Victor Engel

Lives in Austin, TX
Joined on Dec 21, 2002

Comments

Total: 98, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MichaelCourtney: Anyone considering wasting money on this piece of fluff should read Dororthy Rabinowitz' Wall Street Journal review entitled "The Dumbing Down of ‘Dunkirk’".

Stick to Batman movies, Mr. Nolan.

Well, I saw it - standard 70mm. The only real criticism I have about it is the music. Well, I guess character development could have been improved. I don't have an account with the WSJ, but I think I found a copy of the article. I think the author missed the point. It's not a movie about Dunkirk, really. It's a movie about several people's attempts to live another day through the perils of war. What war it was, or whether Churchill was relevant is beside the point.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 05:38 UTC

Apparently, I thought a photo was altered that wasn't. The photo had very fake-looking ground as if it had been poorly cloned. Oh, well. I guess some people live around fake-looking ground.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 23:50 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

MichaelCourtney: Anyone considering wasting money on this piece of fluff should read Dororthy Rabinowitz' Wall Street Journal review entitled "The Dumbing Down of ‘Dunkirk’".

Stick to Batman movies, Mr. Nolan.

Maybe I'll read it after I see it. I purchased tickets for a70mm version some time ago, and I'll be seeing that tonight. It's not an IMAX theater, but it does have a high screen. I'll be curious to see what format is used.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

You're making me hungry.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 22:30 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

It's just a comparison from a lens we're more familiar with - not really relevant. Feel free to disregard. I didn't mean to imply it wold have to be 72mm, and I think my numbers back that up.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

I mentioned the filter size because it serves as a reticle to determine the size of the entrance pupil. Using the picture on this news item, I measure the diameter of what seems to be the filter thread. That is 52mm. I then take the measurement of the largest the entrance pupil could be. The ratio of these times 52mm is the diameter of the entrance pupil. The quotient of that and 50mm, is then the f-stop. It seems to be somewhere in the range 1/1.25 - 1/1.29 using this method.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

The lens objective is irrelevant to determining f-stop. What counts is the size of the entrance pupil. Note that the entrance pupil is a virtual pupil. It is the image of the physical pupil as viewed through the objective. So the objective needs to be at least as big as the entrance pupil. But it is the entrance pupil size that determines the f-stop.

A lens designed for full frame for the same focal length needs to cover a wider field of view than does one designed for a crop sensor, so you're right, the objective is likely to be larger. However, the entrance pupil is the same size for the same f-stop. It just fills up a smaller portion of the objective on a lens designed for full frame than on one designed for APS-C. In both cases, a minimum bound for the size of the objective is the focal length times the f-stop, so in this case, 50mm * 1/1.1 or 45.5. It does not appear to be that large in the picture.

It's possible I'm mistaking the lens hood for the filter thread....

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 19:21 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

50mm is 50mm. It doesn't matter what you put it on. The f-stop is the ratio of the entrance pupil size to the focal length, so in this case, that means the entrance pupil must be 50/1.1 = 45.5mm. The filter size is 52mm, so the space between the outer edge of the lens and the filter thread has to be (52-45.5)/2 = 3.3mm. If the space between the thread and the outside of the lens is more than 3.3 mm, then it is not an f/1.1 lens. This math works whether the lens was designed for full frame or APS-C.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 13:53 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

By comparison, the Canon 50mm f/1.2 lens has a 72mm filter size.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
On article SainSonic launches 50mm F1.1 lens for APS-C cameras (243 comments in total)
In reply to:

George_pix: Using a ruler on my pc screen, if the filter is 52mm this lens is 50 1.25 not 50 1.1. What do you think?

I got 1.29. Actually, I guess it depends on what lens the photo of the lens was shot with. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2017 at 20:47 UTC

Smarter Every Day has been my favorite youtube channel for some time.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2017 at 00:31 UTC as 36th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Matsu: My only card failures have been sandisk SD cards. (Three of them). All my Lexar CF cards are still working - going back to some ancient 4GB cards.

I wish more cameras had stuck with CF cards until CFast and XQD were ready for prime time.

My only card failures have been Lexar and Viking.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2017 at 18:55 UTC
On photo One frame from timelapse in the Timelapse challenge (2 comments in total)

Excellent. However, that should be Stanhopea (the a was left off).

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2017 at 01:29 UTC as 2nd comment
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 12th 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
Total: 98, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »