falconeyes

falconeyes

Lives in Germany Germany
Has a website at falklumo.blogspot.com
Joined on Apr 28, 2008

Comments

Total: 806, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

lesnapanda: to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

@lesnapanda
my comment was more along the lines NOT to focus on this charge time detail.

The article contains much more interesting elements to comment or criticize about. Yet nobody does so. Everybody just comments on the little detail elementary school physics suffices to understand. And that's ridiculous.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2016 at 08:31 UTC
In reply to:

Cheema: I have been hearing similar claims from different parties for more than 10 years. Have any come to pass? No.

People have been making similar claims about breakthroughs in data storage for ages as well. In real life. No real breakthrough. But incremental improvements over time? Yes.

Battery storage has been slowly getting better. But don't hold your breadth for a huge jump in capacity. If history is any guide, its going to be baby steps.

What revolutionized the computer industry wasn't the invention of the transistor.

It was the progress in solid state physics, esp. for semiconducting materials. The transistor then was an imminent idea somebody was lucky enough to have first.

I am always puzzled how stealth the real progress in physics appears to the rest of the society.

My problem with that article is that it doesn't describe a break-thru progress in any of the leading edge research frontiers. It is more like proposing the transistor rather than fundamental progress in semiconductors. Except that this isn't the transistor.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: "...two-dimensional metal materials."
Is that even possible in reality or only mathematicaly possible?

I think the better known approach (and mentioned in the article) is graphene. Graphene is made from 1 atom thick layers of carbon where layers are relatively strong but forces between layers are very weak. The very idea has been abstracted into the term 2D materials.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:24 UTC
In reply to:

lesnapanda: to charge a phone for full week in a couple seconds would require a charging current from a std 230V AC socket of around 185 amperes.

That's not that much, considering the currents in e-cars.
Just have a dedicated battery-powered charger ready which charges slowly over 230V AC and decharges into the smart device when conncected.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 11:20 UTC
In reply to:

fenceSitter: I'm afraid Fotodiox is a little late to the party when offereing an adapter for the "G" aperture control mechanism that is already in the process of being phased out and replaced by Nikon.

None of the newer premium lenses (e.g. AF-S NIKKOR 70–200 mm 1:2,8E / PC NIKKOR 19 mm 1:4E / AF-S NIKKOR 105 mm 1:1,4E ED / AF-S NIKKOR 24–70 mm 1:2,8E) will work.

My comment was wrt "none of the newer premium lenses will work". May be, but my point was that this is an easy fix for Fotodiox or another company following step.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

fenceSitter: I'm afraid Fotodiox is a little late to the party when offereing an adapter for the "G" aperture control mechanism that is already in the process of being phased out and replaced by Nikon.

None of the newer premium lenses (e.g. AF-S NIKKOR 70–200 mm 1:2,8E / PC NIKKOR 19 mm 1:4E / AF-S NIKKOR 105 mm 1:1,4E ED / AF-S NIKKOR 24–70 mm 1:2,8E) will work.

Nikon E lenses have a built-in aperture motor and should be trivial to support by an adapter.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 20:25 UTC
In reply to:

Okwy Ugonweze: I will really love to see how this stacks up against new Nikon 105 f1.4 fl.
Must buy one of them.

I combine two lab tests to learn the Sigma clearly beats the Nikon:
1. LensRentals Otus 85/1.4 slightly beats Nikon 105/1.5 (esp. center).
2. LensTips Sigma 85/1.4A slightly beats Otus 85/1.4 (again, esp. center).

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2016 at 11:01 UTC

Maybe, it isn't a complete scam ...

This thing seems to be run by Marco Stroppiana (27), son of Ferruccio who is a relative of Edmondo Stroppiana who founded Mondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondo_(company) . They share the same address in Cuneo (Italy) and Marco registered the domain.

Anyway, they already allocated 100k$ and that's just after a few days ...

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2016 at 18:23 UTC as 3rd comment
On article DJI publishes film shot entirely with Inspire 2 drone (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leonp: Really impressive to fly a drone that steady inside a moving car...

That was a joke, the footage really is impressive. 4K/60p is about what perfect video/film should be. Now youtube, computers and monitors only have to be able to cope with it without jumping frames and compressing the **** out of it.

I think it was hanging on the drone all time. But not flying.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 09:24 UTC
On article DJI publishes film shot entirely with Inspire 2 drone (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dazzer8888: Obviously they had to dub the voices in afterwards because of that noisy-ass drone close to the actors!

I actually prefer ADR. I am used to revoiced (dubbed) movies and I don't like the muffled original sound many US low budget movies are exhibiting.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 09:23 UTC
On article DJI publishes film shot entirely with Inspire 2 drone (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

inorogNL: is this the m4/3 camera ?

In the behind the scenes video, they talk about 5k which implies the X5S.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 09:14 UTC
On article DJI publishes film shot entirely with Inspire 2 drone (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

TSGames: I wonder how they removed all the noise the drone makes in order to record audio. Or was the whole audio post-added in studio, which is quite a great amount of work for a small project.

No, its not suggesting flying.
Even hand-hold, you still have access to the gimbal which is an important piece of the drone.

I was wondering though they didn't mount the gimbal only to the car rig.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 09:12 UTC

I notice the device uses 4 cooling fans. I also notice a complete lack of biographic or verifiable data. The conclusion is yours.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 07:58 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

maxnimo: I just saw this super-moon with my own eyes and in all honesty it was not quite as super-exciting as all the media hype suggested.

of course, you would also step back more, like 107m rather than 100m ...

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 18:37 UTC

A 7% larger moon may be interesting for the general public. But for photographers, using 7% more focal length (e.g., 214mm rather than 200mm) and 7% larger distance to the foreground does the exact same effect. People can't compute.

Good moon shots depend entirely on atmospheric condition and carefully chosen foreground. Not this super moon hype.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 21:21 UTC as 35th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Rob: The biggest problem with replacing skies, is that the overwhelming majority of photographers, including professional ones, don't understand the inner workings of environmental lighting to know that the lighting of the sky has to actually match the lighting on the rest of the environment in the shot. This kind of specialized knowledge is possessed by professional matte painters and illustrators/artists, or very advanced photo retouchers, because they study/train in depicting forms under all types of lighting, often from scratch and without any references, so they have to actually have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of visual art.

What's going to happen with this type of tool, is that the person will often end up with results where the sky's lighting condition doesn't match the rest of the photo--be it the general direction of the light source, the weather condition, the color cast, or other aspects that are incorrect.

Obviously, direction or existence of shadows cannot be fixed for the wrong skies, I agree.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 22:12 UTC
In reply to:

pahnson: Seriously I cant remember ANY automatic feature that worked as great as in a demonstration from adobe. Can anyone point out ANY auto feature that actualy works so great without extra manual adjustments, that you included it into your professional workflow? I realy didn't achieve ANY cutout with an auto-feature, I ALWAYS use path (if the customer is not FULLY undemanding or blind)

Content-aware fill is a pretty smart tool many now include in their workflows.
It is however, not an inhouse development of Adobe.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

Rob: The biggest problem with replacing skies, is that the overwhelming majority of photographers, including professional ones, don't understand the inner workings of environmental lighting to know that the lighting of the sky has to actually match the lighting on the rest of the environment in the shot. This kind of specialized knowledge is possessed by professional matte painters and illustrators/artists, or very advanced photo retouchers, because they study/train in depicting forms under all types of lighting, often from scratch and without any references, so they have to actually have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of visual art.

What's going to happen with this type of tool, is that the person will often end up with results where the sky's lighting condition doesn't match the rest of the photo--be it the general direction of the light source, the weather condition, the color cast, or other aspects that are incorrect.

Watch the video. It adjusts the inner lighting of the rest of the photo to match the new sky (possible because it can analyze the difference between the two skies). It may actually be the real value of the tool.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

Makes perfect sense ... in the German language ;)
Nouns aren't capitalized in the English language. Therefore, I still believe Raw is capitalized by most authors on this and other sites because it a name (of a file format). Like one would write Word file even though word as a noun is not capitalized.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 09:26 UTC
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

Now, what if the usage pattern would have been to call TIFF files Tagged files rather than TIFF? Would it to be tagged file or Tagged file then? I mean to specify a TIFF file rather than an arbitrarily tagged file? I ask because this is exactly what happened with Raw.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 17:50 UTC
Total: 806, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »