Le Kilt

Lives in France South-West, France
Works as a Searching for Light
Joined on Mar 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 522, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

marc petzold: Wow, now that's a camera what i call "complicated" to use. It must have been very expensive back into it's heyday.

It does have a lovely setting in the middle of the shutter speeds, "SNAP"!
That setting is the ancestor of point-and-shoots!

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

Erik Ohlson: So interesting, but it's obvious that the young lady hasn't a clue about what most of the functions actually do.

Interesting 'extinction meter'.

Camera is so tiny, case so big - a Leica was a better deal, IMHO ;-)

Strange reaction, seeing that she describes all of the different functions accurately.
The only thing she left out was the rotating disc on the DOF scale.
She did well!

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:20 UTC
In reply to:

wootpile: Marvelous piece of steam punk-ish gear. I wouldn't mind having one! Too bad she had to touch the film and leave a smudge all over it. Not that it will matter much since the film probably isn't any good any more.. but it devalues the whole package. Get educated, girl!

You mean when she touches the green envelope that the film is in? If she was touching the bare film it would already be expose to light and ruined!
Get educated!

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 11:56 UTC

What, no wifi or GPS ???

More seriously, fabulous camera, lots of thought and work went into making that, lots of attention te detail and different options. I would love to put one of the films through it and see what results you get.
I did that with a 1936 Super Ikonta, and got good results, here it will depend on how well the film has survived :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 12:54 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

pkcpga: By the sound of it, the company needed a very high number of original orders to make this start up work since the company charged too little based on realistic costs verse first round presumed manufacturing costs. If you read about lily it sound like they really needed to charge double for this product to really ever hit the market or another 15 million in investments without producing more products. So first orders would be a loss leader. Worst part is they seem to mean well and want to refund original preorder sponsors but not sure how that will work since lily started with 15 million presumably spent for research, ads, prototypes and employees, hence the need for bankruptcy. So even if they haven't touched the 34 million from sponsor orders, lily had to pay whatever company collected this money a fee, most likely around 5%, than a credit card fee 2-3%, than a return credit card fee 1-2%. So not sure where that 3-3.5 million will come from, also by the sound of it they may have other debtors to pay off as well. So I think a full refund would be overly optimistic. The risk of start up or go fund me company investing or product buying. At least this was a new company, I hate seeing go fund me's from existing large companies, just so they don't have to risk their own money for a new product.

Sounds like different conditions to here in France, I've never seen any charge on a cancelled sale here.
I think the Lily was being pre-sold on Amazon, it would be interesting to know who the 34M of sales where made through...

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

pkcpga: By the sound of it, the company needed a very high number of original orders to make this start up work since the company charged too little based on realistic costs verse first round presumed manufacturing costs. If you read about lily it sound like they really needed to charge double for this product to really ever hit the market or another 15 million in investments without producing more products. So first orders would be a loss leader. Worst part is they seem to mean well and want to refund original preorder sponsors but not sure how that will work since lily started with 15 million presumably spent for research, ads, prototypes and employees, hence the need for bankruptcy. So even if they haven't touched the 34 million from sponsor orders, lily had to pay whatever company collected this money a fee, most likely around 5%, than a credit card fee 2-3%, than a return credit card fee 1-2%. So not sure where that 3-3.5 million will come from, also by the sound of it they may have other debtors to pay off as well. So I think a full refund would be overly optimistic. The risk of start up or go fund me company investing or product buying. At least this was a new company, I hate seeing go fund me's from existing large companies, just so they don't have to risk their own money for a new product.

The 34M are pre-orders, so not really from sponsors but just enthusiastic buyers. This money would be a straight-forward credit card transaction, for which I beleive there is no charge at all if sale is cancelled and refunded.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I would bet not all the funds will be sent back to those with preorders. There should be no problem getting this started with that kind of funding.

I crowd-funded a singer, and the product was exactly what was promised.
I crowd-funded a photographer, and the product was exactly what was promised.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 00:41 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: Hmmm, another crowdfunding ripoff. I think the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are nothing more than ways for crooks to make a good salary for a few years then fold up leaving the investors high and dry. I have absolutely no sympathy for the investors. A moron who invests in a scam that is clearly a scam gets what they deserve. If inventors don't have the wherewithal to obtain legitimate funding from financial institutions, much less even create a decent business plan, then only morons will invest with them.

P.S. Crowdfunding? What, where, which crowdfunding company...?!

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 00:12 UTC
In reply to:

WT21: I stopped with "crowd funding" big projects a while ago. Never got any return from any of them

What crowd-funding was used here...?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: And the answer is - don't be sucked into crowd-funding!

Exactly what crowd-funding do you think was used for the Lily ?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 00:07 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I would bet not all the funds will be sent back to those with preorders. There should be no problem getting this started with that kind of funding.

With crowd-funding, you're not necessarily lending money, more like handing it over. You may get a monetary return, but sometimes free or cheaper products produced by the funded entity - eg funding a singer you might get a free CD from the next album, funding a photographer get a free print etc...

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I would bet not all the funds will be sent back to those with preorders. There should be no problem getting this started with that kind of funding.

Pre-orders are not investors. Crowd-funding is mot a pre-order.
You can pre-order the latest Canon or Nikon camera before it's in the shop, you're just buying a product, and will normally be fully re-imbursed if it fails to appear.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

Darren Pearson: This was obviously a scam from the moment I saw the first videos of it. And I have been saying that to everyone that keeps telling me "yeah, the new drones follow you around and are waterproof and are $500"

With current tech all of this is "possible" but not cheaply and not from a startup with no experience in tech, no experience in manufacturing, no existing patents.

Its just like fully automatic "selfie drones" they "may" be possible, but not a polished product that is reliable if they are made by a startup.

There is a reason that Sony or Samsung are not making these things, to make these kind of products is VERY difficult.

Amazing how obvious things can be with hindsight ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

FuhTeng: You miserable screw-ups. What happens when the poor folks who funded this mess don't get their money?

That depends on the particular crowd-funding. Often you get some return like freebies or cheaper deals on something produced instead of hard cash back.
P.S. The pre-orders are not normally part off crowd-funding, theoretically they should be re-imbursed.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:49 UTC
In reply to:

W5JCK: Hmmm, another crowdfunding ripoff. I think the vast majority of crowdfunding projects are nothing more than ways for crooks to make a good salary for a few years then fold up leaving the investors high and dry. I have absolutely no sympathy for the investors. A moron who invests in a scam that is clearly a scam gets what they deserve. If inventors don't have the wherewithal to obtain legitimate funding from financial institutions, much less even create a decent business plan, then only morons will invest with them.

Amazing how easy it is to sit behind a screen and call people you don't know morons. Moronic, even. Ooops, there I go too, what a moron :-/

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

HGFGKM: I notice a USB connector at the end...stated to work with a USB 3.1 port. Are such ports widely present on today's computers?

Yes, USB 3.1 Gen 1 is just USB 3.0.

A Type C connector could be USB 2.0 or 3.0/3.1

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

couchpotato: There are plenty of 512GB or even 1TB USB flash drives out there.

Corsair Voyager GTX has 256GB and 512GB versions with 450MB/s read and 360MB/s write on the market for more than a year. How can Sandisk claim it has the highest capacity and fastest USB flash drive?

Had a supposedly good Corsair power supply that blew for no obvious reason, and when I mentioned that to other IT pros, they concurred, stay away from Corsair power supplies.
P.S. been building PCs for 30 years.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

m_a_schuster: Highest capacity flash drive? 256 GB?
1 TB drives have been out there for a while.
At this same CES, Kingston showed 1TB and 2TB flash drives.

Agreed, fastest, maybe, but not highest capacity.
Someone's mis-quoting :
'world's fastest, highest capacity' should be
'world's fastest high capacity'

P.S. Kingston's HyperX Savage USB Flash Drive is excellent (and 512Gb version available)

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 03:10 UTC
In reply to:

Chaitanya S: Usb 3.1 is quite misleading marketing term. That drive still uses 5Gbps interface not full 10Gbps interface.

A lesson in how to confuse people :
USB 3.0 is now refered to as 3.1 Gen 1 (5 Gbps)
3.1 Gen 2 is max 10 Gbps
Most people getting a USB 3.1 port today will think it's an upgrade on 3.0, but if it's a 3.1 Gen 1, what's the difference? Apparently none.

Anyone in the USB standards consortium able to answer a couple of questions?

Is there a single difference between USB 3.0 and USB 3.1 Gen 1 ???

Would it have been so difficult to name USB 3.1 Gen 2 simply USB 3.2 ???

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 03:06 UTC
In reply to:

Le Kilt: Bravo les gars, je rêve d'un truc comme ça depuis 20 ans !

Eh merde, application sans votre logo payante et uniquement sur le site web, pas pour moi :-(

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2017 at 01:10 UTC
Total: 522, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »