All Forum Comments
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on photos at night at 15/11/2012 - 18:54
Smeggypants wrote:
If it wasn't true, then cities across the world wouldn't be changing to LED street lighting with one of the main reasons for doing so is power saving.
Since when did politics have anything to do with science?If it wasn't true, then cities across the world wouldn't be changing to LED street lighting with one of the main reasons for doing so is power saving.
Lobbying, ad-hoc and reelection is what leads to changes like these.
The best LED prototypes of today are not even the most efficient 'neutral light-source' we have. Forgetting for a moment that the most efficient LED's are not neutral at all.
@jeffstclair
Andrew is not wrong at all. It is just that most people have not actually seen what a sodium vapor lamp can do.
You can compare looking into a sodium vapor lamp from 2 meters in a room to looking directly into the sun at noon on a bright summer day. It is possible, but you can not stand it for long, and it might ruin your eyes.
Crude test from yt might give you a pointer. However that test is not ideal. In lab conditions it is a big no no to do any measurements on a vapor lamp until after it have been online for at least 30 minutes (some lamps even require one hour), because it does not reach its peak and stable period until after that.
Note:
When moving from sodium vapor streetlights to LED it is not just to change the bulb.
To get the same effect with LED's you need to change the light fixture, the electronics, and move the street-poles.
One also have to remember that LED's are most efficient in cold weather.
There also exists induction lamps like the QL ones from Philips. Those have a lifetime of 100 000 hour, and a CRI of 80. That is 20-25 years without any need of maintenance.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on A revolution in nigh street photography at 15/11/2012 - 18:47
Public humiliation.
Might actually be worth the trip just for that
Might actually be worth the trip just for that
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Camera club lecture at 14/11/2012 - 18:27
Fun fact
They have a habit of seeking permission after introducing something in beta.
Some question it, while others accept whatever is written in their EULA just to be able to use the system.
They have a habit of seeking permission after introducing something in beta.
Some question it, while others accept whatever is written in their EULA just to be able to use the system.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Really HD photography at 14/11/2012 - 17:32
@blob
I question that link.
Everything is third-party in it, so I am scared of what degradation those filters would do to the images. Even the holder seems sketchy.
I question that link.
Everything is third-party in it, so I am scared of what degradation those filters would do to the images. Even the holder seems sketchy.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Ok folks lets talk Filters... at 14/11/2012 - 17:17
@cabstar
You didn't read it correctly. I said that the picture would be fine, but the name-taging of people would not be.
@Smeggypants
From a technical point-of-view it is a fun idea, but nothing prevents you from taging 20 friends of yours afaik.
Also, there is a reason Fazebook's and Goggle's privacy policies are currently questioned under EU law.
But I am beginning to believe people have stopped questioning companies in power lately. They would probably allow them to turn on their webcameras and stream directly from the bedroom in a few years time.
Like, what the hell is up with the 'you are not allowed' to take pictures of the police in a public place anymore in the UK.
'What we currently see with Fazebook, and Goggle, would have been the ultimate wet dream for the Stasi...'
You didn't read it correctly. I said that the picture would be fine, but the name-taging of people would not be.
@Smeggypants
From a technical point-of-view it is a fun idea, but nothing prevents you from taging 20 friends of yours afaik.
Also, there is a reason Fazebook's and Goggle's privacy policies are currently questioned under EU law.
But I am beginning to believe people have stopped questioning companies in power lately. They would probably allow them to turn on their webcameras and stream directly from the bedroom in a few years time.
Like, what the hell is up with the 'you are not allowed' to take pictures of the police in a public place anymore in the UK.
'What we currently see with Fazebook, and Goggle, would have been the ultimate wet dream for the Stasi...'
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Really HD photography at 14/11/2012 - 17:17
McGregNi wrote:
Do these lights have a specified colour temperature figure?
LED does, but it depends a bit on the temperature of the surrounding environment as well.Do these lights have a specified colour temperature figure?
For the most part they are a bit on the cold side.
Sodium Vapor Lamps are a lot more effective as street-lights however.
You can read about them here if you don't know much about them.
Light pollution will not become that much different. It will be pollution to the same degree, just that now it is a light that covers more of the spectrum.
For car drivers it will become worse.
The colour temperature is bad if you are slightly tired, compared to what you get from the sodium vapor lamps.
But the biggest issue will be the dazzling and blinding effect from the LED lighting, it is several times worse than from sodium vapor lamps. It can be a borderline traffic hazzard.
A few years back they did start a research project about LED's for streetlighting where I live. They even installed LED lamps in an area as part of the project.
If it is of interest. I could get some pictures of it.
I have not seen this done in a large scale yet, but knowing politicians I am sure they would manage to pull that mistake quite soon. Even though it is not very cost-effective.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on A revolution in nigh street photography at 14/11/2012 - 17:17
Algernon wrote:
Impressive stuff, massive invasion of privacy though!
Correct.Impressive stuff, massive invasion of privacy though!
It might actually break a few laws, in my country at least.
The picture in itself is not the problem. It is the integration with Fazebook that is the rule-breaker.
(It does not matter if they did like cabstar mentioned, something I am unsure if they even did.
The identification of people in that way is not right.)
If they remove the integration it is perfectly fine, and not even in any gray areas.
On topic:
Haven't GigaPan done this for a while now?
As others mentioned, this is just a stitching job, and like for astro-photography we can already get tripod mods for this.
I find it unlikely that we will ever see this possible without stitching though.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Really HD photography at 13/11/2012 - 18:16
Looks like you have what is called a 'sick house'.
What you currently are doing is actually as close to ideal as you can get in your situation.
The perfect storage would be 15C, 40% humidity and 0.7 purified air circulation.
You probably can not get that, so you have to think what factors plays a role in storing.
You get some circulation without to much risk of picking up bad particles when you change the silica packs every 6 weeks. (Remember to take the lenses out for a while when you do, 15-20min should be enough.)
You keep them at a relatively decent humidity.
The only real question is the place you store them. If you risk rapid temperature shifts because of draft or sunlight, then the sealed ziplock is a big problem. You trap the condensed moisture inside the bag, risking good conditions for mould. Or you can dry out the grease and rubber because lack of moisture.
About the caps. Store the lenses with them on. They are normally not sealing, so they do not prevent circulation long term (taking them of if you just are 'walking your lenses' is a good idea though).
The biggest advantage with storing them with the caps on is that you avoid accidents, and protect the coating on the glass.
What you currently are doing is actually as close to ideal as you can get in your situation.
The perfect storage would be 15C, 40% humidity and 0.7 purified air circulation.
You probably can not get that, so you have to think what factors plays a role in storing.
Quote:
Humidity:
To low creates a dusty environment, and dries up the grease inside the lens.
To high creates humid conditions that mould likes.
Rapid temperature shifts:
Leads to moisture in the lens.
(Think person with glasses comming in a warm room in the winter.)
Air circulation:
No circulation will effect the grease and the rubber (if any) in the lens.
None purified will risk getting particles inside the lens, and on the grease inside the lens.
Temperature levels:
To high dries up the grease, and also can lead to low humidity because of moisture condensation.
To low can freeze the grease, and lead to rapid temperature shifts.
Air quality:
Bad, leads to particles that are not wanted inside lenses.
Dusty environments leads to a lot of dust inside the lens.
The way you are doing it now can work if you store them in a place without draft, and direct sunlight.Humidity:
To low creates a dusty environment, and dries up the grease inside the lens.
To high creates humid conditions that mould likes.
Rapid temperature shifts:
Leads to moisture in the lens.
(Think person with glasses comming in a warm room in the winter.)
Air circulation:
No circulation will effect the grease and the rubber (if any) in the lens.
None purified will risk getting particles inside the lens, and on the grease inside the lens.
Temperature levels:
To high dries up the grease, and also can lead to low humidity because of moisture condensation.
To low can freeze the grease, and lead to rapid temperature shifts.
Air quality:
Bad, leads to particles that are not wanted inside lenses.
Dusty environments leads to a lot of dust inside the lens.
You get some circulation without to much risk of picking up bad particles when you change the silica packs every 6 weeks. (Remember to take the lenses out for a while when you do, 15-20min should be enough.)
You keep them at a relatively decent humidity.
The only real question is the place you store them. If you risk rapid temperature shifts because of draft or sunlight, then the sealed ziplock is a big problem. You trap the condensed moisture inside the bag, risking good conditions for mould. Or you can dry out the grease and rubber because lack of moisture.
About the caps. Store the lenses with them on. They are normally not sealing, so they do not prevent circulation long term (taking them of if you just are 'walking your lenses' is a good idea though).
The biggest advantage with storing them with the caps on is that you avoid accidents, and protect the coating on the glass.
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Lens Storage at 13/11/2012 - 17:59
You already do great work for landscape
I am not sure what lenses you use, but I would advice the Cokin Z-Pro filter holder, with Lee filters and a drop-in polarizer.
Compared to the lee filter holder it is a holder that is safer for your filters. Even though the Lee system makes it easier to move the holder between lenses, it also makes it easier for accidents to happen. After you break a grad filter, and scrape a polarizer, you will realize that there can be a high price for convenience.
I know too many who have started out with cheaper brands, only to end up with Lee filters in the end. So I would advice to just take the plunge right away. It will be cheaper, and Lee filters are a lot easier to re-sell if you decide to stop doing landscape.
My most used filters are the 3 stop hard grad, and the polarizer.
Books you could read about the subject:
Essential Filters for Digital Nature Photography
Advanced Filters for Digital Nature Photography
I am not sure what lenses you use, but I would advice the Cokin Z-Pro filter holder, with Lee filters and a drop-in polarizer.
Compared to the lee filter holder it is a holder that is safer for your filters. Even though the Lee system makes it easier to move the holder between lenses, it also makes it easier for accidents to happen. After you break a grad filter, and scrape a polarizer, you will realize that there can be a high price for convenience.
I know too many who have started out with cheaper brands, only to end up with Lee filters in the end. So I would advice to just take the plunge right away. It will be cheaper, and Lee filters are a lot easier to re-sell if you decide to stop doing landscape.
My most used filters are the 3 stop hard grad, and the polarizer.
Books you could read about the subject:
Essential Filters for Digital Nature Photography
Advanced Filters for Digital Nature Photography
Comment by SnoozeMoose posted on Ok folks lets talk Filters... at 12/11/2012 - 19:47
f5.6-8.0
tripod
mirror lockup
iso ~400 (lower the better, but remember the rule of 600 if you want no star-trails)