falconeyes

falconeyes

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

Comments

Total: 1265, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Roland Schulz: I´m afraid this "new" development isn´t worth very much any more.
Had the DJI OSMO mobile and the Zhiyun Smooth Q and both didn´t work with my iPhone X because of the iPhone´s own stabilizer inside. Picture was wobbling and jerky.
This also happens with many other higher end smartphones that have OIS systems on board.

(Weak) magnets have no impact on micro electronics. They do on magnetic card stripes, loud speakers, old fashioned CRTs etc. though.

Here, the iPhone 7 OIS is driven by a few electromagnets, controlling the floating lens. Problem is that the electromagnets aren't strong enough to hold the lens in place with shake like when walking. The extra electromagnets force the lens "to land" and not move anymore. However, it may negatively impact the calibration of the OIS system for normal operation. I.e., your iPhone lens could become decentered.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: There is no doubt that climate change is happening.
BUT
Evidence is on the side that polar bears actually thrive and grow in population. They no longer are an icon for climate change.

Therefore, the story as told be photographer Nicklen that climate change is to blame causes considerable harm. People will simply start to consider any reference to climate change as fake news ...

Rather, Nicklen should have tried to rescue, or at least to determine the root cause of this polar bear's sad destiny. And if not possible, refrain from posting a disturbing video.

Asking a videographer to not pretend to be biologist, actually ...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 14:43 UTC
In reply to:

Okapi001: Every single bear dies at the end, and most of them of hunger, we just don't see them. And this has nothing to do with climate change.

@Okapi, you don't do yourself a favour.
Mybe, this is no sign of climate change indeed (I actually suspect so). But the fact that each polar bear dies in the end is no evidence for your argument, not at all. You would need numbers of population and average life span of polar bears, year by year. Data which probably exists, btw.

The argument in your form makes you look like a dummie. Yet, you earned the top scores of Likes. Which makes me wonder what happened to the DPR audience ...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 02:31 UTC

Biologist "best guess is that the bear was dying of bone cancer or some other disease".

-> http://amp.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/12/the_viral_photo_of_a_starving_polar_bear_might_be_dying_of_cancer_not_climate.html

Moreover, Nicklen was criticized for leaving the scene rather than collecting evidence of the cause.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 02:26 UTC as 58th comment

There is no doubt that climate change is happening.
BUT
Evidence is on the side that polar bears actually thrive and grow in population. They no longer are an icon for climate change.

Therefore, the story as told be photographer Nicklen that climate change is to blame causes considerable harm. People will simply start to consider any reference to climate change as fake news ...

Rather, Nicklen should have tried to rescue, or at least to determine the root cause of this polar bear's sad destiny. And if not possible, refrain from posting a disturbing video.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 02:15 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Actually cool. If it works. The only way to get sharper pinhole images for a small sensor (e.g. 35 mm FF) is to go wide angle. And - for the mirrorless camera there is no flapping mirror to hit that inverted cone.

So - it is all about if they really can make an 120 degree pinhole. That is not easy. It has to be extremely thin and even at the edges of the hole.

I am kind of tempted by this.

If it does not already exist. There are already precision pinholes to buy. But ... probably not at that angle.

@Roland, @JensR ... pinhole lenses are toy lenses are worth no money.
Pinhole lenses are sharpest where the 10-90% edge blur widths from diffraction and the hole become approx. equal. F/80 isn't blurry enough for a 0.14mm hole and this isn't dependent on the image format. Large format allows to create sharp images overall, though.

The only meaningful pinhole camera is a camera obscura with photo paper, e.g., mounted within the trunk of a car. But its all being done already ...

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 01:55 UTC
In reply to:

oldfashioned: ask the millennials about it : Im positive that a vast majority don't know or even try to understand that using somebody elses picture/photo work is normal. Nothing wrong with it.
Then there are photographers in this very website arguing fair use (for using another photographer's work). Now put everything togheter and you get the picture.

@oldfashioned, it isn't a question of generation (millennial). If at all, I'd call it generation Facebook meaning people using the internet in all too naive way.

And btw, what Google does (cite an image to refer to work) is permitted for everybody else too (except for high-rez images which google doesn't show either). That doesn't mean you can print and sell (e.g., t-shirts or art installation) said images and even "millenials" don't generally assume so.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Schulz: I´m afraid this "new" development isn´t worth very much any more.
Had the DJI OSMO mobile and the Zhiyun Smooth Q and both didn´t work with my iPhone X because of the iPhone´s own stabilizer inside. Picture was wobbling and jerky.
This also happens with many other higher end smartphones that have OIS systems on board.

Anybody knows if the magnet trick works with iPhone X?

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2017 at 12:29 UTC

It wasn't a waste of tax money. It was a rather nice example of "Percent for Art" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_for_Art or "Kunst am Bau" (German). Because media installations are the exception, rarely proposed by the art community (sadly). I.e., mostly boring sculptures.

Unfortunately, the artist stole both idea (Gillian Wearing) and execution (photos). The city now needs to recover their money and commission some other artist.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2017 at 12:08 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Actually cool. If it works. The only way to get sharper pinhole images for a small sensor (e.g. 35 mm FF) is to go wide angle. And - for the mirrorless camera there is no flapping mirror to hit that inverted cone.

So - it is all about if they really can make an 120 degree pinhole. That is not easy. It has to be extremely thin and even at the edges of the hole.

I am kind of tempted by this.

If it does not already exist. There are already precision pinholes to buy. But ... probably not at that angle.

@Roland, you are making the only educated postings here, so I put my concern here ...

The kickstarter page has very detailed info at the bottom, and it is overfunded already. The 11mm lens has a 0.14mm hole drilled with a 0.05mm drill creating two 120degree funnels into 1mm thick aluminium.

That creates an F/80 lens.

My concern is that this creates hole blur much greater than diffraction blur, i.e., the lens is less sharp than a pinhole lens could be. The resolution is about 260px wide. The kickstarter page has a video, on the bottom of the page, created entirely from their pinhole lens
-> https://vimeo.com/238896867

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Decrypting an encrypted wifi connection is unlawful in the US and most other countries, w/o user permission or a court order. But this is what DJI AeroScope does.

@Eloise, I don‘t think so; and not every footnote (even if it exists) is legal. E.g., a wifi router manufacturer retrieving and using your secret wifi pass phrases to share your protected data with third parties would definitely commit a crime, whatever the user may have signed. This is rxactly what Chinese DJI does here ...
@Fenrir, you completely miss the point, and mix up terms. AeroScope is 100% passive and no interference. But it is spying on a secured private data teansmission which is known as hacking and a crime w/o court order.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 17:45 UTC

Jawdropping

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 01:59 UTC as 32nd comment

Decrypting an encrypted wifi connection is unlawful in the US and most other countries, w/o user permission or a court order. But this is what DJI AeroScope does.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 01:46 UTC as 4th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

landscaper1: My sincere compliments to Mr. Shainblum for the incredible image.

However, I took particular note of the fact that he has a girlfriend who's not only a landscape shooter like himself, but is willing to endure the physical discomfort of that trek (most likely more than her partner) along with him.

I hope he realizes the real treasure of that night was the lady who made that trek up and down with him.

@landscaper1
you are absolutely right. However, it isn‘t that rare to be seen in the Alps, esp. Dolomites. Many couples of all ages to be seen exploring this wonderful nature, even if hikes are more exhausting than the typical US national park walk ...

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2017 at 01:27 UTC

This really makes me scratch my head ...

Version 2.0?

The idea is great, and a great execution is possible too. E.g., look at the camera widget on an AppleWatch: It is the approx. equivalent of SnapBridge and works like a charm, despite being limited to the resouces of a watch (it starts the camera, display its liveview (on the watch) and remote controls it (shutter)).

With this great example of the possible, how on earth could they mess it up for a 2.0 version?

I still want the real deal though: have a camera app behave as a responsive virtual camera, without having to touch the real and remote one at all.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 15:26 UTC as 15th comment

This story (Chinese company doesn‘t grant / respect ownership) is a big road block to Chinese export. Not unsimiliar the Dieselgate for German car export. Interesting.

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 02:03 UTC as 24th comment
On article Shooting Kīlauea Volcano, Part 1: How to melt a drone (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

falconeyes: I know, this was outside a Nat'l Park. But normally, this kind of photos only emerge from within, so I ask:

Does it really make sense to ban drones from US Nat'l Parks? Wouldn't it make more sense to actively allow drones in US Nat'l Parks, maybe at designated areas and times of operation? Shouldn't a photography site like DPR actually trigger and steer such discussion in the US?

I ask because much of the US is polluted with housing and for many people, parks are a rare occasion to photograph wilderness. AFAIK, cameras aren't banned in Nat'l parks. So drones shouldn't too. Maybe, there is a need for regulation (rotor noise), e.g., making them fly high enough to not be intrusive acoustically, depending on the type of quad. But it doesn't make sense to allow helicopter tours and at the same time, ban drones ...

I mentioned noise. Drones have to become quiet. It would be ok to impose a max noise level, and ban louder drones only. Maybe even, could open up a chance for some US drone company to compete (i.e., make a whisper drone).

E.g., the Spark with foldable legs and larger rotors (same weight) would be much quieter. Already now, its unaudible and almost invisible at 200+ m height (which should be opened up as upper limit too).

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2017 at 01:51 UTC
On article Shooting Kīlauea Volcano, Part 1: How to melt a drone (93 comments in total)

I know, this was outside a Nat'l Park. But normally, this kind of photos only emerge from within, so I ask:

Does it really make sense to ban drones from US Nat'l Parks? Wouldn't it make more sense to actively allow drones in US Nat'l Parks, maybe at designated areas and times of operation? Shouldn't a photography site like DPR actually trigger and steer such discussion in the US?

I ask because much of the US is polluted with housing and for many people, parks are a rare occasion to photograph wilderness. AFAIK, cameras aren't banned in Nat'l parks. So drones shouldn't too. Maybe, there is a need for regulation (rotor noise), e.g., making them fly high enough to not be intrusive acoustically, depending on the type of quad. But it doesn't make sense to allow helicopter tours and at the same time, ban drones ...

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 12:06 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
On article Shooting Kīlauea Volcano, Part 1: How to melt a drone (93 comments in total)

@Erez, fortunately, the Phantom is white and only the front lens part is black (and molten). A Phantom Platinum might have actually crashed after too much heat absorption ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 11:55 UTC as 8th comment
On article DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

NameFinder: 2 points:

1. Living in a PAL country, I miss the 25p option, once again!

2. Given that there is no 1080/50p or 1080/60p, a corresponding 720/50p (720/60p) option would have been useful. It's all about capturing fast movements in good temporal resolution, isn't it?

What you discuss is the effect of flickering artificial light sources. The method by red won‘t work with a rolling shutter. It still gives stripes, just that they don’t move ;) Rather, make the shutter slow enough to prevent stripes altogether (i.e., multiple of 1/100s in PAL land). Some cameras allow for, e.g., 1/50s even at 30 fps. Its a question of shutter speed, not frame rate.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 00:27 UTC
Total: 1265, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »