BobORama

BobORama

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

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

Comments

Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I like the $50 camera, it has better "color rendition" and "micro contrast" or some other squishy term.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 15:45 UTC as 32nd comment

Is there no limit to the Adobe Stockholm Syndrome?

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 11th comment
On article Ten things we're hoping for from the Nikon D850 (444 comments in total)

A massaging hand grip would be nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 18:39 UTC as 26th comment

The 4th dimmension? So its a video camera too?
< SNARK> Will wonders never cease? </SNARK>

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 17:42 UTC as 2nd comment

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.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 21:20 UTC as 28th comment | 8 replies

8/10. Its easy to get near 10/10 if you download and change the curves to reveal slight differences in noise and contrast and ringing. But by eye, I messed up a couple. One false positive one false negative.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2017 at 17:54 UTC as 6th comment

I guess I am not the target audience for a lens like this. I just go into my basement and pick an old lens and strap it on my camera to hilarious effect for free.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 19:59 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

BobORama: And Linux? I guess they don't generate much DPR ad revenue.

Sure photoshop is available. They call it GIMP. Which is also free. They have a lot of funny names for things which are free too. The money I have saved from the gaping maw that is Adobe pays for a new camera body pretty much every 3-4 years.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 19:51 UTC

And Linux? I guess they don't generate much DPR ad revenue.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 13:19 UTC as 37th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

BobORama: Every photograph from a camera, taken without the photographer composing the shot and pressing a button, is authorless?

Every time lapse ever made, countless millions of photos of wildlife taken with focus traps, movies and cameras shot up into space or on weather baloons, are authorless?

That is, of course, ludicrous.

Having been involved in a copyright suit, I can assure you the costs are ridiculous. For me, there were at least $20K in out of pocket expenses, and perhaps another $45K in accumulated legal fees. So Mr. Slater, you have my sympathies. Thanks, Peta and the rest of your affiliated gaggle of worthless leeches - for ruining photography.

If I place a camera on a tripod or place it on a monkey should not matter.

§ 101 and 102 offer examples of authorship and of protected works. The intentional use of the word "includes" does not limit the scope of possible works, or new works or technologies or techniques nor the modes by which an author exerts their authorship over a work.

The legislation is purposefully inclusionary and the policy is mistakenly exclusionary.

Its more consistent to acknowledging authorship for any work in fixed form which exists due to the action of the author, and would not exist without it.

Its different than finding a camera with expiosed film, or an unsigned painting. Or an applicant seeking to copyright a sunset or all sunsets.

Assessing intent rather than primary causes for the work existing means one could argue your unanticipated or accidental shots are not protected and all manner of absurdities.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

BobORama: Every photograph from a camera, taken without the photographer composing the shot and pressing a button, is authorless?

Every time lapse ever made, countless millions of photos of wildlife taken with focus traps, movies and cameras shot up into space or on weather baloons, are authorless?

That is, of course, ludicrous.

Having been involved in a copyright suit, I can assure you the costs are ridiculous. For me, there were at least $20K in out of pocket expenses, and perhaps another $45K in accumulated legal fees. So Mr. Slater, you have my sympathies. Thanks, Peta and the rest of your affiliated gaggle of worthless leeches - for ruining photography.

Bobthearch,

You confuse policy with law.

Non-humans cannot be claimed to have authorship. However a human can claim authorship of works created through unattended or automated processes. Which is clearly the case in this instance.

As stated in policy,

"Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."

The key is "without any" - as turning on a camera and handing it to a money with the anticipation of something cool happening is, unarguably, a atom of intent, thereby establishing authorship.

What is often confused is 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) which is designed to distinguish, clearly, the copyright from the patent. It prevents, for example, copyrighting of the "idea" of handing a monkey a camera. Drawing a distinction between author and inventor.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 15:15 UTC

Every photograph from a camera, taken without the photographer composing the shot and pressing a button, is authorless?

Every time lapse ever made, countless millions of photos of wildlife taken with focus traps, movies and cameras shot up into space or on weather baloons, are authorless?

That is, of course, ludicrous.

Having been involved in a copyright suit, I can assure you the costs are ridiculous. For me, there were at least $20K in out of pocket expenses, and perhaps another $45K in accumulated legal fees. So Mr. Slater, you have my sympathies. Thanks, Peta and the rest of your affiliated gaggle of worthless leeches - for ruining photography.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 14:28 UTC as 32nd comment | 11 replies
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)

The heck with the lens, I am sure f 1.1 is just horrible.

Now that floating bluetooth music orb is amazing!

You get enough of those placed around your office, you will never need to work again! Your boss or some angry customer will show up irate about your slacking, but then they see several floating music orbs and then forget what they were mad about or why they were even there.

"Hold on there Janet, I know you need to take your emergency anti-seisure medication, but have you seen Bob's floating music orbs?"

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 14:35 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

falconeyes: I wonder ... if this first of all is meant as a control device for 3D content creators ... why not produce RED cameras with binocular EVFs, one for each eye? Like what we are used to with scientific microscopes or binoculars.

Yeah, but that would be so 1880's, and functional. No hip, cool person wants something functional, and old. :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 14:25 UTC

Do large birds obey the flight restrictions?

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 01:55 UTC as 24th comment | 5 replies
On article Caltech research team develops lensless camera (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobORama: Of course the subject needs to be illuminated with a reference laser light source. Explain that one at your kids birthday party. :-) Cheese, your all blind!

The purpose of a lens is as a 2 dimensional spatial coherence filter. The light coming from each infinitesimal piece of the subject at the subject plane is guided to its corresponding location in the focal plane. Other optical paths are attenuated or blocked.

Take a pinhole which is the simplest possible example. All other rays from the subject plane to the focal plane are blocked except for rays emanating at some piece of the subjects and arriving at the corresponding location on the focal plane. In this case the pinhole works by exclusion.

Optics work by re-shaping and managing the wavefront - gathered over a much larger entrance pupil - to satisfy the same spatial coherence requirement for image formation.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
On article Caltech research team develops lensless camera (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobORama: Of course the subject needs to be illuminated with a reference laser light source. Explain that one at your kids birthday party. :-) Cheese, your all blind!

servic,

It will, as it used modulated sidebands of the primary laser frequency, one sideband is the reference, the other is for sense. The then heterodyne the reference and sense into a RF signal which then indicates the phase. The paper is very accessible and available on the Caltech site. In addition, the they describe the two dimmensional sensor requires that the subject be painted with a scanning beam that allow the instantaneous position of the beam to hint at the angular location of the area of the subject being sensed.

So you would need a means to paint the subject with at least 3 primaries, R,G,B each modulated with reference and sense sidebands, then this data captured and integrated. This gives you both phase AND intensity - which are necessary for image reconstruction.

This would never be a ambient light photographic technique. This is in part because ambient light is not coherent.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2017 at 18:29 UTC
On article Caltech research team develops lensless camera (61 comments in total)

Of course the subject needs to be illuminated with a reference laser light source. Explain that one at your kids birthday party. :-) Cheese, your all blind!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 20:45 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobORama: The stereotypical Japanese camera maker still views their product as a hardware engineering effort - only. Software is an after thought, usually poorly engineered, hastly done, as cheaply as possible, and sometimes by people who have no idea how the customer might want to use the product. However the software is where significant product differentiation can and should occur.

If I were to have a product design manifesto it would be to separate the hardware from the control surfaces ( buttons, knobs, screens, etc ) via an API. So what whatever the user can do from the control surfaces of the camera can be done by activating a IoT API - and that API is the ONLY way this occurs to that the HW designers must expose any functionality available to the physical user interface to a potentially network accessible API.

Creating really great hardware and crippling it or insulating it from potential use cases, end user tinkering or innovation - that's not a forward looking direction.

To Ricoh's credit, the R and Theta are steps in the right direction. And even the K-1 incorporated / resolved numerous end user complaints and enhancement requests. It regrettably has a very poorly done WiFi remote facility which works over a woefully short distance. Its not that its bad, but its obviously incomplete.

In the end, being able to take a consumer product and do cool things with it is valuable. It creates a market, increased the customers satisfaction, and other than requiring one smart evangelist within the engineering / product development team to challenge inborn assumptions, does not really increase the cost of the product significantly - or at all.

So while I see Pentax and Ricoh heading in the correct direction from that standpoint, challenges on the financial side and on the culture and structure side post significant challenges.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 18:51 UTC
On article Report: Ricoh announcing cost cuts in face of crisis (326 comments in total)

The stereotypical Japanese camera maker still views their product as a hardware engineering effort - only. Software is an after thought, usually poorly engineered, hastly done, as cheaply as possible, and sometimes by people who have no idea how the customer might want to use the product. However the software is where significant product differentiation can and should occur.

If I were to have a product design manifesto it would be to separate the hardware from the control surfaces ( buttons, knobs, screens, etc ) via an API. So what whatever the user can do from the control surfaces of the camera can be done by activating a IoT API - and that API is the ONLY way this occurs to that the HW designers must expose any functionality available to the physical user interface to a potentially network accessible API.

Creating really great hardware and crippling it or insulating it from potential use cases, end user tinkering or innovation - that's not a forward looking direction.

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 18:44 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »