DSPographer

Lives in United States United States
Works as a digital signal processing engineer
Joined on Jan 10, 2005
About me:

Canon 5D mark II camera.

Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6_IS_USM, 24/2.8, 50/1.8II, 100/2.8_USM_macro, 200/2.8L lenses.

Sigma EF-500_DG_Super flash.

Comments

Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Some more technical details:
http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2017/02/sony-presents-3-layer-stacked-sensor.html

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 21:48 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

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

Maybe that's why the maximum fine is low: the expectation is that the victim will get a more appropriate amount in a civil suite.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 22:34 UTC
On article Leica announces M10 with new sensor, slimmer design (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

NAwlins Contrarian: Today a sensor of at least 36 MP without an anti-alias filter would seem like a minimum starting point, given how Leica and its fans seem to really like its sharp lenses. I don't see where the M10 does or does not have an anti-alias filter. Although 24 MP is fine for most uses, the Sony A7R II and Nikon D810 have shown that there is very little or no penalty in noise or dynamic range to upping the pixel count.

The need to accommodate the wide range of angles of light that the rangefinder style lenses present to the sensor may be one reason the pixel count is not higher.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 21:27 UTC

On an off-topic note: Shouldn't state legislatures realize that the fines versus jail time options are now ridiculously unbalanced? The maximum fine of $5000 is less than the price of many better drones, almost a year in prison seems pretty extreme in comparison.
Ex. according to the cinema 5D review the DJI Inspire-2 premium plus needed SSDs will cost about $8000 for the kit. Getting conked on the head lens-first by that system at either maximum speed or at free-fall from height would probably cause damage that would make a $5000 fine seem meaningless.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 20:59 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

I worded it poorly. I didn't mean another example of FAA enforcement, but another example of a drone operator being charged.
I did provide a quote from the fly for fun section as well.
The FAA does mention that you can follow club safety rules if you are a member of a national hobby club. It looks like the FAA would require this to fly a hobby UAV over 55 pounds.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

Lensmate: If people cover their hands up, won't they just switch to retinal scanning? Eyes are usually the sharpest section in most photographs of people. [excluding nudity]

Retinal scanning is almost never used, it is just confused with iris scans which are what are really used.
The iris texture is only visible using infrared for people with pigmented (ex. brown/black) irises. Near-IR can be blocked with quality sunglasses, but normal sunglasses won't work.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

Another example: A drone operator convicted of reckless endangerment:
https://news.seattle.gov/2017/01/13/city-attorneys-office-prevails-in-drone-case/

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

Sometimes the FAA directly enforces its rules. They just settled a lawsuit against SkyPan for flying over New York and Chicago for $200,000. This is reduced from the initial proposed amount of $1,900,000.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/faa-and-aerial-photography-firm-settle-drone-dispute-for-200000/
According to the article, the FAA says breaking its rules is illegal:
""Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous," FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said"

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 21:22 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

Note: part-107 rules are for "fly-for-work" drone operation, but fly for fun safety rules are similar. An excerpt from the "fly-For-Fun" FAA page states:
"Never fly over groups of people"
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 20:50 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.

Correction Inspire-1 max level still air speed is 22 m/s = 49 MPH.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

True, and you would most likely be charged under a state statute: but I think the local police & prosecutor would be likely to cite the FAA rule when charging you with something like reckless endangerment.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:51 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".

Baseball 0.149 Kg vs 2.948 Inspire-1 drone
Speed: Baseball 37.1 m/s standard line drive, 53.6 m/s Max Major league home run, Inspire-1 drone 22 m/s max in still air.
Baseball kinetic energy: 100 J standard drive up to 214 J max speed.
Inspire-1 kinetic energy: 713 J at maximum level flight speed.
Baseball helmets are designed to withstand 100 J.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:36 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.

Inspire 1: About 6.5 lbs with a 22 MPH top speed. Not exactly as dangerous as an out of control car. Still, its illegal to operate over other people which basically bans operation over cities.

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

Thomas Traub: flying drones should be forbidden because it is much more dangerous than most of the people recognize!
I fly an RC-controlled airplane (more of them) and I know that there could be some tricky situations that are not easy to handle. The big difference is that an airplane can be managed if something is wrong, f.e. the engine stops or one rudder goes bad - you have other ones.
If a drone has has a technical problem only with one of the engines or with wind or so on it comes down like a stone. And don't belive that it is easy to fly a drone only because 95 % of the work is done by an electronic-automatism that has a self-correction via GPS.
I know that some of us don't want to hear this or want to face the risk becaus it seems to be so easy to make pictures from above....

If something went wrong, it comes down like a stone - from 300 m above - 2 kg or more ......

AND FLYING OVER HUMANS OR IN A CITY IS AN A B S O L U T E N O G O ! ! ! ! !
And it is forbidden near everywhere ....

The following is an excerpt of the FAA rules:
"Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation"
So basically flying over other people is forbidden everywhere in the USA. All those drone videos over cities show illegal operation.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: The "sport" ISO value shouldn't be counted since NR at RAW level is performed. Very impressive sensor never the less. I think give A7R II's sensor to Nikon and Pantax and they will match Helium 8K in all but "sport" ISO

DXOmark explains that the Red Weapon results are likely due to temporal noise reduction. If not, then I say the results show something has gone wrong with the measurement. I don't think Red has repealed the laws of physics.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
On article Canon EOS M5 real-world sample gallery (240 comments in total)

Are there any examples coming with the 15-45mm kit lens?

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 14:27 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EOS M5: What you need to know (564 comments in total)
In reply to:

AnuraGuruge: Are you 100% sure that the "borrows a lot from the EOS 80D, including a Digic 7 processor ...". I thought, obviously incorrectly, that the 80D had a Digic 6.

One of the Canon videos mentioned it used the same *sensor* as the 80D.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2016 at 17:39 UTC
On article Modern Mirrorless: Canon EOS M5 Review (1606 comments in total)
In reply to:

jim bennett: So my takeaway is that the in body IS only works for video and only in conjunction with lenses that already have IS? So it will not benefit lenses without IS or legacy non stabilized lenses. If true that is a huge miss for Canon. Probably on purpose but still, that really limits the effectiveness and is different than how most in body stabilization cameras work.

I think this is not real IBIS like Olympus or some Sony have. This is just frame-to-frame image shift to make video look more stable, each frame is individually just as blurred by the motion as with no stabilization. That is why it doesn't work for still photos.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2016 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: To reduce noise (shoot at 1/2 the ISO), I suppose if you had 2 of these cameras close together, you could shoot at 15FPS (instead of 30) and double the exposure time, and interleave the frames from each of them. Of course the cameras would need to be offset by 1/15th of a second...Since the stars are infinitely away, there would be no parallax, right?
At some point though you can't just keep increasing the exposure time due to the stars moving unless you also are tracking them, in which case why shoot a video.

The processing I am suggesting also results in 30 fps movies: frame 1 out = frame 1 + frame 2 in; frame 2 out = frame 2 + frame 3 in etc.

The temporal characteristics of the shot noise are different, with two cameras the noise will be uncorrelated frame to frame. This means your two camera noise would be less visible.

There is no ability to improve the time resolution with your technique like there is with adaptive post-processed frame averaging.

To reduce noise for far-field images with multiple cameras, you can just gen-lock them for simultaneous exposures then combine their images in post processing. This can also be made to work fairly well for near subjects by having the software estimate the parallax for each part of the image. Or as I mentioned you can create a stereo pair for stereo viewing that will work for near subjects.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 18:02 UTC
In reply to:

junk1: To reduce noise (shoot at 1/2 the ISO), I suppose if you had 2 of these cameras close together, you could shoot at 15FPS (instead of 30) and double the exposure time, and interleave the frames from each of them. Of course the cameras would need to be offset by 1/15th of a second...Since the stars are infinitely away, there would be no parallax, right?
At some point though you can't just keep increasing the exposure time due to the stars moving unless you also are tracking them, in which case why shoot a video.

It is simple post-processing to average consecutive 1/30th exposures from a single camera to yield overlapped 1/15 frames. Processing also exists to adjust inter-frame averaging depending on how stable each region of the frame is, so motion doesn't get blurred. A better use of two cameras would be for stereo, our brains tend to do a good job of ignoring noise that is present in only one eye.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2016 at 13:16 UTC
Total: 33, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »