Turbguy1

Turbguy1

Lives in United States Laramie, WY, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jul 3, 2009

Comments

Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (383 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turbguy1: Drones (such as these) can be an extreme hazard to life, while the "pilot" has absolutely NO risk to himself . Why should this risk unbalance be permitted? It is NOT a constitutional right to operate a drone, period.

I suspect there will eventually be CONSIDERABLE regulation of drones, that will expose the operators to significant risk to there own life.

AND, it will become legal to "disable" drones when it is safe to do so...

Extremely unlikely occurances (low probability) are usually associated with extreme outcomes (high risk).

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 04:26 UTC
In reply to:

BobORama: Clues for the clueless: If the windscreen for jetliners can be compromised by striking a 5 pound drone, you need to mandate better windscreens.

Do you think terrorists will bother following the rules?

A drone operator who pays thousands of dollars for these larger sized drones has a vested interest not seeing their precious baby slam into a jet. A secondary issue is ingestion into a jet engine.

So while we go about regulating the thousands of drone operators who have NOT slammed their drone into a jetliner, we do nothing to ensure that a bad actor with a plan won't bring down aircraft with a $1000 toy and some "improvements"

Is registering and requiring safety classes effective against preventing a catastrophe? Possibly? Most sane individuals value their drones to much to risk them. But if you are serious about this, then there should be concurrent demands made on aircraft makers and carriers that force them to adapt to the new reality of 10 pounds "birds" with metal bones.

You have to face the fact that there is a risk imbalance between the "pilot" of a drone and an occupied aircraft. There is practically zero bodily risk to a drone's pilot. Such regulation now imposes a [slight] risk to the pilot, even if they don't cause an accident or incident. Drones can be [and ARE] dangerous to life and limb.

In the USA, this situation might be compared to issues surrounding our constitutional right to bear arms. This imbalance is addressed by the potential for ALL parties to be so armed, and there is a risk that a perpetrator might run into a situation where he/she becomes the injured. While this is FAR from being a solution, it certainly can provide a deterrent. Note that you have a right to KEEP and BEAR [carry] arms. Not the right to use them "at a distance"...

There is no constitutional right to "fly drones", increased regulation WILL occur. Including the legal right to "disable" drones if it is safe to do so.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 23:07 UTC
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (383 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turbguy1: Drones (such as these) can be an extreme hazard to life, while the "pilot" has absolutely NO risk to himself . Why should this risk unbalance be permitted? It is NOT a constitutional right to operate a drone, period.

I suspect there will eventually be CONSIDERABLE regulation of drones, that will expose the operators to significant risk to there own life.

AND, it will become legal to "disable" drones when it is safe to do so...

..ignoring the weekly, if not daily, reports of firefighting aircraft being grounded/restricted due to drones being flown in a restricted zone...

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (383 comments in total)
In reply to:

Turbguy1: Drones (such as these) can be an extreme hazard to life, while the "pilot" has absolutely NO risk to himself . Why should this risk unbalance be permitted? It is NOT a constitutional right to operate a drone, period.

I suspect there will eventually be CONSIDERABLE regulation of drones, that will expose the operators to significant risk to there own life.

AND, it will become legal to "disable" drones when it is safe to do so...

Oh, I see your point.

I suspect it was their Legal/Risk Management Department that made this change.

The manufacturer of the drone (who has MUCH deeper pockets than the "pilot") may simply be attempting to limit/control their liability.

That said, how long before someone hacks the software and gets around the restriction? About 3 to 6 months, IMO.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 01:25 UTC
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (383 comments in total)

Drones (such as these) can be an extreme hazard to life, while the "pilot" has absolutely NO risk to himself . Why should this risk unbalance be permitted? It is NOT a constitutional right to operate a drone, period.

I suspect there will eventually be CONSIDERABLE regulation of drones, that will expose the operators to significant risk to there own life.

AND, it will become legal to "disable" drones when it is safe to do so...

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 23:58 UTC as 67th comment | 7 replies

Isn't "flat" just a special case of "curved"? I can see a potential that a properly curved sensor would reduce cosine-related light fall-off, but optical design still has to match another "special case" of curvature using a non-flat sensor...unless the sensor can be curved as required to suit the lens design...

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 17:59 UTC as 20th comment

The word "holographic" has been mentioned several times. If this device has a true "holographic" display, then it would produce a full 3D image in space with the display held at any orientation angle, not just exactly portrait, or exactly landscape, but all rotational angles in between. This requires an INCREDIBLE amount of data to be displayed. And that's for a STILL!

I would suspect it would take a "light field display" (similar to a "light field camera") to produce such a viewing device.

We all know the current success of light field cameras...

That said, the finest autostereoscopic device I have seen is the King 7S smartphone. A high resolution lenticular screen.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2017 at 16:11 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

alaska_tim: Regarding point 6, the differences between a technology that allows you to freely move around a virtual space, and 360 degree photo/video, in which you are stuck in the center of a spherical space (I include Facebook's parallax tech here) may not be limitations, so much as differences between related but separate media analogous to the differences between photography, cinematography and video games. Our expectations of each should be different, be they conventional or 360 degree. Also, as playing multiple photographs in rapid succession is cinematography, 360 cinematography becomes a VR video game when you can walk around a virtual space.

Also do not underestimate points 1 and 3 as they relate to 360 photo/video. Stereoscopic photography has been around since the 1860's. This and other 3D viewing tech have never caught on precisely because they require special equipment (e.g. glasses) to enjoy. So long as this is the case 360 degree photo/video is unlikely to achieve wide adoption.

I suspect multiple light field cams might provide sufficient data to record and enable the absolute smooth stereoscopic scene dynamics you could experience by tilting your head into any position. And that's gonna require a lot of light field cams for VR...

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

alaska_tim: Regarding point 6, the differences between a technology that allows you to freely move around a virtual space, and 360 degree photo/video, in which you are stuck in the center of a spherical space (I include Facebook's parallax tech here) may not be limitations, so much as differences between related but separate media analogous to the differences between photography, cinematography and video games. Our expectations of each should be different, be they conventional or 360 degree. Also, as playing multiple photographs in rapid succession is cinematography, 360 cinematography becomes a VR video game when you can walk around a virtual space.

Also do not underestimate points 1 and 3 as they relate to 360 photo/video. Stereoscopic photography has been around since the 1860's. This and other 3D viewing tech have never caught on precisely because they require special equipment (e.g. glasses) to enjoy. So long as this is the case 360 degree photo/video is unlikely to achieve wide adoption.

Scanning a scene an modelling it would work, but how would that "handle" non-static moving image elements, such as:

-Flowing/splashing water

-Moving tree branches/leaves in the wind

-Wildlife stampedes

THINK about the data required to represent such scenes in stereo, and display it in all head positions!

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

alaska_tim: Regarding point 6, the differences between a technology that allows you to freely move around a virtual space, and 360 degree photo/video, in which you are stuck in the center of a spherical space (I include Facebook's parallax tech here) may not be limitations, so much as differences between related but separate media analogous to the differences between photography, cinematography and video games. Our expectations of each should be different, be they conventional or 360 degree. Also, as playing multiple photographs in rapid succession is cinematography, 360 cinematography becomes a VR video game when you can walk around a virtual space.

Also do not underestimate points 1 and 3 as they relate to 360 photo/video. Stereoscopic photography has been around since the 1860's. This and other 3D viewing tech have never caught on precisely because they require special equipment (e.g. glasses) to enjoy. So long as this is the case 360 degree photo/video is unlikely to achieve wide adoption.

Obtaining full stereoscopic vision is absolutely required for true "VR" (IMO).

There are CONSIDERABLE issues with with obtaining a full 4pi steradian (full spherical) stereoview. AND those don't even address what you must do if the viewer tilts his/her head towards the shoulder. A fully computed (computer generated) image can do this, but capturing a live view of a real scene requires a HUGE amount of data, and a HUGE amount of cameras to duplicate all head positions!

Until HDR holographic 4pi steradian imaging is achieved, there will always be some compromise.

I guess only Star Trek's Holodeck will suffice.

That said, even the old Cinerama imaging was very compelling!

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2017 at 04:19 UTC

Interested to compare to the Sigma 8-16mm

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 04:21 UTC as 84th comment | 1 reply
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

One large drawback in purchasing these film cams, even if in mint condition.

The LIGHT SEAL MATERIALS on the camera back (and for the mirror on SLR's), typically degrades with age to a sticky goo.

The back seals might be easy to renew. The mirror seal, not so easy...

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 06:11 UTC as 94th comment | 1 reply

I think I'll wait until I see them in Garage Sales about 20 years from now...

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 23:32 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

Turbguy1: ...drool...

I wonder how they handle the heat generation on the sensor? Forced air cooling??

THIS sensor has a lot more "stuff attached", and should have more electrical losses in the "sandwich" style of construction, no?

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 04:24 UTC

...drool...

I wonder how they handle the heat generation on the sensor? Forced air cooling??

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 03:50 UTC as 57th comment | 5 replies
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (305 comments in total)

Kinda looks like a mutant Stereo Realist.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 01:51 UTC as 47th comment

Perfect for my next pinhole camera!

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 03:31 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)

Bring back Tech Pan, or even better, High Contrast Copy Film. High Contrast Copy Film, when processed for full range, could EASY achieve 250 lp/mm, and challenge the BEST technique and lenses. At ISO of about 2...

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 02:42 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies

FYI, all beach areas in the major Hawaiian Islands are public (except for a few military areas), BUT you need a permit from the authorities to film/shoot commercially on them.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 06:41 UTC as 29th comment
On article TwoEyes VR stereoscopic camera simulates human vision (52 comments in total)

Viewing the videos on the site reveals that there is imperfect sync between left and right captures. Note how the young dancer's fast moving arms are not synced.

This is THE most important parameter for any stereoscopic video! If they can't get that right...

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 02:25 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 143, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »