Victor Engel

Lives in Austin, TX
Joined on Dec 21, 2002

Comments

Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On a photo in the DPReview photographs Seattle's cherry blossoms sample gallery (1 comment in total)

These are not cherry blossoms but magnolia blossoms.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2017 at 23:17 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

CallumG: If someone really wants the image https://exifimgpublic-1139.kxcdn.com/677e9b52-4aff-470b-a849-f9ce2f34d67b/earnest-3_bottom_md.jpg someone will get it. Or download the main image and the logo area (with no logo) and combine them in Photoshop. Not enough.

Protecting images by tiling them is not new.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2017 at 15:23 UTC

I'm surprised at the accuracy of the derived tags. Very interesting. Also, I threw some of my images at it. One was an image that took fist place in a competition. It scored 99.9% probability of awesomeness. Several others that I had exhibited also rated in the high 90s for awesomeness, including one I didn't much care for myself but many other people did (and it earned me some money).

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 16:58 UTC as 11th comment

I suggest a corollary that expands to all zooms. A zoom is likely to be sharpest at the zoom setting that is the main target of the lens. For super wide angle lenses, that would be the wide end. For telephoto lenses like the Canon 100-400 zoom, it would be the long end. People don't generally buy that lens for the 100mm end. If my corollary holds true, then a jack-of-all-trades zoom like the 70-200 zoom is likely to be sharpest in the middle of the range.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 15:42 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Stefan Sobol: According to the FAA a drone is an aircraft (just the same as if it were a 747 flying over that guy's house). Federal law says intentionally damaging an aircraft is a felony. Currently there is no exemption to the "damaging an aircraft" law if the aircraft was used to invade your privacy (intentionally or not).

Ergo, the FAA should either charge this guy with damaging an aircraft or let the whole "drones are aircraft and under our purview" thing go.

Maybe you could use the fact that FAA did not go after the guy for shooting down the drone as a precedent to show that drones are not actually aircraft in the eyes of the government.

http://federaldroneregistration.com/know-before-you-fly

Below 400 feet. Manned aircraft are generally required to be above this level. Of course, near airports, where drones are forbidden, are an exception. Other exceptions are also possible if you work with the FAA.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 22:17 UTC
In reply to:

Stefan Sobol: According to the FAA a drone is an aircraft (just the same as if it were a 747 flying over that guy's house). Federal law says intentionally damaging an aircraft is a felony. Currently there is no exemption to the "damaging an aircraft" law if the aircraft was used to invade your privacy (intentionally or not).

Ergo, the FAA should either charge this guy with damaging an aircraft or let the whole "drones are aircraft and under our purview" thing go.

Maybe you could use the fact that FAA did not go after the guy for shooting down the drone as a precedent to show that drones are not actually aircraft in the eyes of the government.

Drones may be aircraft, but they are classified differently. For example, the air space in which they are allowed to fly is generally mutually exclusive of other aircraft. General aviation aircraft are required to have enough altitude to safely land somewhere if they lose power. Drones are required to be below this airspace.

Obviously, we have a situation where laws and rules are not adequately flushed out yet. But the FAA is making progress toward fixing that.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2017 at 17:12 UTC

In 1986 (I think), Pixar had a booth at the SIGGRAPH conference in Dallas. At their booth, they took Mars data and created a simulated helicopter ride over the Martian surface. I think it took only a few minutes to render the simulation. Then it was animated in real time. That was over 3 decades ago.

It was also at this conference that I saw the short clip of the mother and baby lamp that turned into sort of a logo for Pixar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4NPQ8mfKU0

When I was in high school, I used to go to the library to check out a book on Mars. That book had stereo images taken in the 70s. The book had a stereo viewer in a sleeve in one of the inside covers. When they more recently sent the rovers to Mars, I couldn't believe how basic the imagery was - not even in stereo, for the most part. I'd have thought we'd have progressed further in all those years.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 04:45 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S Review: Modern MF (901 comments in total)
In reply to:

The Dopaminer: There`s always something absurd in these tests. 5DSR with the 85 1.8?
Put some recent L glass on there, obviously.

And the Fuji`s 50mp raw is 112mb? Double the Canon`s ?

And update to use the new profile.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Amazon is working for the NSA. Don't do it.

Seriously though, how hard is it to keep your stuff in an external hard drive and lock it up somewhere?

If your house gets destroyed by a tornado or fire or your hard drives are burgled, you lose everything unless you have a secondary off-site backup.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Soderlund: Don't we humans have predator vision with our eyes facing forward? Just look at horses and deer, they got their eyes on the sides.

If the prey you ask is a killdeer, we are predators if on foot and not predators if on horseback. Killdeers respond to threats to their nests differently for predators and non predators. For predators, they run/fly away some short distance and feign a broken wing. For non predators, they stand their ground in front of the nest and posture to look as large as possible, holding top sides of their wings to the mountie.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 17:54 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

"It is actually wrong ...." Horsefeathers! What the photographer does, with a digital camera, is to set the ISO dial (unless it's not a dial but that's beside the point) to whatever is indicated on the camera, which, as far as I know, is always on the linear scale. And the manuals typically refer to the dial as an ISO dial/button/whatever. So it is correct to say you set the camera to 400 ISO. That's the camera setting.

I'm not sure why we're even discussing this, though, on a thread about a camera that uses film. This branch of the thread is about significant digits. My point is simply that it would be more convenient to use a logarithmic scape with such high sensitivities.

As a side point, I think it's interesting that ISO even became a unit, since it really just stands for International Organization for Standards (which is an organization, not a unit).

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 00:52 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

Who said anything about setting the camera to 400 DIN? In my reply, I quoted ISO 25K, which would be 45° DIN. Furthermore, DIN would seem to be implied if we just said to set ISO to 45°. Also, the ISO standard, ISO 12232:1998, does not specify sensitivities greater than 10,000. As of 2013 there have not been any higher values assigned. I don't know if that is true through now. If so, it's probably not even correct to say ISO 25,600. That is undefined. :)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

"we shouldn't worry about saying ISO 25k instead of 25600"

We're getting so many digits these days, we really ought to switch to DIN, which uses a logarithmic scale instead.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 16:13 UTC
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (177 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: It says in the text above that the first straw camera had an aperture of approx. F127.

First, 127 is a quite non approx. number. Just some nit picking :) Approx F100 had been more reasonable to say.

Second, this camera do not really have an F-stop number. It is a constant 1:1 macro camera, independent of distance. And the image gets darker the further away the subject is. So, an equivalent F-stop number would increase with distance. Not all that meaningful.

Maybe, if we shall be kind to the reporter or/and the people behind the camera, it could be equal to approx F100 for normal portrait distances.

127 in binary consists of all 1's.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 17:24 UTC
On article Samyang launches XEEN 20mm T1.9 video-cine lens (22 comments in total)
In reply to:

OlyPent: Those hulking pro video lens housings! IN any case, it would be nice if consumer camera makers would dispensed with F-stops and start using T-stops.

F-stops and T-stops have different uses. If you're interested in depth of field, it is F-stops you need to know.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

It's longtitudinal CA. You can tell because it is one color in front of the focal plane and another color on the other side of the focal plane. To be more accurate, actually, the distance to the focal plane depends on the wavelength of the light. Someone with the lens could verify this by taking three pictures, one each with a red filter, violet filter, and green filter, and inspect where the best focus is. This is not the same as purple fringing. Purple fringing may be present as well, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 01:06 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Victor Engel: Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

That's exactly the situation where longitudinal CA shows up the most, so it's a perfect test for longitudinal CA. It is quite apparent in a number of the other shots, too, including this one which is lit with diffused light. https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/3764272467

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (249 comments in total)

Pretty serious CA here. I realize it's a tough shot for CA. My Canon 85mm f/1.8 would do the same thing. It's very distracting in this photo.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1444131463/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-sample-gallery/0250561340

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 21:37 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

zodiacfml: I could see moderate but true success if they just marketed this as a Quadcopter that is portable and attaches to a smartphone case so that you can fly it whenever you want to. The product is basically that. It will never take good photos or videos.

Yes. The problem is no gimbal. This will have the same issues as the Onagofly has. I own one. It is comparable in size to the one pictured here, but it doesn't fold up. It does take video and stills, but without a gimbal, there is motion resulting from corrections to compensate for air turbulence plus corrections due to noise in the various navigation sensors.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 02:44 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Gander: I suspect the last ever photo of an inauguration has just been taken.

What an utterly ridiculous statement!

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 17:58 UTC
Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »