wetsleet

Joined on May 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 681, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Opinion: DJI has abandoned professionals (356 comments in total)

I never realised you could contract yourself out of statute law. I always assumed statute law was sovereign, and contracts, Ts&Cs etc which tried to limit your statutory rights were simply null and void, a waste of ink. Certainly here in the UK manufacturer warranty conditions always state that "your statutory rights are not affected" - yet somehow people still believe the old line, "that [whatever it is that Apple or whichever does not approve of] will void your warranty".

So how can Dji tell you "buy this product and you've signed away your legal rights"? They do not make the law!

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 10:12 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (45 comments in total)

No doubting the skill and technique involved, but I can't help wondering if a computer generated render is a worthwhile goal to aim for when using a camera. Why not just do a computer generated render?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 16:21 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

wetsleet: So if I trigger a speed camera, can I sue the state for breach of copyright if they use the photo?

Thank you gkdiamond. Now please tell the same to PETA. By did you read the article?

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 06:20 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: How in the world Nikon D750 got 90% Gold Award when

"... models produced between July 2014 through September 2014 and from July 2015 through September 2016." ...

had shutter issues? Shouldn't D750 deserve 65%?

you waited 10 YEARS for CD to mature? Just how risk averse can you be, and not watch whilst the decades of your life pass you by?

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2017 at 10:20 UTC

So if I trigger a speed camera, can I sue the state for breach of copyright if they use the photo?

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:35 UTC as 259th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Androole: A cautionary tale to be sure.

There are a few stories throughout history where ongoing litigation ends up enriching the complainant, but innumerable examples where it leaves them broken.

I didn't think Slater was the complainant.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2017 at 14:33 UTC

I think this is great. I love how the constraints imposed, and the technology overlay, have yielded a fresh and absorbing photography. And no doubt, the photographer's skill also.
I was struck by the strapline at the end of the video - that nobody should be seriously injured or killed *in* a new Volvo car. It seemed to jar with the direction of the video, which I took to be every bit about protecting those outside the new Volvo as those inside.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 16:44 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

Mike Willacy: They're way behind the pace, this means nothing in my opinion. Sony have the march on them already, as soon as Nikon release (if they ever do) their mirrorless Sony will just release another body shortly after and blow it out of the water.

Mike, as Apple keep on demonstrating, you don't need to be first. Often it helps to let others find out which way the wind is blowing first.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

Alberto Tanikawa: A curved sensor would not reduce vignetting, or improve peripheral illumination from lenses. That is dictated by the lens design itself. Light fall-off towards the edges will be exactly the same whether on a flat sensor, or elevated by a few millimeters on a curved sensor. More modern lens designs mitigate the need for such sensors. Not to say they are useless, far from it. Matching a telescope to a specific curved sensor should make coma a thing of the past.

Within a given budget, by removing one constraint on lens design, resource is liberated for tackling other constraints. As well as the more direct factors already mentioned.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2017 at 06:45 UTC

If Lensbaby can make a living selling lenses where nothing is in focus, I think these guys have got a shot, else what is the world coming to?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 19:21 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mike CH: Yeah, a shutter will break if you run it long enough. Surprising, isn't it?

Don't people have something better to do? Weird. And somebody was trying to convince me the other day that YouTube is a fount of knowledge...

erm, well:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/poll-results/

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

kewlguy: 190k non-stop is not the same as 200K of normal use. I think it's a marvelous camera for that matter.

Next, please do the same to Nikon's 100 years anniversary D5. That should be interesting!!!

Well, yes and NO! Much as I enjoy these sideshows, they tend to take on a life of their own. Like all the 'bendgate' tests on mobile phones. Once these test acquire a celebrity status they become almost mandatory, despite their utter irrelevance to to functional requirements.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: Samsung hardly needs to sell cameras and despite the S7 disaster 2016 revenue was $174,000,000,000.00! The gross revenue this company made in total camera sales was less than 1/4 what they wrote off on the S7. With over 27 subsidiaries and many of them much larger than any camera company, camera sales are not necessary. Samsung has known that stand alone cameras will soon be relegated to the same status as film cameras did not long ago. In public 95% of people are shooting with a cell phone. They come home with more photos than most guys with DSLRS/mirrorless strapped to their neck. The ability to edit & share photos instantly is very powerful and the need to carry a clunker around all day, come home to D/L, edit and share photos with family & friends is, quite frankly, a total waste of time. Sure, for some photography, a DSLR or mirrorless is needed, however after seeing what most people on these websites produce with such big & expensive gear, Id say they wasted a lot of money.

"despite the S7 disaster"
Last I heard the S7 was doing very well.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 19:10 UTC

Am I correct in thinking that you needed their servers to stitch together the output of the camera into a usable image? In which case, even if you have the device, will it be any use for much longer?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

white shadow: The smart phone camera definitely has its uses but it can never replace a camera, even for a P&S one. First, the handling is worse off than a camera. Secondly, one seldom can keep it on shoot mode for too long. Thirdly, a phone call can come in anytime to disrupt you while you are trying to shoot. Forthly, the lack of an optical zoom make fast composition a bit difficult. Well, the list goes on.

Even with a good camera, one still require an eye for composition, lighting and exposure. So, thinking that one can shoot "award winning quality" photos by just having an expensive i-phone is an illusion.

So let them call it "dual cam switching", and promote it on its own merits, and not pretend it is something which it is not. After all, if it is better than optical zooming, why would it want to pretend to be something worse? And if it is not, well, there's the deceit.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2017 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

tinternaut: Wasn't a feature length movie shot with iPhones equipped with an anamorphic lens attachment?

Olympus had the balls to shoot an ad for the old E-PL1, using E-PL1s, and showed the rigging they used as part of the add. I don't think anyone realistically expects you could shoot a professional ad with a handheld iPhone or top end Android device.

"...and showed the rigging they used as part of the add"

And that works just fine for me. Done well, showing all that pro rigging and stuff, with a diminutive smartphone where a £50k (+?) pro cine camera normally sits, makes a powerful point in itself, without the deceit.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 07:14 UTC
In reply to:

white shadow: The smart phone camera definitely has its uses but it can never replace a camera, even for a P&S one. First, the handling is worse off than a camera. Secondly, one seldom can keep it on shoot mode for too long. Thirdly, a phone call can come in anytime to disrupt you while you are trying to shoot. Forthly, the lack of an optical zoom make fast composition a bit difficult. Well, the list goes on.

Even with a good camera, one still require an eye for composition, lighting and exposure. So, thinking that one can shoot "award winning quality" photos by just having an expensive i-phone is an illusion.

" Forthly, the lack of an optical zoom..."
Ah, yes, but you are forgetting about the famous iPhone "optical" zoom. A development from their Marketing Engineering department's optical labs. Amazing how many reviews, blogs and commentators now believe the iPhone has an "optical zoom". Perception is reality, and if can adjust the meaning of words a teensy bit through the power of marketing, voila - an "optical" zoom in a mobile phone.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2017 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: The problem with the premise of this article is the author does not know what was used. But one thing we know for sure, it was shot using an iPhone, so its sensor is what's in question. And we know it has a great lens. So the bottom line is, the answer is, we don't know what was used.

But we know that Apple (other manufacturers are available) did not feel they could rely on the phone alone to produce the results they wanted. So neither can you. There is a reason they used extra kit - the phone itself is not able to produce those results.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)

I suspect it was changing the way he gripped the lens that did the trick.

From a scientific method point of view, he gripped the lens in one way, call it "grip A". Both the filter wrench and the ruler method failed. Both times it made the same horrible juddering noise when torque was applied. No difference.

Then he changed to "grip B", extending the lens to do so. Where previously it had failed using the ruler, now it worked. And the horrible juddering noise? Gone.

In the immortal words of Apple, he was holding it wrong!

I just wonder what internal damage was done whilst using grip A, holding the body whilst twisting the extendable front tube. That juddering noise, twice!

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 16:14 UTC as 4th comment
On article LG G6 camera review (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwhig: An unusual 18:9 aspect ratio. Surely that is 2 :1.

You are forgetting the first rule of marketing; a bigger number is a better number.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 08:30 UTC
Total: 681, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »