. The strengths offered are ¼, 1/16th and 1/64th stops, ..."

I only shoot stills, so can someone explain this to me? On my large format cameras and on my SLRs, my ND filters that I have for use are: 1 full stop, 4 stops, 8 stops, and 12 stops. I imagine--having read the above--that shooting video is somehow very different.

When I go out to shoot single frames, I cannot think of an example where I've ever said, "Man, I wish I could add 1/64th of a stop to my shutter speed." Can someone explain what sort of situations are there where it would make a significant difference to make such small exposure adjustments? Something related to shooting slow-mo???

Or, is there a link to an article or tutorial that explains this? I'm very curious. :-)

Thanks guys. I figured that it had something to do with this being video and not still images.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 23:48 UTC

"... Three ND filters are built-in and can be dropped into the light path at the turn of a dial. The strengths offered are ¼, 1/16th and 1/64th stops, ..."

I only shoot stills, so can someone explain this to me? On my large format cameras and on my SLRs, my ND filters that I have for use are: 1 full stop, 4 stops, 8 stops, and 12 stops. I imagine--having read the above--that shooting video is somehow very different.

When I go out to shoot single frames, I cannot think of an example where I've ever said, "Man, I wish I could add 1/64th of a stop to my shutter speed." Can someone explain what sort of situations are there where it would make a significant difference to make such small exposure adjustments? Something related to shooting slow-mo???

Or, is there a link to an article or tutorial that explains this? I'm very curious. :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2018 at 22:01 UTC as 33rd comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

santamonica812: $800 for a phone? FOR A PHONE?!? (Of course, I recognize that several phones cost that amount, with a well-publicized $1,000 recent phone 25 percent above my "outrage line.") :-)

But still . . . stories like this make me feel very very VERY old. :-(

Ouch. I am feeling old already, and you talk about "museum pieces!" That's it . . . you're never getting an invite to print in my home darkroom!!! ;-)

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 03:47 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: $800 for a phone? FOR A PHONE?!? (Of course, I recognize that several phones cost that amount, with a well-publicized $1,000 recent phone 25 percent above my "outrage line.") :-)

But still . . . stories like this make me feel very very VERY old. :-(

. . . or maybe I am just showing my age, and I'm actually becoming a grumpy old man? ;-)

(And get off my lawn, you damn kids!!!)

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: $800 for a phone? FOR A PHONE?!? (Of course, I recognize that several phones cost that amount, with a well-publicized $1,000 recent phone 25 percent above my "outrage line.") :-)

But still . . . stories like this make me feel very very VERY old. :-(

I'm sort of where JohnP is: Of course I get that a smartphone is not just a phone. And I love that I can be with friends, and can immediately Google the answer to whatever trivia question we're thinking of. But I get that (plus a crappy camera) in my $70 smartphone. For 200, I can get a pretty-good-but-not-great camera. It's the extra $600 (or 800 more, and soon to be 1,300 more, I am confident).

Upon reflection, I guess my shock (horror??) is that it's a crazy-high price, AND, it's for technology that will, almost be definition, by antiquated in a few years.

A quarter-century ago, I spent well over a thousand bucks on a Canon 1v film camera. That's also a crazy-high price. But it got me the best and most durable 35mm film camera in existence. That camera has been to 100+ countries, all 7 continents, 155 degree F (in real temperature) days in Death Valley, -30 F days in Siberia. And still works perfectly. So, maybe it's the high price + the relatively short lifespan?? :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2018 at 00:53 UTC

$800 for a phone? FOR A PHONE?!? (Of course, I recognize that several phones cost that amount, with a well-publicized $1,000 recent phone 25 percent above my "outrage line.") :-)

But still . . . stories like this make me feel very very VERY old. :-(

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 21:39 UTC as 17th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Tape5: DJI is playing a silly game by taking these half steps with their development. Sooner or later the competition is going to kick them off their spot. What people want is significantly higher flight time and significantly better sensors both of which are possible with the current tech. Trying to cement all the little holes with in between products hoping to protect their monopoly is a waste of time.

This is one of the few tech products where smaller and lighter is NOT necessarily better. I love the idea of longer flight times, and look forward to the day when we hit 1 hour (within a year or three, I expect). But if you make a drone too light, it will be really affected by the wind. And if you're up hundreds or 100+ feet, the wind can *really* be moving.

I love the progression and the advances. But unlike a DLSR where lighter is always better (assuming the build is as durable), this is an exception.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: Nice and all, but do these things have to be loud as they are?

Dheorl,
Interesting!!! I've been away from the sport for 5+ years, so my info is (clearly!) out of date. :-)

Thanks for the info. Do you have links to (or at least names of) some of the more reputable companies?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

Dheorl: Went to a talk from Timothy Allen who said he greatly enjoyed using a paramotor for photography. I keep meaning to learn to fly one myself, they look like so much fun, it's just finding the time.

Start by learning to fly a regular paraglider. They are actually pretty easy to learn (98% of it is learning to take off and land, and taking off is probably 75% of that 98%) :-)

Cost is not too bad . . . cost me about $2,500 USD for a full set of gear, and all was new other than the paraglider. The big issue for anyone interested is, is your home location good for flying? No one want to have to drive 4-6 hours round-trip to do a flight or two when you're learning. But if you live relatively near to a flight zone, then I highly recommend it for pretty much everyone. (I started flying in the early 90s, when I was still in my late 20s. But some of my fellow students were in their 50s, and one woman--who was my hero--was either 61 or 62.

Go for it!!! :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: Nice and all, but do these things have to be loud as they are?

Scott,
They've been experimenting for a few decades, trying to make electric and/or solar batteries feasible. The noise is the one huge drawback to paragliding, and there is a huge economic incentive to creating an electric alternative. The fact that no one has been able to do it yet (including the military, which has poured tens of millions of dollars into this), shows just how difficult it is, with current tech.

The minute they get an electronic one, I'm buying it. (Well, maybe I'll wait 6 months, to make sure they got all the bugs out.) :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: How does a polarizing filter work in an environment (here, on a drone) where it's not possible to turn the filter to get the desired result? On my SLRs and DSLRs, of course, I just turn the filter while looking through the viewfinder, until I get a result that I like. I'm not understanding how it would possibly work on a drone. (For the prices quoted, it would impossible to imagine that the filter is complex enough so that it receives a wireless signal and has a built-in motor, to revolve the filter via the user's remote control device.)

Thanks for the comments, guys. You're right; I was automatically thinking of a circular polarizer. That's all I've ever used for my SLR cameras. But I guess if there is a circular polarizer, then it stands to reason that there are also non-turnings ones (as TravelFor suggested). I'm not sure how these non-turning ones work. But there must be a use for them, since they--apparently--are indeed sold.

[update: Google tells me that the 'other' is a linear polarizer and might work well on a drone...assuming the drone's camera system is sophisticated enough to adjust for the 1.5-2 stops of lost exposure.]

https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 21:27 UTC

How does a polarizing filter work in an environment (here, on a drone) where it's not possible to turn the filter to get the desired result? On my SLRs and DSLRs, of course, I just turn the filter while looking through the viewfinder, until I get a result that I like. I'm not understanding how it would possibly work on a drone. (For the prices quoted, it would impossible to imagine that the filter is complex enough so that it receives a wireless signal and has a built-in motor, to revolve the filter via the user's remote control device.)

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 22:40 UTC as 1st comment | 5 replies
On article Canon patents fingerprint reader for cameras and lenses (191 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: Having to unlock your camera to use it is unnecessary and inconvenient, a bad idea for more-or-less the same set of reasons as why putting biometric locks on firearms is a bad idea.

Sop,
Answer: Zero.

Bresson never shot a single photograph from bed, when just waking up. Every single one of his photographs was taken when he was up and about. In other words, LONG after he would have unlocked all his camera equipment for the day. :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 04:44 UTC
Total: 912, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »