jhinkey

jhinkey

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Aerospace Engineering Consultant
Has a website at www.hinkey.zenfolio.com
Joined on Dec 27, 2005

Comments

Total: 623, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »

And I hope the woman sues him in civil court if she hasn't already . . .

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 22:17 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

junk1: Reckless Endangerment flying a toy drone? Was the operator purposely flying at people trying to hit them? Or carrying large fireworks on the drone? What I see is the drone going bizerk out of control from a decent distance away.
The vast majority of people who slightly to moderately speed in their 4000lb vehicles are 1000x more likely to hurt or kill someone.

Knowing that area pretty well - it appears he took off from the top of a building in the very first part of the video.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

Terry Breedlove: They are now talking about banning the use of Drones around Orcas. Must stay 200 yards above a Pod if this bill is passed. Boaters already have the restriction 200 yards away from any pod.

What's wrong with that?

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 03:32 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: This kind of thing needs to be nipped in the bud as it will get out of control quickly with the meteoric rise in drones. Well legislated rules and strict tough enforcement for violations are a must.

Last year someone (not sure if they eventually caught them) crashed a drone into the wheel on the waterfront in Seattle - lucky no one on the ground got hurt when it fell.

Let's stick our heads in the sand and only do something when a true catastrophe occurs (like a plane crash or pedestrian killed or . . ) because we don't want to regulate. How do you think unpopular regulations get put into place in the first place? Usually because someone did something they shouldn't have done or were grossly negligent. I'm not for over-regulation, but being proactive with regulations to prevent accidents from a new, potentially dangerous technology is sound logic. If it turns out that regulations need tweaking by all means adjust, but don't throw out regulations all together for something as potentially serious as drone safety.
Self regulation has been shown over and over to be ineffective . . .

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
In reply to:

zeratulmrye: Doesn't seem like he was on purpose...

And the likely fact that it wasn't on purpose changes things how? It would only change the charges against the operator from negligence to premeditation.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: Well deserved.

The space need is 605 ft or so tall - so clearly it was flying well over 400' in elevation. There are a lot of small planes flying in and out of Lake Union that are much lower than that. This was clearly a hazard to people, buildings, and small planes in the area.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: This kind of thing needs to be nipped in the bud as it will get out of control quickly with the meteoric rise in drones. Well legislated rules and strict tough enforcement for violations are a must.

Last year someone (not sure if they eventually caught them) crashed a drone into the wheel on the waterfront in Seattle - lucky no one on the ground got hurt when it fell.

Hmm . . a 2 lb "toy" (which it clearly is not a "toy") that can take down an airplane or helicopter, fall from great heights onto people below, crash into buildings. It's not that we can't handle it, it's that that it needs to be regulated appropriately to prevent even more severe accidents/mishaps. These incidents will only grow in frequency and the chances of a truly catastrophic outcome increased. It just can't get out of control - that's all.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: Is this any more reckless than people playing baseball in a neighborhood? Ever get hit by a baseball in the head? Or imagine what a baseball could do to a window or siding. Would we charge the person with reckless endangerment? I'd rather have a drone hit me than a baseball "line drive".

How much does a baseball weigh compared to a drone? What's the speed difference? How many baseballs can crash into the top of buildings?

Poor analogy.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:18 UTC

This kind of thing needs to be nipped in the bud as it will get out of control quickly with the meteoric rise in drones. Well legislated rules and strict tough enforcement for violations are a must.

Last year someone (not sure if they eventually caught them) crashed a drone into the wheel on the waterfront in Seattle - lucky no one on the ground got hurt when it fell.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 15:48 UTC as 20th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

pictureAngst: This time around they should build drum scanning into the developing workflow and include it in the price - best of both worlds.

Yes, and where am I going to be able to get Kodachrome, which was already hard to find a lab to develop it, developed?

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 19:52 UTC

How will I keep my desk top (actual, not virtual) as cluttered as it is now if I have to use it as a touch screen!

Cool though.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

TFD: While picking up a $100 used MF Russian lens is interesting as a cheap and cheerful toy. The idea of modern and expensive manual focus lenses is just dumb. Regardless if it is an $800 Tokina or a $3000 Zeiss. Tokina knows how to make autofocus lenses selling a MF lens is just a marketing gimmick.

Maybe the next step will be uncoated lens, might as well just go further back in time.

"as always the truth lies somewhere inbetween ... "
But sometimes the truth is 99% on one side of the argument.
This Tokina is not a legacy MF lens in M-mount. It's a modern optical design, likely with very good ergonomics and electronic comm. with the camera body.
Clearly there is a market for modern MF lenses in E mount, it's just not for everyone. Price seems reasonable, especially if the build and optical quality are top notch.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: While picking up a $100 used MF Russian lens is interesting as a cheap and cheerful toy. The idea of modern and expensive manual focus lenses is just dumb. Regardless if it is an $800 Tokina or a $3000 Zeiss. Tokina knows how to make autofocus lenses selling a MF lens is just a marketing gimmick.

Maybe the next step will be uncoated lens, might as well just go further back in time.

The idea of taking the optical, size, weight, reliability and cost compromises for an AF lens when I don't need AF at all is also just dumb. The inability to put yourself in the shoes of other gear users is also not too smart.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 14:35 UTC

OK, I get it. This could be a lovely lens. But I really need a 20mm/4 that's sharp wide open, has great flare/ghosting control, and makes great sun stars on my A7RII. Oh, and it needs to be relatively small. Something besides this 20/2 and the Lox 20/2.8 would be great to have as a travel lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 23:16 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

maxnimo: Hard to believe that any 20mm lens would need to be so tall (long), especially in this age of excellent pancake lenses.

Yeah, the 20/2.8 AIS is not a lens to hold up as an example of optical excellence.
It's no dog, but optically excellent it's not.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 23:01 UTC

And 15 years from now it will be features on DPR's "Throwback Thursday" article . . .

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 21:01 UTC as 2nd comment

Very cool.

Here in the PNW you can see the cities grow, tree cutting on the national forest & private lands (cutting patches progressing, new growth following), and our glaciers retreating.

Mer de Glace in France shrinking considerably.

Take a look at Mt. St. Helens as it recovers from the big blow out in 1980.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2016 at 01:44 UTC as 1st comment

The MK-II does look slightly sharper in RAW compared to the MK-I. Noise looks like a toss-up, which is what one would expect in reality.

For me it's the price. Don't need 4K and some of the other goodies.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 22:23 UTC as 51st comment
In reply to:

BobT3218: 121 autofocus points? Why? Seems to me this gives 120 chances of the camera selecting the wrong point. Is this going be another pixel war thing?

Now I have even more freedom to select the portion of the image that I want the AF to use. This is not a bad thing as long as it doesn't slow things down.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

LaurenceSvirchev: It says Mountainsmith. If you're in the wilderness for more than a day, you need a bag like this to haul gear, extra clothes, tent, food. Or hire a 'sherpa.' It's not a city bag.

Actually I find it the other way around. These bags tend to be optimized just for carrying camera gear and not much else (though you can certainly use the volume to carry anything you want). As I said below, anything other than a short hike from the car or around town and you'll likely want to use something else. These bags also tend to be quite relatively heavy with padding and lot of extra features - another reason I like to adapt a light weight backpack for in the wilderness photography activities.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
Total: 623, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »