Scales USA

Lives in United States Spokane, WA, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2007


Total: 138, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The rumor sites posted that there was going to be a shortage of the modules, the information was reasonably well known well before the announcement. Somehow, I just am not enthused about buying the new model.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 04:14 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Karroly: A lot of marketing BS with one key parameter missing : the guide number.

The fact that it uses AA batteries and gets 85,000 full power flashes is a indicator of its light output. Very low.

Link | Posted on Sep 6, 2017 at 03:49 UTC
In reply to:

ThatCamFan: Does this mean the new owners of the company are going to refund the people who funded it in the first place? Or will they just continue to be thiefs?

ThatCamFan -
There was a bankruptcy because the company could not pay their employees and bills, but they had some assets that could be seized and sold.

When the companies assets were sold at auction, that was to raise money to pay debts. The buyer of the assets has paid for them, and the original customers and debtors will receive a share of whatever money they paid. That's how a Bankruptcy works. If they owned cars, computers, company name and logo ... any assets, they are seized and sold and the buyer is not responsible for any money previously owed on them. Otherwise, they would never buy them.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 05:58 UTC

I'm disappointed when someone promotes a book with photos taken illegally. It promotes dangerous behavior at best.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2017 at 16:42 UTC as 62nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: This is same as the US space programs mania during the Cold War; spending millions on expensive rigs and rockets, hiring best minds in science and PR only to put — a monkey into a rocket. (While their competitors decided to put a real man instead and beat them with real results).
That futile advertising mindset lives today; braindead companies go the same lengths to spends millions, use best videographers and hire incredible rigs only to tie in a monkey camera.

There were very good reasons to use a monkey versus a man. The US space program was very transparent, and every launch was watched live by millions of Americans. A failure would devastate the entire program. The USSR did not have public launches, but did put a dog in orbit first, perhaps your memory is selective?

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 23:37 UTC
In reply to:

Iloveaircraftnoise: 4 engines 4 overseas ! Not 2 !

Bring back the jumbo.

I worked on the certification of the 777 engines for ETOPS (Extended over water flights). The engines were run on a test stand 24 hours a day at full throttle, stopping only for scheduled maintenance and inspection. Engines are not operated like that, on the ground, they get tremendously hot, and parts are literally destroyed from vibration and heat. Those parts are redesigned until they can take it, or some cooler is directed on them if there is no other solution. All this time, the electrical generators are maxed out, and wiring turns black. The Titanium turns blue.

This level of overstress finds the weak links and they are eliminated such that the engine is extremely reliable in service from day 1. My parts were high temp 500 degree composite material but burned away. They were remade using 650 degree and extremely expensive material, but managed to barely survive.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 06:28 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Oh the things you can do with an empty plane and a lot of excess thrust at takeoff . . .

They are at the Paris Air show, and would have a interior to show off to potential customers. The exciting thing is to see them determine the minimum runway length for takeoff during new model certification. A long oak 2 X 12 is attached to the underside of the tail, then when they get to speed, they put the tail completely down on the the runway and keep it there until it lifts off, and the distance is measured. I managed to be on some test flights, and a 0 g maneuver as well as some windup turns where your face is pulled down into your lap. Then engines at idle at 42000 ft to see how much air is leaking out. A touch and go at Everett was exciting the first time because of a hump in the runway. It looks like the runway ends and you are going off the end, then as you go over the hump, there is the other half.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 06:15 UTC
In reply to:

Corkcampbell: Thanks for this contribution, although I'm no fan of the 737 or its Airbus equivalent. I pass by Boeing Field a few times a week and can't wait to see the DH Comet that is undergoing restoration and will eventually be in the Museum of Flight.

Aircraft are generally sold with no seats, or engines. The airlines cut their own deals for the engines and seats (as long as they are approved for the aircraft) Boeing installs them and the aircraft is delivered ready to put in service.

Some countries have a high tax on purchases of new aircraft, so boeing flys them for crew training until they have enough hours to be considered as used. They are then taxed at a lower rate.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 06:05 UTC

When I hired into Boeing in 1966, I was assigned to 737 Engineering. The plane garnered few sales, but United saved the program with a huge order for a extended body version, the 737-200. They got a steal on the price, but it kept the program going. Then I worked on several more versions before moving to other new models. Of all those models, only the 737, 767, 777, and the 747 are still in production. The 737 has had a amazing run, but in 1966, it was fighting to keep from being cancelled. The others, 707, 727, 757, and SST, are now history. I was one of the few to work on initial design of many models, and did at least some work on all but the 787.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 05:55 UTC as 63rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

koseng: Bad 3D contents killed 3D, same would happen to VR as everyone rushes to produce mediocre contents for this new but immature medium. Now there are plenty of good 3D contents out there but very few consumer 3D TV available. What a shame. VR could have the same fate.

I remember seeing 3D movies in the 1950's, they quickly lost popularity. Movie goers voted on which they liked best, 3D or wide screens. Now, we have wide screens rather than the 1.375:1 screens from the 1940's. 3D was tried again, but it failed for the same reasons, those glasses are a pain. Many people wear eyeglasses, and the additional hardware complicates their vision, the higher price did not help. 3D movies have been around off and on for over 100 years, they are a gimmick, and come and go.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 16:38 UTC

VR has been around off and on for over 25 years. One use that was being explored 25 years ago where I worked was for installation of parts in a vehicle, diagrams were used as a aid to get everything aligned right, it was difficult to do that. I've since retired, but it had not caught on when I had retired. At that time, it required a powerful computer to generate the images, now a cell phone can do it. It was a compelling idea, because getting parts installed in each vehicle identically is a big benefit toward reducing electrical interference, and achieving things like separation of redundant systems.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 16:26 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply

PT Barnum is alive and well.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 05:00 UTC as 13th comment
On article 2017 Roundup: Consumer Long Zoom Compacts (186 comments in total)

I've owned and tried expensive superzooms, and, being spoiled by my DSLR and pro telephoto lens, I just did not use them. Others seem to be happy with them. I found that even on a cloudy day, there was not enough light to zoom in on wildlife, the noise disintegrated most of the detail.

If I were using it on a bright summer day, then it was great, but around here, wildlife waits until near sundown to make a appearance, or they come out early in the morning, same low light issues. The f/2.8 Panasonic does seem to have a big advantage, its one that I have not used.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 06:04 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies

I've used Sony products for years, going back to the 1960's when I bought a Sony Reel to Reel Tape Deck. It ran great for a while, but died early. Repairs cost more than it was worth. I've had lots of Sony electronics since then, all the same story. The same for digital cameras, their early p&S with a built in floppy. Poor images with high compression, and those floppy drives died in 2 years. They sold tons of them because of the brand name. Then Sony replaced the floppies with memory sticks, another Sony invention. Its no wonder that those who have been around a while are cautious about adapting equipment from a company with a history of issues. Does anyone remember their disintegrating sensors and how they denied the issue? The did finally step up after their customers leaned on them hard (their customers were Canon, Nikon, almost all P&S makers used Sony sensors. I really hope they have learned their lesson and can produce and support a total system.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 05:39 UTC as 27th comment
On article How do you know you need a new camera? (410 comments in total)

I've upgraded in the past when their was a advancement that would solve problems. I jumped from a 6 month old 30D to a 40D because live view was such a time saver for my product photography, I could get the shot right the first time. I waited to upgrade until the 5D MK II came out, it was a game changer. I have then gone thru several 1D series until my carpal tunnel in both hands limited me to something smaller. I've been using my 5D MK III now since it came out, and am waiting for FF mirrorless from Canon which has fast and accurate AF for my product photos as well as for low light photography. I have not jumped to newer models, I'm still waiting for something that will have features that make it pay for itself.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 05:16 UTC as 90th comment

What I think I am reading here is that someone has a big stock of parts and maybe even assembled cameras acquired from a bankrupcy. They will have some minor tweaks, and be offered for a tidy profit. (If they sell). Unless there is a unexpected high demand, once those pieces and parts are used up, it will disappear.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 02:15 UTC as 4th comment
On article Nikon reshuffles management structure (244 comments in total)

There are a lot of business units reporting to the president, while a flattened structure reduces layers of management, the president becomes a figurehead with little ability to help so many units reach their goals. It can also result in one business unit getting out of control with no one knowing it.

They need to merge even more of those business units, there are too many.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 01:58 UTC as 4th comment

So a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 could be replaced by a Sony 16-35mm f/4? Wouldn't that pro have a Canon 16-35mm f/4 if that would do the job? And to think a Sony 100-400 is even closely equivalent to a Canon 300mm f/2.8?

There is a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that someone would pay a additional ton of money for a system that would not do the job. I see a sea of 400mm f/2.8 lenses at sporting events, perhaps they are not considered pros?

Nothing wrong with buying Sony equipment if it will do the job, but it does need to do the job, or its worthless. Then, saying that a Pro could use Canon to Sony adapters, with their well known history of locking up??? There would be some Pros out on the street looking for another job if they took that advice.

So, for them, add in the cost of moving to a new city, finding another job, and repurchasing Canon equipment. Not to mention the cost of additional spare Sony equipment due to the 3-6 month turnaround for Sony repairs.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 23:12 UTC as 88th comment
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (352 comments in total)

My First Digital Camera was a Olympus, back in the late 1990's, I recall it was a DL420L back in 1997 or 1998. I purchased it for use in the company I worked for. It was very good for the period, but ate expensive lithium batteries, they only lasted a few shots.

Then, from a really good start, Olympus lost their way, as did several other companies. They made strange looking cameras that did not look or feel like conventional cameras, and before they knew it, Canon was churning out the Digital Rebels that put many manufacturers in a hole.

I'm not a fan of 4/3 sensors, nor APS-C for that matter, but I do hope Olympus regains their position as a premier manufacturer of cameras and lenses. I have several Olympus film SLR's, they were well made and have held up well over the years.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 19:18 UTC as 32nd comment

Getty Images will copy them, and claim they have the copyright and sue you if you use one. That's their specialty.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2017 at 03:33 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
Total: 138, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »