Greg VdB

Lives in Earth
Works as a Geoscientist
Has a website at www.pbase.com/gbleek
Joined on Sep 6, 2002

Comments

Total: 674, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

x10x10x: Whenever someone tries to convince me that all filters are the same *regardless of the type of filter we are talking about* I refer them to this video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E7-0eHoirW4

It's exactly the "filters in parallel" part that I couldn't follow in the video. That was just a theoretical construction, no? To me it sounded like an overthought solution to an overstated problem, but as I said, I consider it perfectly possible I didn't understand the problem entirely.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 08:45 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: Not all. The cheapest they tested is 102$.

@Roger: testing one or two of the cheap ones could have made the results a lot more interesting for a large part of the community. That, and flare tests to investigate the effect of different coatings. Once you've added those variables in the mix, of course we'll find others that you *must* test as well ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 07:59 UTC
In reply to:

x10x10x: Whenever someone tries to convince me that all filters are the same *regardless of the type of filter we are talking about* I refer them to this video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E7-0eHoirW4

@dialstatic: interesting video! Having worked with a polarizing microscope to study rocks (where a thin sliver of rock acts as the middle polarizer), it left me a bit confused since I remembered the theory being very simple. And sure enough, the comments section at YT had a link to the explanation as I remembered it:
http://alienryderflex.com/polarizer/
I must admit quantum entanglement is beyond my comprehension, and I wonder if I simply didn't get the gist of the problem, but it does seem to me they overstated aspects of the "mystery".

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 07:51 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: One thing's for sure, I don't care much for this type of click-bait title...

@Haim: the provocative way the title is constructed makes it clickbate. A non-clickbait version reflecting the content would be "Significance of the Sony RX10 IV's Phase detection AF".

@ttran88: no worries, between uBlock Origin and my unwillingness to click on affiliate links, DPR didn't win much from me commenting here...

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 20:01 UTC

One thing's for sure, I don't care much for this type of click-bait title...

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 13:32 UTC as 82nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Keith Meinhold: I'd be interested in what the "unedited" original looks like.

(edited) I see you found the original, here's the correct image link to Mr. Tipchai's Pixabay gallery: https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/11/14/05/00/animal-1822662_960_720.jpg

Looking at the facebook post, the Swiss cheater seems to have flipped the image and (rather poorly) added an elephant...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210415511404894&set=pcb.10210415512324917&type=3&theater

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 17:02 UTC

Nice resource! Anybody know a similar page for European countries?
(not that our foliage turns into such crazy vibrant fall colours anyway...)

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 16:24 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sibuzaru: just hope that it makes the original author re evaluate his work's value, at least this one shouldn't be in a mere stock photo website

It's a great picture indeed - a worthy winner of the awards!

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 16:20 UTC

I hope that both Awards committees will keep the awards status of the image and just declare the real photographer as the owner. Maybe even throw an extra prize on top of it to turn it into a positive story, good for their reputation and Mr. Tipchai both.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 16:19 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply
On article Photo of the week: Hyena at Night (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

ozturert: Camera is 5D Mark III, with a lower-than-Sony/Nikon DR, so this is a bad shot.
Or is it?

@Benny: Then again, one could say that sarcasm is for those people who aren't witty enough to use tact ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2017 at 07:15 UTC

Basically, what this illustrates is that the small screens of phones are not a terribly good medium to showcase photos. They have become the most ubiquitous viewing platform of course, and for that I should embrace them, but as a landscape photographer who likes more than "simple" compositions, I remain skeptical.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 07:35 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

matthew saville: At $9,100 to $43,000 to transport 1 LB of gear into space, ...is anybody going to calculate how much NASA could have saved by ordering Sony A9's instead?

A few million, I'd wager?

To the person that is frantically calculating the difference: don't forget to include the additional batteries needed for the A9!

[edit: darn you Dante, too quick...]

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 08:22 UTC

I've seen a version of these (Neewer branded I think) with FIVE flexible arms - the most freaky thing ever to put on your camera! :-)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 03:57 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Father Bouvier: I have this thing, only under the name of Neewer. I paid about $20+ a year ago for it.
It's not a bad idea, those antennae are flexible so you can adjust them for a shooting situation. They don't emit a lot of light, but I found them useful not only for macro, but for portrait fill light as well.
But the quality of manufacturing is horrible. Some buttons started working unreliably, some numbers/bars on LCD started flickering, some don't work anymore.

Thanks for your user report. I've been eying one (or more) of these to use as a flexible lighting rig for mineral photography (where you need full control to illuminate selected crystal planes), so it's good to know what I'd be buying.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

Bambi24: 53 $7000 cameras bought with tax payer money

are you sure you picked the most expensive you could find, there weren't any $10,000 leicas for sale?

meawhile the average american can't even afford decent healthcare

And when a hurricane strikes, those same anti science folk (incl the orange overlord) turn for help to the funding-deprived NASA, NOAA, and partners...

(I hope with all my heart that everybody heeded the warnings of the SCIENTISTS, and both people and infrastructure come out unscathed - Category 4, that's a monster...)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2017 at 03:23 UTC
In reply to:

ozturert: So what was wrong with D4? Do they take 100000 photos/camera every year?

That would be 274 pics a day... doesn't even seem entirely implausible, considering their orbital speed is so high that they probably shoot a lot of sequences. Put me up there, and I'll probably shoot 274 pics an hour ;-)

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

Bambi24: 53 $7000 cameras bought with tax payer money

are you sure you picked the most expensive you could find, there weren't any $10,000 leicas for sale?

meawhile the average american can't even afford decent healthcare

It won't be too large a budget for scientific research and education that will cause the collapse of your economy...

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

new boyz: Why didn't NASA purchase the Sony A9 instead. Lighter and fast AF in live view. It's probably because there are already plenty of Nikon lenses out there. Or just to honor old contract.

First I laughed with your comment, Lea5, then I remembered every gram counts upon launch ;-) Once in orbit, "volume" is the keyword, and that concerns both the body and the necessary batteries...

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2017 at 19:26 UTC
On article How the viral 'climber eclipse' photos were shot (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Am I right and one can even see the stars?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BYEUHknDXVa/

From watching NASA's live coverage of the eclipse, I know Venus and a few of the brightest stars were visible during totality. However, from experience I'm almost certain that the "spots" in the picture are in fact back-lit dust/seeds/small insects floating in the sky. For instance, like those in this shot: http://www.pbase.com/gbleek/image/88023435

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 13:45 UTC
On article How the viral 'climber eclipse' photos were shot (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Excellent preparation, impressive teamwork, and masterful photography, all coming together in a stunning image.

Picture of the Year!

Great video, thanks for posting.

Btw, "doing the math" can be taken out of the equation (pun!) by visiting the following website: http://transit-finder.com/

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 12:59 UTC
Total: 674, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »