UKC

As a plane comes into land...

"Sir, you must turn off all electronics."

"OK."

"Sir, please turn off the camera."

"Ma’am, it doesn’t turn off, and it doesn’t turn on."

http://appealtoemulsion.com/post/63527920887/sir-you-must-turn-off-all-elec...

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Brilliant!

In reply to Henry Iddon:
Thanks for the link to the website too!!

In reply to Henry Iddon:

haha reminds me when I came back through Rome and had the Linhof in my bag, x ray people pulled me over and I had to open it all up then told me to get a proper new camera

In reply to Removed User:


youtube.com/watch?v=HbUEtFCswoI&

In reply to Blue Straggler:

nice they just looked at me pityingly though

In reply to Removed User:

They were probably right, you can get one with millions of pixels for under a hundred quid....... and it will fit in your pocket.

In reply to Henry Iddon: Love it

In reply to Removed User:

Oooh, loads of megapixels, I bet that takes good photos. Said no proper photographer ever.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

I've often wondered how much the rules around takeoff/landing are actually about encouraging passengers to maintain situational awareness to help with emergency situations.

For example BA now let you listen to their entertainment system during takeoff/landing, but not personal music players, and they insist you do it through their crap headphones, not - for example - in ear noise isolating headphones, or external noise cancelling headphones. So you still get PA announcements through those headphones, and you can still hear shouted instructions etc.

My pet theory anyhow. Also, if there is a dodgy landing a camera doesn't need to be electronic to become a basaltic object that will kill someone.

In reply to wintertree:

I think you might have a good point. A bit like how they never tell you that they're dimming the cabin lights at night so that your eyes are adjusted and you can see if we crash.

It was never based much on reality anyway and has now been proven to be mostly pointless.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/03/wifi-is-safe-on-planes

For a while now BA have let you use your mobile the second you touch down rather than after you've taxied to the gate.

Let's face it, if an electronic device left inadvertently on (which in a flight of a hundred passengers or more, there on average are bound to be a few) was so dangerous, surely they would make you check them at the door and turn them off.

I never fully switch off my laptop - just keep it in sleep mode which isn't really strictly according to the rules. I've left my mobile on by mistake before and had an old Android phone with an annoying button that I managed to turn on in mid-air in my pocket several times without it causing any problems.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

This should explain everything:


youtube.com/watch?v=JYAq-7sOzXQ&

In reply to ChrisJD:

Brilliant brilliant brilliant - best rant ever!!!

E

In reply to yorkshireman:

It seems there have been cases of interference from electronic devices before though (albeit rarely) - apparently a DVD player was causing a 30 degree navigation error when switched on (which disappeared when switched off).

In reply to TryfAndy:

I'm surprised I got a single bite with that

In reply to Removed User:

I had something similar during an event job on Sunday whilst holding a 1D Mkiii, but it was more along the lines of "My iphone can do the same as that, and it fits in my pocket". Sure it can...

In reply to TryfAndy:

Have you seen that new phone with a 41 megapixel sensor? Ridiculous.

In reply to patrick_b:

But it's 41 Megapixels, that makes it twice as good as my D7000, anyone want to swap?

In reply to Kieran_John:

Sorry, I'm waiting for the next one. Yes, it's got 82 Megapixels.

In reply to aln:

just buy 2

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: Why buy 2? The next one has 164.

In reply to aln: I ain't buying til they offer a 16 gigapixel option.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Exactly. I want to be able to print my blurry club pictures football-pitch sized.

In reply to patrick_b:

It's not ridiculous at all.

It's a way of getting zoom with no fancy optics or actuator, you just crop.

The reviews of the image quality are very favourable btw, check out DPreview.

In reply to Removed User:

Good point. But what size are the files going to be? A little phone SD card is going to be full up in no time, reducing the whole point of it as a 'camera'.

In reply to patrick_b:

It's all fine. Funnily enough people have thought about it. Resultion is dropped in live processing to improve signal on unzoomed images and pixels are dropped to produce zoomed images.

It's nothing scientific cameras haven't been doing for a decade or more, it's just packaged up in a consumer device. It's rather annoying, having to consider this philosophy has torpedoed my "merkerdroid driven excess of pixels making cameras worse" rant.

In reply to Henry Iddon: It saves a 38 mp and a 5 mp image. The smaller image uses oversampling to provide meta pixel for the smaller image. Not sure how big the files/ memory are. But it is an interesting idea, completely different to HTC'c attitude where they have used larger CCD with less pixels to allow more light into each one.

In reply to dapoy:

Here's the review I was talking about: http://connect.dpreview.com/post/4485507296/shootout-sonyxperiaz1-vs-nokia1...

Doesn't seem to mention file size though.

I'm of the opinion that most phone camera users don't need much over 3Mp. Most of them never crop the photos and only view them on a monitor with a resolution that's probably not much more than 3Mp anyway.

In reply to TryfAndy:

Did you bite then as well?

In reply to Removed User:

Oh aye...38 meg on a shitey wee phone cam lens, haud me back!...... I won't 'byte'

In reply to Removed User:

It is tempting.
The best I had on a similar youth event job was a hanger-on with a bottom-of-the-range Nikon, shooting on full auto and couldn't work out why it wasn't working (lens cap was on), at the same time as telling me I didn't need to be there as the parents could take the same quality photos themselves (they can't).

In reply to wintertree:

Yep, it's a well known fact that landing at high speed turns cameras into rocks.