Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 258 posts

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#181

Post by chris_overseas »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #174
alistairSH wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.

The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm ( sic ) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).

Somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I was on safari with a guy who had a superzoom camera (can't remember which sorry but it went to 1200mm or so). He was mocking the size of my full frame DSLR + 800mm Canon prime, saying he had far more reach with his almost pocketable camera - which was of course true. I was curious to see what the difference was in practice so we both took photos of a waterbuck in the distance (him at both 800mm and 1200mm). Comparing them later on a laptop PC the difference was truly night and day, MUCH more significant than I was expecting. Every single hair was razor sharp in my photo while his just showed a mottled "mush" with very little detail at all due to poor optical resolution combined with overly strong noise reduction (the latter of which could at least be partly addressed by shooting RAW).

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#182

Post by ad-hominem »

jefe_ wrote: post #177

Really shows the size and capability of U.S.A.F. when they have a plane and team they can casually deploy to what appears to be a highly specific situation. The article says the aircraft is specifically designed to use atmospheric data to determine cause and nature of nuclear incidents. Imagining the manpower and testing and everything that goes into designing and implementing a system like this, and then multiplying…

Yeah, it's pretty badass. That being said, is it worth spending 60% of your whole nation's budget every year to have a military this badass? I am seriously asking. I feel like there is a better place to be spending that money.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#183

Post by dvdgsng »

chris_overseas wrote: post #122

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker…

What is this about? http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar...

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#184

Post by tlow »

chris_overseas wrote: post #122

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker…

As many have noted, these are excellent photographs. I have limited knowledge and experience with photography. Do you worry about your work being stolen and sold?

I'm thinking particularly of this story: https://petapixel.com/2016/07/27/photographer-suing-getty-im...

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#185

Post by chiph »

jefe_ wrote: post #177

Really shows the size and capability of U.S.A.F. when they have a plane and team they can casually deploy to what appears to be a highly specific situation. The article says the aircraft is specifically designed to use atmospheric data to determine cause and nature of nuclear incidents. Imagining the manpower and testing and everything that goes into designing and implementing a system like this, and then multiplying…

With North Korea testing weapons rather frequently, it still has a mission even today.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#186

Post by chris_overseas »

dvdgsng wrote: post #183
chris_overseas wrote: post #122

I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to happen. In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker…

What is this about? http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar...

That was a huge bird colony nesting on the face of a place called Rubini Rock. We were fortunate to have ideal conditions and as a result the ship's captain was able to position the ship within a meter or so of the cliff face, allowing us a very up close view of the colony.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#187

Post by alistairSH »

jdietrich wrote: post #178
alistairSH wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.

>A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. That's one of the big advantages of Micro Four-Thirds - if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of sensor area, you get very bright and lightweight telephoto lenses.

While the lens would be lighter than a DSLR equivalent, I still can't bring myself to buy one for my Olympus set-up.

The reason I sold my Canon gear and went MFT was the size - it's almost pocketable and easily fits in a small backpack when travelling. Adding even a moderate telephoto ruins it for me.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#188

Post by alistairSH »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #174
alistairSH wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.

The biggest question to my mind, when it comes to camera shootouts, is how close could you get to this kind of quality with a superzoom? Take a Canon SX60, having a lens that's 21-1365mm ( sic ) 35 mm equivalent. Admittedly the sensor is much worse, etc., but this covers most of that 6 lens range (apart from wide apertures at high tele).

Pixel peepers will find differences. But, for sharing photos on the web, a good superzoom will do well enough for most people.

The biggest differences are going to be low light conditions and controlling depth of field (portraits, etc). Also, motion (sports, wildlife), where the ability to easily focus manually ahead of time can make a huge difference.

Most of my photo-hobbyist friends (myself included) have moved away from DSLR to one of the mirrorless systems. I use MFT, and quite a few use Fuji X.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#189

Post by hackuser »

shard972 wrote: post #148
hackuser wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see one mistake as a meaningful sample. Of course the Washington Post makes some mistakes.

I don't see something like this as a simple mistake, to me it's closer to gross negligence. How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?". They wrote an entire article about the all the danger that this event shows us except the most basic questions about the hack would have quickly lead you to a realisation that there was absolutely nothing here. They even pin it on…

> How do you write an entire article like that without anyone asking "hey so, how is this a risk?".

We don't know what they did in the course of writing the article or how the article ended up as it is. Maybe they did ask that, and the person they asked views the situation differently than you do; maybe they got conflicting answers and chose what was most convincing. Maybe they wrote about it and the editor cut it.

(For argument sake, I'm accepting your conclusion about the article's shortcomings; I don't know about that myself.)

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#190

Post by [deleted] »

alistairSH wrote: post #159
hunta2097 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to know how to piss off a photographer? "These are great pictures, you must have a great camera!" Caveat: You can take great pictures with a camera-phone but you can't take every type of shot. I think any DSLR with a good choice of glass (lenses) would be able to reproduce most of these shots. More expensive camera bodies are only slightly better in the optical sense but are MUCH better constructed. Framing, ape…

Most photographers take a prolific amount of pictures Digital cameras are a wonderful thing! A good mirrorless could take most of these shots as well, though I suspect by the time you installed a lens long enough for the wildlife shots[1], it wouldn't be much lighter than the DSLR. 1 - I didn't check the EXIF data, but assume he was using at least 200mm, probably longer, for those shots.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN