Lives in United States Allentown USA, Earth, United States
Works as a IT Director, Networks & Infrastructures
Has a website at
Joined on Jun 20, 2006
About me:

Find someone with a better plan, hit them over the head, steal their plan.


Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The parallax method, requiring at least 2 photos from slightly different PoV can be done using Hugin. Done it several times to remove inconvenient telephone poles, tripod legs, or some random person.

The description says "existing photos" which in most case would not have been shot with obstruction removal in mind.

So which is it? A well understood compositing method which requires a pair of special shot photos, or a new method that can take an arbitrary single image, as shot, and perform these operations?

Link | Posted on May 19, 2017 at 15:45 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply

Can Sony just sell us that little tracking robot from the clip with the red ball, packaged in a furry dog body? Me wants robo puppy!

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 14:35 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

Colors, who needs colors?
Simply too many notes.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2017 at 16:00 UTC as 42nd comment
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (199 comments in total)

Can you power it continuously? It does not seem possible to do that. It seems like it would be good for long term time lapse - IF you could power it externally while keeping it water proof.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 12:56 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies

This thing solves every problem I don't have. The problem I do have is the AE program in most cameras is not designed for time lapse and is way to jittery. Correcting strobing in post can be done, but again, shouldn’t need to be done. A video camera does not evaluate exposire on a frame by frame basis and flails the exposure in response to the last 1/60th of a second. Rather it dampens swings in exposure to achieve long term stability. Also video cameras will use much smaller steps in their AE program, not 1/3rd - 1/6th stops, which are still huge and very visible. I would much rather have a "make stops as small as the hardware allows" mode. One maker commented "but then the EXIF would be wrong" - typical cart before horse thinking.

Anyway, for $1000 I guess it does something useful.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 16:40 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply

A lot depends on what actually happened. If the work was derived from her photo, there is a case to be made. If the work is derived from a different photo that is stylistically similar, her claims are more difficult to prove.

Even if they outright used the photo and would otherwise be infringing, the argument to be made by the A.W. team is that through their manipulations, at some point, so little of the original photo remains that the value of the new work is not in its derivation from the original.

For example, if you take a photocopy of a photocopy and repeat this process, the original image will be lost, and no reasonable person would deduce the final copy was related to the original. Or if you took the original and applied a heavy-handed Gaussian blur. This process of attenuating the original work is a continuum. So at what point is the original work lost?

Her argument will be her right is to control permissible uses, not the subjective outcomes of that use.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 13:05 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies

And yet the Stockholm Syndrome expressed by Apple devotees means they will be buying whatever Apple decides to sell.

-- Bob

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 19:02 UTC as 17th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Michael McCulley: I volunteer at a 34,000 acre County Operated park in AZ, that includes close to 100 miles of trails, less than 10 miles of road ways, multiple campgrounds for RVs, Tents, along with scores of picnic areas. Elevations changes range up to 1800 feet. Often there are many thousands of people are in the park along with dogs, horses.. Wildlife includes Raptors, Mtn. Lions, along with other wild 4 legged species not to mention the other critters that comes with a desert environment. The park is located more than 30-40 minutes response by emergency vehicles. Drones are NOT ALLOWED. Although privacy issues abound at this park at any given time, the PRIMARY issue with drones is the fact that there are dozens of helicopter rescues we have each year. A large percentage are not announced and 99% of rescues are more than 45 minutes hiking distance away from any road access in addition to drive time getting to the park. Helicopter RESCUE protocols are hard & not negotiable > no DRONES !

I never knew helicopters were so fragile, just wait till the terrorists figure out they can be taken down by 18 ounces of menacing plastic you can buy at Target for $379.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 02:00 UTC

Show me an artist for hire and I will show you someone who compromises their vision.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 19:01 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

davesurrey: As someone who appreciates "old" technology and has enjoyed repairing many such devices over the years I greatly admire this gentleman.
However, these are NOT analogue cameras. They are FILM cameras. The opposite of digital may be considered analogue when we speak of computers but it's inappropriate and wrong when we are talking about such cameras.

When we talk of analog(ue) or digital photography we are referring to the primary method of storage of the images. Most, if not all, mass produced digital cameras capture and read out the image as ephemeral analog signals which are then digitized and stored in digital form.

A camera which embedded a mini wet lab and incinerator and negative scanner that scanned the negative and subsequent incinerated them would be a digital camera. A camera which encoded photographic informaton in a digital form on an edison cylinder is still a digital camera.

Then you have film cameras with computer controlled mechanisms. Digital? The exposure program is certainly digital.

While I appreciate the nostalgic approach, the commonly accepted nomenclature is there because people desire to make the distinction. 40 years from now, 2D still photography in general will probably seem like such an anachronism whatever remnants of this discussion will seem entirely laughable.

-- Bob

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 22:13 UTC

So ... this was "protected" by a sign?

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2016 at 03:13 UTC as 18th comment | 16 replies

I would, quite literally, risk a house fire with a defective Samsung product than give another dime to Apple for their uncreative intellectual thievery. I can always charge my samsung on an asbestos pad, the apple will still be just as crappy when its not on fire.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 13:59 UTC as 32nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

BadScience: 3MP is good enough for a magazine cover?

That really depends upon your definition of what is "good enough". Say a magazine is printed at 150 lpi; then you are going to need at least 300 dpi to resolve the line screen. If the magazine is A4, then with bleed the the image is 2.6k x 3.6k pixels = 9.4 M pixels.

Sure, you can use a third of that, but it will look like mush. Might be "good enough" for the town's local free magazine that's printed on newspaper stock at 60 lpi.

Yeah, but Steve Jobs is God and Apple is Heaven, so whatever they do MUST be trendsetting.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 13:55 UTC

So it pretty much does what Samsung has been doing for 2+ years. Very innovative. Of course I can connect my samsung to a stereo with those old wire things old people use.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2016 at 13:53 UTC as 78th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mmcfine: Competition is good but honestly I don't understand what makes this lens any better then current available options?
I don't understand why someone will spend money on a lens that keeps "ghosting, color aberration and flare under control". Most of these issue can be corrected in post and the rest are characteristics of a lens and scene which makes photography what it is.

There are HUGE differences when it comes to astrophotography. CA cannot be corrected, as image data is lost since the colors do not share the same focal plane and so are slightly blurred. CA can be concealed. Coma is the more pressing issue. Coma is difficult to correct. The Samyang 14/2.8 has very well controlled coma for the price. If the Irix has similar performance AND accurate infinity focus AND so on, then its worth the price. Lenses which perform well for astro work also work well as general purpose lenses. at $300-something the Samyang is hard to beat. Time will tell...

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 01:20 UTC
On article Hasselblad True Zoom Moto Mod hands-on preview (152 comments in total)

April Fools Day comes a bit early, or late, depending.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 19:40 UTC as 71st comment

I have never understood how this is such a popular specimen of his work. If someone were to post this to one of the DPR forums today, as a new work, it would be ripped apart for various compositional defects, blown highlights, and the central position of the moon. If it did not have the provenance of being one of his works, it would be an OK photo.

I like the video, however, its always good to see well respected artists in human form, rather than ethereal beings of pure thought that float around in art history tomes.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 15:28 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies

With my basically free rig, hand operated and manually focused was good enough to produce 400 MP images of narrow stained glass panels. I have done some up to 4 gigapixels in size using a $300 telescope mounts pano mode to automate things.

Here you can see a hairline crack, 30 feet off the ground. Its not pretty pixel peeping, but its good enough. A $2000 AF 180mm Macro lens would have made this nearly perfect - I didn't have that, however. It took about 30 minutes, same as Google - all without the quadrillion dollar multi-national spy apparatus.

Shift Click to zoom out Click to zoom in, the rest ask a teenager.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 21:44 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply

Dear DPR,

On several D810 studio test shot images, I note signs of in-camera sharpening - some of these are visible in your own studio scene. I though this was an artifact some perceptual issue on my part. But on looking at the frequency component of an FFT, you can see something is not quite right. You also see it on fat pixel scaled crops - where the perceptual issues are removed from the equation, and you can see the ringing. These manifest themselves as lighter outlines on dark lines. Its a ringing pattern typical of sharpening algorithms, one that I would not expect to be present in a 100 ISO RAW file.


-- Bob

Link | Posted on May 5, 2016 at 22:02 UTC as 128th comment
On article Polaroid-branded BrightSaber Pro wand packs 298 LEDs (41 comments in total)

LUMENS? WATTAGE? Some measure of luminous flux? The flashlights at WalMart provide more information on their package.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2016 at 17:33 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »