Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: FredBGG on April 14, 2013, 10:56:47 am
-
Can anyone that has seen this in action tell us how quick it actually is and if it interferes with shooting.
Can the assistant be checking files while the photographer is shooting
without it interfering with the capture speed etc?
How fast does it go form full frame to say zooming onto the face of a full length shot?
Once zoomed in can you move left and right to check other faces in the same shot quickly?
Once zoomed in can you jump to other shots keeping the same zoom?
Is there any face recognition for fast moving between faces in a single shot or keeping the zoomed in view
on the face when jumping from frame to frame if the model is moving (not in the same area between shots)?
-
I saw this in action at a demo, and it is not pretty fast. Maybe 5 seconds to go form the camera to iPad. The annoying thing, and I am not sure if this can be changed or not, is that the preview always takes you to the image you just shot after it is uploaded, just like shooting tethered does. Given the lower power of the iPad compared to a laptop, going back to the image you were just looking at is much slower.
However, it is a nice tool to have so people are not crowding around the camera, and also so you do not have to explain why looking at an image on the ground glass up side down and backwards is actually better for judging a composition. ;) If you dont believe me, then why it it is much easier to see how symmetrical a person's face is by looking at the picture upside down.
-
Thanks for the info Joe.
So does it take 5 seconds to go to each image?
lets say I've taken 20 shots and I want to go through them quickly
does it take 5 seconds to get to each shot? That would be 1 minute and 40 sec of waiting
to skip through the 20 shots... and more than that if I wanted to pop in to check focus on them all...
Is that the case?
-
No, that would not be the case, after the images are uploaded, you can look through them very fast, just like using any other app on the iPad. And the 5 seconds was a guess rather than an exact time; the upload is not instant but it is not long either. The issue is when you are trying to look at the images when someone else is shooting. Just like in Capture, the program wants to take you to the last image that was uploaded, forcing you to scroll back. Also, the images upload slightly slower than it takes for the back to get ready to fire again. This means if someone is firing off shots, you kind of need to wait until all of the images get uploaded, or you will go crazy scrolling back and forth. This probably could be changed though in the app.
If you, the shooter, is using the device to look at a few test shots, I doubt this would be an issue. It would become an issue if you shoot a few dozen images and wanted to look at all of them right after shooting. In that case, I would assume you would need to wait a minute or two. Or, if you could turn off the auto feature that takes you to the last image to be uploaded, you could probably start that beginning of the session and by the time you get to the end, all of the images would be uploaded.
I would like to stated that this experience was from a demo that I was only at for about 20 minutes. I am not an expert on this. Also, for what I shoot, this feature is nice, but not mouth watering, so I am not as concerned about it.
-
I was very surprised to hear the IQ2's use wireless N standard as I assumed they would be rocking the latest wireless AC standard. Wireless AC seems the obvious choice considering the application and size of file and speed needed but alas no, yesterday's wifi technology in a £25K digital back.
My upgrade is on now on hold until release what with the differences in US and UK prices to begin with followed by small things like the wifi speed, compulsory dark frame on long exposures and OTT amounts of LENR applied as standard at capture on the IQ260 pre production files I've seen. The jury is still out for me.
-
You're jumping the gun. ::)
I'd wait until at least the first round of IQ260/IQ280s are officially released on the market. Yes, "WiFi works" as demoed, but it has been made abundantly clear that tweaks to the software are being made before the official release/distribution.
I'm sure Phase One didn't want to fall prey to more accusations of marketing BS.
;)
-
You're jumping the gun. ::)
I'd wait until at least the first round of IQ260/IQ280s are officially released on the market. Yes, "WiFi works" as demoed, but it has been made abundantly clear that tweaks to the software are being made before the official release/distribution.
I'm sure Phase One didn't want to fall prey to more accusations of marketing BS.
;)
I would agree with you on this. I am sure the actual models will run much better.
-
Please don't jump to conclusions. Phase One is six weeks away from starting delivery of the the IQ 2xx series. I have been demoing the IQ260 and iPad connection all over the world in the last few weeks. Frankly, I think it is very cool to see a prototype that is not even the final product working like it is. I was recently in Iceland and was shooting with the IQ260 in the field using the iPad. There is something really nice about seeing a large preview of the image you are shooting and being able to adjust the camera, f-stop etc, and re-shoot until you have it just right, all from the iPad. Also, the long exposure capability of the IQ260 is amazing. Phase One is having World Tour events in major cities around the world over the next 6 weeks. Find a city close by and see these products yourself and talk to the people that are designing these cool products. There is all a video on this site showing the iPad being used in the field shooting remotely. Check it out.
Kevin Raber
Phase One
-
Yes, saw it in action last week, was the IQ260 i think
.The Wifi wasn't as fast as a tethered solution, but it was quite fast, I would say 1,5-2 sec from back to Ipad.
This slows down as soon as you keep shooting 1img/second.
I would say this is an amazing thing for all things studio, but maybe less for fashion.For someone taking 5000 images a day, this may not be a solution, for someone like me, who has between 30 and 300 images on the counter, this could come handy.
Can't answer your other questions, disn't handle it myself, not in the market for an upgrade right now;-((
Tom
-
There is something really nice about seeing a large preview of the image you are shooting and being able to adjust the camera, f-stop etc, and re-shoot until you have it just right, all from the iPad.....
Kevin Raber
Phase One
What about focusing? Can you remote focus?
What are you using to see the image on the iPad? There is nothing nice about looking at an image on an iPad out in daylight.
That said I think that the WiFi implementation as far as I've seen it so far is a damn good idea. I'll be sure to check it out in person when poissible.
It would be nice to implement the same functionality over USB especially if the USB can be plugged in without a reboot of the back.
Higher speed tethered review without moving the whole huge files around taking advantage of the way you are processing files
in the back.
I review images right now in real time over HDMI and wireless HDMI on a rugged broadcast location monitor in real time,
I especially like the face recognition review functions for checcking focus, mood and expressions on faces with the camera automatically zooming in on the faces
in review mode and scrolling through different fasces if there are nore than one face in the shot.
http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs (http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs)
It would be great to have something aproaching this on the IQ2 backs for fashion, portrait and advertizing with people in the shots.
-
Fred, you're welcome to come see the prototype in person. We have events in DC, NYC, and Texas this coming few weeks:
https://digitaltransitions.com/event/event
Your local dealer probably has similar events soon.
The version Joe saw was on an iPad 3 in retina mode. That requires transmitting four times the pixels. One likely plan for the final version is allowing the user be to work in retina mode or non retina mode via some icon or menu choice. For most use cases the "retina" resolution is not needed and maybe even counter productive (if the pixel is too physically small/dense it can be harder to evaluate sharp-vs-kinda-sharp).
Also Joe may have missed it but there is a "pause" button that holds the image you're looking at rather than automatically switch to new images.
Wireless AC spec is not mature and standardized in the way that 5ghz N is. I would have been pretty shocked if they had done AC.
-
#A
Fred is genuinely interested in Phase One products and their new features.
#B
Once again Fred is bashing MFDB with references to Nikon technologies (ie.. face recognition) which he knows full well are not part of Phase's offering.
-
Ding! Answer B, of course! ;)
It's just hard to imagine a sane person going to so much trouble as Fred does to post about something he doesn't use. What's the point? I used to think that Nikon paid him to slam MFDB, now I just think well.... Anyhow this is another pointless thread. Better to wait to see what the production units do before condemning them.
Big Cooter's posts were really great to read, always providing real insights into the business and while he had personal preferences toward gear choices, he always seemed objective and logical. Shame we had to loose him.
-
#A
Fred is genuinely interested in Phase One products and their new features.
#B
Once again Fred is bashing MFDB with references to Nikon technologies (ie.. face recognition) which he knows full well are not part of Phase's offering.
#C Nick is being a dick... ;)
I would not exclude Phase being able to implement additional functionality either in the back or on the iPad.
After all the processors in the IQ2 backs are field updatable.
Also the face recognition could be done quite nicely actually with the iPAd and the digital back working in tandem.
1 Back sends low res full frame image to iPad.
2 iPad looks at the low res image and finds the face and requests the tile from the back
3 the back sends a cropped tile of the face in screen res.
It would even be smart to do this in the background while the viewer is looking at the
full length so it's cached in the background if the user wants to check.
There is already face recognition code out there for iOS and Android.
iPhoto on the iPad can go beyond that and even recognize who the person is. Finding a face in a photo
would be easy to do.
Regarding Nikon vs the Phase review option.. there is one aspect of the Phase option that I like a lot. it's the fact
that it's a low res method with the high res staying on the camera and not getting hijacked by a member of the crew or
some assistant or guest of the clients. They get to see a low res or only crops at higher res.
A nice addition to the Phase One method would be to have the possibility of the host iPad to send desired images to other iPads
used by the rest of the crew. Very handy for makeup, hair and wardrobe to both keep an eye on things as well as see how the spread is comming out.
There is a lot of potential with this WiFi thing.
Kudos to Phase on this one.
-
I also used the IQ260 in Iceland with Kevin a few weeks back, and it's awesome technology. It's a breath of fresh air to the medium format market, for sure.
-
#C Nick is being a dick... ;)
O.K Fred you win. One really has to admire your tenacity.
I'm going to stay out of this forum for a while thanks to Fred and his incessant sniping.
Anyone with Hasselblad questions (an area where I have pretty good knowledge) please feel free to get in touch via my forum linked below.
Over and out (for a while anyway)
Nick-T
-
The back sends an image of the appropriate size to the ipad so a retina takes four times as long as an older ipad and the mini is quicker than both. I presume this will be 'optimisable' at some point (I was seeing with a very early pre-release whilst doing the video in iceland). The ipad caches data it has received so it only loads what is needed - think of it like browsing a gigapan or google maps.
Tim
-
The back sends an image of the appropriate size to the ipad so a retina takes four times as long as an older ipad and the mini is quicker than both. I presume this will be 'optimisable' at some point (I was seeing with a very early pre-release whilst doing the video in iceland). The ipad caches data it has received so it only loads what is needed - think of it like browsing a gigapan or google maps.
Tim
It's a smart idea. I think there is a lot of potential as to what can be done using processing either on the iPad or in the back.
Keeping the data that has to be moved to a minimum is a good move. Adding some other functionality
to the iPAd end of things would be interesting to such as preview black and white conversion with a few different color filtration
options to simulate Green, Red filters etc.
-
Fred,
When you are the last one left here, will you shut out the lights or just keep harping on Phase One and calling people derogatory names? It seems like you are single handily dismantling these forums. :-[
-
Fred,
When you are the last one left here, will you shut out the lights or just keep harping on Phase One and calling people derogatory names? It seems like you are single handily dismantling these forums. :-[
It's kinda sad.
More folks who actually own MFDBs and actually have medium format digital experience are decreasing participation or leaving altogether. If this keeps up, pretty soon the only ones talking about "medium format digital" or rather continuing the hyper-critical negative nattering on this forum----will be ones who have scant little experience with medium format digital nor do they own MFDBs. ::)
-
O.K Fred you win. One really has to admire your tenacity.
I'm going to stay out of this forum for a while thanks to Fred and his incessant sniping.
Anyone with Hasselblad questions (an area where I have pretty good knowledge) please feel free to get in touch via my forum linked below.
Over and out (for a while anyway)
Nick-T
That's classy... leaves but not before plugging his own forum.
-
Fred,
When you are the last one left here, will you shut out the lights or just keep harping on Phase One and calling people derogatory names? It seems like you are single handily dismantling these forums. :-[
Come on Eric Nick was being deliberately provocative accusing me of making this whole thread an excuse to sneak in some Nikon agenda.
You know I like this new WiFi feature on the Phase Backs and I've commented more than once that it is a smart implementation.
This leads me to believe that Phase may turn things around as far as their system camera body goes.
-
I don't know why but a certain side discussion in this thread reminded me of this novel TV show concept; http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/naked-castaway , although I'm sure I'll be told about how eating bugs and nudism is an alternative lifestyle which can be highly fulfilling or something, anyway,
I saw it at the PhaseOne event in NYC, the wait times may have been a little slow, although it should be fully noted that this was using a BETA version of the software, which is not even available on the APP store yet and had to be specially installed AND it is being shot on a PROTOTYPE IQ260 back (which I used for a shoot btw with a review coming soon), so P1 should be given a pass in that they atleast have the technology working and the basic functionality is there which will be great for those who need it....... and can spare the brain cancer or whatever (more coming on this as well ((to disprove this)) )
-
so P1 should be given a pass in that they atleast have the technology working and the basic functionality is there which will be great for those who need it....... and can spare the brain cancer or whatever (more coming on this as well ((to disprove this)) )
Hmm safety is something to be considered.
Here is a little something from a WiFi routers manual:
In order to comply with FCC radio frequency (RF) exposure limits,
antennas should be located at a minimum of 7.9 inches (20 cm) or more from the body of all persons.
Statement 332
The antenna of the IQ2 series are much much closer.
(http://www.phaseone.com/en/~/media/Phase%20One/1-Camera-Systems/Landing-page/Phase-One-camera-system-plus.ashx)
(http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series/~/media/Phase%20One/1-Camera-Systems/Digital-Backs/IQ2-series/IQ2-features/wireless-built-in.ashx)
Less than .5 inches.
That is 16 times closer.
Since radio waves follow the inverse square law – like light, sound and gravity – then each time you double the distance, you get only a quarter of the energy.
So if this is correct having the antena at .5 inches gives you 5 times the exposure compared to the distance the FCC recommends.
What is also important to keep in mind is the exposure differential over the length of for example the optic nerve.
In nature radio sources are very very far away and there is not exposure differential. With a source .5 of an inch the differential is
far far higher than in nature.... or nearly all other WiFi applications.
Something to be to keep in mind when using a device right up against your face and EYE that creates a WiFi network.
Prof Challis, is chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme recommends that children
should avoid using a laptop on their lap with WiFi due to the antenna being to close to the leg... and that is a laptop that is more on the receiving
and not creating a WiFi network. I wonder what his recommendation would be for a WiFi being created less than a Cm from the Eyes.
Obviously this is of more concern to someone that spends a significant amount of time with a WiFi camera upto their face.
Fashion catalog could mean the camera is up against the eye for hours on end.
It's worth keeping in mind that it took many years for the risks of smoking to be acknowledged, as well as all sorts of other environmental hazards.
-
....it was only a matter if time before the pat on the back turned into a back hand slap.
-
It's a scary world out there. Microwave ovens, iPhones, iPads, teenagers texting and driving. We are surrounded by Wi-fi. It's doubtful a company which is in business to provide equipment to photographers would come out with technology which would cause harm to said photographers. Not a very wise business plan.
One would possibility be in more harm's way from a bear attack while under a dark cloth composing an image on an 8 x10.
Regards,
Jeffery
****My 50th post!
I revised my earlier post.
-
O.K Fred you win. One really has to admire your tenacity.
I'm going to stay out of this forum for a while thanks to Fred and his incessant sniping.
Anyone with Hasselblad questions (an area where I have pretty good knowledge) please feel free to get in touch via my forum linked below.
Over and out (for a while anyway)
Nick-T
We will miss you :-*
-
On the WiFi and safety.
1. Sure can't be any worse than a current phone, iPhone, galaxy etc. They all have wifi capabilities and they are held pretty close to the head, at least with most folks. So far, most people don't seem concerned with phone usage and I bet most have the wifi on all the time.
2. I have assumed from the start Phase will have a option to have wifi on or off, no need to run it when you don't need it i.e. battery draining. The only other camera I have with wifi is the Canon 6D, so far I have not even turned it on, but I have the option. I don't know much about Nikon's offerings here, but again I would assume you have an on or off capability.
Time will tell.
Paul Caldwell
-
Initial "joking" by some about WiFi didn't seem to even warrant a response.
But since he seems to be taking it very seriously... the IQ2 has already gone through the same testing that cell phones and other similar devices go through regarding radiation exposure. It passed all European and American industry and legal guidelines. In fact with the test set up to simulate a normal shooting position (viewfinder to eye) the exposure was so minimal they decided to run all qualification testing with the back off of the body and rotated to simulate you putting your cheek directly to the top/bottom of the back (where the antennas are); it still passed with flying colors.
Unless you are the kind that never uses cell phones, lives in the back country away from radio/wifi, and wears tin foil on your head - there is nothing to worry about.
Paul, there is a simple menu setting for the Wifi: Off, On, Ad-Hoc. If you aren't going to use it I'd suggest leaving it off to preserve battery life.
-
Come on Eric Nick was being deliberately provocative accusing me of making this whole thread an excuse to sneak in some Nikon agenda.
No Fred, I think you were the one who crossed the line here and its not the first time either. You were the one who got loud, and lost your cool and started name calling. And saying Nick provoked you is truly like the pot calling the kettle black. I mean every single post of yours is provoking - and not at all in a good way. I really do think you've ruined a lot of the good natured community here on LuLa. There was a great vibe of sharing ideas and techniques and experiences here. You've turned every thread into some kind of terrible consumer protection kind of thing devoid of humor and useful information content.
Look people need to be able to get their work done with what gear is available. Work arounds, techniques, skills, experiences... those are the kind of things that are useful. Attacking the manufacturers for flaws in a beta or demo like you did here is incredibly petty IMHO and helps really no one. You seem to be incredible thick skinned and have so far not taken anyone's hints so I can't expect much. To use another old phrase, you haven't gotten the memo yet. You seem to be operating on the premiss that you are helping people, but you are not. If you continue to chase away everyone like BC and Nick, you will ruin the forum for everyone. How does that help?
I wish you'd focus on what you can share from direct working experiences instead of these pointless and petty posts.
-
Initial "joking" by some about WiFi didn't seem to even warrant a response.
But since he seems to be taking it very seriously... the IQ2 has already gone through the same testing that cell phones and other similar devices go through regarding radiation exposure. It passed all European and American industry and legal guidelines. In fact with the test set up to simulate a normal shooting position (viewfinder to eye) the exposure was so minimal they decided to run all qualification testing with the back off of the body and rotated to simulate you putting your cheek directly to the top/bottom of the back (where the antennas are); it still passed with flying colors.
Unless you are the kind that never uses cell phones, lives in the back country away from radio/wifi, and wears tin foil on your head - there is nothing to worry about.
Paul, there is a simple menu setting for the Wifi: Off, On, Ad-Hoc. If you aren't going to use it I'd suggest leaving it off to preserve battery life.
If I recall correctly testing requires tests to be done in any way that the device can be turned on so testing the back off the camera would be apropriate.
As far as legal, well that does not mean it's safe from a health standpoint. Alchohol, cigarettes and many other things are legal.
Anyway I think there is nothing wrong with taking caution in untested territory. While the IQ2 WiFi meats tests i doubt there are any long term tests with a WiFi ad hoc network being created half andn inch from the eyeball.
That said anyone wanting to use caution can setup the ad hoc network on the Tablet and keep the WiFi off until he or she wants to review photos.
Actually it would be a nice feature to have an option to quickly activate WiFi. Not only for cautionary purposes, but to also decide what to send to the ipad. How about an option to shoot away and then tap a buton on the screen and send the images when you step away from the camera and then have an option that turns off the WiFi when you tap the shutter release.
Similarly it woukld be nice to review images on the back and have a button that makes aproved shots available to the iPad.
There are many times when you do not want to send certain images to the crew, such as warm up images with a model.
Another thing that would be nice is an external antenna, maybe even somewhat directional.
Both of these functions would also reduce battery usage.
-
The IQ260 Wifi will greatly enhance my workflow. I actually do not mind if clients are engaged in the project. On most of my projects I shoot it as the client likes, then I do it my way. It's great when they can see all this instantly.
Fear is not good for art. If someone is afraid of a new technology, then they simply have the option of not using that tech.
Logic does not dictate that a company which business is photography equipment would provide photography equipment which will harm the very photographers who make there business a success.
As far as what is legal is concerned. Let's leave that up lawyers who have gone to school for many years. As far as wi-fi is concerned perhaps there are some scientists on the forum who have actually studied in that field that can post.
Batteries always seem to be run out at the worst times. It's part of the being a professional that one would carry extra ones. Or have a great 1st assistant who always seems to have remembered ;D
regards,
jeffery
-
WiFi RF EMR measured at different distances.
The closest being 20cm.... so imagine where 1cm would be considering power goes down to a 1/4 every time you double the distance.
http://youtu.be/VOROXjMET0Y (http://youtu.be/VOROXjMET0Y)
It's not about being scared of new technology, it's about being prudent and informed.
-
OH CRAP! ???
Should I be worried about my iPhone 5? Should I turn Wifi off when not using a wired or bluetooth headset? I thought posts here were getting sillier but, now I am worried it's all in my head!
BTW, go do some comparisons on radiation levels when flying on a plane vs. all the typical things people worry about like x-rays, wifi, radio waves and black cats. Believe me, I spend 80+ hrs a month on planes and never hear the end of it from my keeper.....
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
-
Initial "joking" by some about WiFi didn't seem to even warrant a response.
But since he seems to be taking it very seriously... the IQ2 has already gone through the same testing that cell phones and other similar devices go through regarding radiation exposure. It passed all European and American industry and legal guidelines. In fact with the test set up to simulate a normal shooting position (viewfinder to eye) the exposure was so minimal they decided to run all qualification testing with the back off of the body and rotated to simulate you putting your cheek directly to the top/bottom of the back (where the antennas are); it still passed with flying colors.
Unless you are the kind that never uses cell phones, lives in the back country away from radio/wifi, and wears tin foil on your head - there is nothing to worry about.
Paul, there is a simple menu setting for the Wifi: Off, On, Ad-Hoc. If you aren't going to use it I'd suggest leaving it off to preserve battery life.
Doug, but aren't the dangers of WIFI radiation when using the camera up close mitigated by using the iPad solution though?...so you can stay the mandatory FCC distance away and still use the camera..or wait, duh, iPad was the reason for WIFI.....again, new iPhone radiation messing with my wiring.
-
WiFi RF EMR measured at different distances.
The closest being 20cm.... so imagine where 1cm would be considering power goes down to a 1/4 every time you double the distance.
http://youtu.be/VOROXjMET0Y (http://youtu.be/VOROXjMET0Y)
It's not about being scared of new technology, it's about being prudent and informed.
I think this video speaks for itself. "It is not recommended to sleep in the same room as a Wifi Router".
I think that falls pretty directly under the category of those who want to live in the country side away from electronics and wear a tinfoil hat. This your idea of prudent and informed?
This will be the last time I post about the "dangers" of WiFi (IQ2, iPhone, router or otherwise).
-
I think this video speaks for itself. "It is not recommended to sleep in the same room as a Wifi Router".
I think that falls pretty directly under the category of those who want to live in the country side away from electronics and wear a tinfoil hat. This your idea of prudent and informed?
This will be the last time I post about the "dangers" of WiFi (IQ2, iPhone, router or otherwise).
You may try to ridicule who brings up issues if WiFi safety, but it's not as rosy as you make it out to be. Intel a WiFi manufacturer
takes it a lot more seriously than you do.
Here is a quote from the safety notice on the Intel website regarding their Intel Pro wireless adapters
Information for the User
Safety Notices
USA—FCC and FAA
The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted a safety standard for human exposure to
radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy emitted by FCC certified equipment. The adapter
meets the Human Exposure limits found in OET Bulletin 65, supplement C, 2001, and
ANSI/IEEE C95.1, 1992. Proper operation of this radio according to the instructions found in
this manual will result in exposure substantially below the FCC’s recommended limits.
The following safety precautions should be observed:
Do not touch or move antenna while the unit is transmitting or receiving.
Do not hold any component containing the radio such that the antenna is very close or
touching any exposed parts of the body, especially the face or eyes, while transmitting.
Do not operate the radio or attempt to transmit data unless the antenna is connected;
this behavior may cause damage to the radio.
Use in specific environments:
The use of wireless devices in hazardous locations is limited by the constraints
posed by the safety directors of such environments.
The use of wireless devices on airplanes is governed by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
The use of wireless devices in hospitals is restricted to the limits set forth by each
hospital.
Antenna Use
In order to comply with FCC RF exposure limits, low gain integrated antennas should be
located at a minimum distance of 20 cm (8 inches) or more from the body of all persons.
High-gain, wall-mount, or mast-mount antennas are designed to be professionally
installed and should be located at a minimum distance of 30 cm (12 inches) or more from
the body of all persons. Please contact your professional installer, VAR, or antenna
manufacturer for proper installation requirements.
Antenna Warnings
Warning: To comply with the FCC and ANSI C95.1 RF exposure limits, it is recommended
that for the adapter installed in a desktop or portable computer, the antenna for this adapter to
be installed so as to provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm (8 inches) from all persons.
It is recommended that the user limit exposure time if the antenna is positioned closer than 20
cm (8 inches).
Full document here:
http://download.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/5300_5100/sb/regstatements.pdf (http://download.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/5300_5100/sb/regstatements.pdf)
-
Initial "joking" by some about WiFi didn't seem to even warrant a response.
But since he seems to be taking it very seriously... the IQ2 has already gone through the same testing that cell phones and other similar devices go through regarding radiation exposure. It passed all European and American industry and legal guidelines. In fact with the test set up to simulate a normal shooting position (viewfinder to eye) the exposure was so minimal they decided to run all qualification testing with the back off of the body and rotated to simulate you putting your cheek directly to the top/bottom of the back (where the antennas are); it still passed with flying colors.
Unless you are the kind that never uses cell phones, lives in the back country away from radio/wifi, and wears tin foil on your head - there is nothing to worry about.
Interesting that you state that they ran tests with the antenna touching the cheeks when these are the FCC guidelines and recommendations of Intel in the above posting.
It will be interesting to see what will be stated in the Safety Notice of the shipping product.
-
....
It will be interesting to see what will be stated in the Safety Notice of the shipping product.
Congratulations, Fred! When you get your new IQ260/IQ280, let us all know what the "Safety Notice" (if any) says. ::)
-
Congratulations, Fred! When you get your new IQ260/IQ280, let us all know what the "Safety Notice" (if any) says. ::)
How about discussing the issue rather than making silly sarcastic comments..
Also I don't see why someone should be congratulated for buying a piece of equipment... doesn't require any particular skill... ;)
-
No sillier than where you've taken this thread.
The pattern is so similar to every other thread---bait I think Andy Biggs calls it. ;) Lessee. Throw something out there under the noble premise of sincere discussion and then attack, every possible nit, hyper-sensitive criticism, often based on hasty generalizations, and now that I think of it----misleading statements. That's like misleading advertising! :o ::)
Yeah, buying a product doesn't take much skill---maybe with a top-end MFDB it shows you have the business acumen and means to make such a purchase. But at least someone who has taken that step (many of us have done it several times and with years of experience with MFDBs---what a concept) can actually relate personal experience (real experience not a few hundred exposures or test shots at the counter) with medium format digital and perhaps, just perhaps, in a very positive manner help other photographers with positive advice, experiences, workarounds, etc. to actually go out and make images with their personal choice of equipment.
:-*
-
It seems like someone wants to have all types of safety warning stickers on the IQ back then will bitch when it isn't in every language known to man or that the stickers don't look right. Then again Phase could have an external antenna so that same person can then bitch and moan that someone could poke their eye out. Never mind he isn't going to buy the thing - just Google it.
Just another waste of time and space....
-
Don, Ken and others ...
simply do not reply to the posts of this narrow-minded repressed bourgeois and the pain will come to an end sooner or later…
-
Don, Ken and others ...
simply do not reply to the posts of this narrow-minded repressed bourgeois and the pain will come to an end sooner or later…
Hmmm .. all of that for pointing out a possible safety issue. Creating a WiFi network less than an inch from the eyes is uncharted territory.
Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
Bourgois:
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of the social middle class
2: marked by a concern for material interests and respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity
3: dominated by commercial and industrial interests
Which of the three? ;)
-
Creating a WiFi network less than an inch from the eyes is uncharted territory.
iPhone (1st Generation). Released in June of 2007. Connectivity Wi-Fi (802.11 b/g). Designed to put on your face.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)
-
iPhone (1st Generation). Released in June of 2007. Connectivity Wi-Fi (802.11 b/g). Designed to put on your face.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)
There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.
Yes - the iPhone can be used as a wifi hotspot to share its cellular connection with other devices over wifi, this isn't typically done whilst holding the thing against one's head though.
Routers need to pump out one hell of a big signal compared to the power it takes to receive that signal.
That being said, I don't doubt that this kind of thing will be covered (at least to a legal extent) by the certification necessary for the IQ2's.
-
There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.
Yes - the iPhone can be used as a wifi hotspot to share its cellular connection with other devices over wifi, this isn't typically done whilst holding the thing against one's head though.
Routers need to pump out one hell of a big signal compared to the power it takes to receive that signal.
That is correct, and on top of that the Cell phone is about 3 inches from the cornea and iris while the IQ2 is about 0.5 inches away.
With the same WiFi output power 0.5 inches is about 10 times more due to the omni directional emanation of the signal.
The formula for signal falloff is 1/r2
Here is a schematic to illustrate the exposure difference between being less than an inch away to several inches.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8247/8661773026_0f1b64e557_o.jpg)
Both the Cone and the intensity are very very different.
Risks from high proximity to a WiFi source should not be dismissed.
On top of that the voltage differential from the front of the eye to the back of the eye is far higher when close and almost insignificant even just
7 or 8 inches away.
-
, . . .
Risks from high proximity to a WiFi source should not be dismissed.
On top of that the voltage differential from the front of the eye to the back of the eye is far higher when close and almost insignificant even just
7 or 8 inches away.
Well, let's do this:
- for owners/users worried about close proximity of emitter [to their head/body]: tether, with USB or Firewire
- for operation at a distance, or to remotely use the camera [and digiback]: WiFi
Problem solved.
Phase owners/users can use WiFi for 'on the spot' confirmation and remote control.
If there is a need to do BOTH tether AND remote confirmation [it could happen!], I doth believe Leaf has this covered with Capture Pilot App: "allows you to use your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to remotely view images & trigger your camera."
- and no close proximity radiation from the back!
- what will they think of next!
Pascal
-
Well, let's do this:
- for owners/users worried about close proximity of emitter [to their head/body]: tether, with USB or Firewire
- for operation at a distance, or to remotely use the camera [and digiback]: WiFi
Problem solved.
Phase owners/users can use WiFi for 'on the spot' confirmation and remote control.
If there is a need to do BOTH tether AND remote confirmation [it could happen!], I doth believe Leaf has this covered with Capture Pilot App: "allows you to use your iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch to remotely view images & trigger your camera."
- and no close proximity radiation from the back!
- what will they think of next!
Pascal
Obviously turning it off is an option, but and external antenna that could be used somewhat removed from the eye and face would be a good option.
Also as I previously suggested having the option of having a quick to access button that fires up WiFi when the user wants it and have it turn off when they peer back in the camera.
Hove it turn off when there is activity on the camera.. as an option. Half press the shutter for example.
Rather than just turn it off adding some precautionary functionality would be better.
Better safer than sorry.
-
There's a big difference here though. The iPhone is not (primarily) designed to be used as a wifi router when held against one's head.
Sorry but this too is quite misconstrued.
1. Neither device is technically a "router" (iphone or IQ2) but if you wanted to split hairs, the iPhone could be argued as one while the IQ is not.
2. VOIP apps are abundant on the iPhone and they specifically use WiFi (and WiFi only) whilst holding a device against your face. 5 years running and no ones dead.
3. Removing the iPhone from the equation, chances are you have (or had) a 2.4Ghz cordless phone well before a cell phone with wireless capabilities. This is the same communication frequency that WiFi uses. The 1.9Ghz cordless phones were introduced in 1998 in the US and my educated guess is that no conclusive health issues can be attributed to their use in the 15 years they’ve been around.
4. The health concerns are not directly in regard to the signal frequency but the radiation from the device. Wifi is between .1 and .5 watts, so one can argue that a cellphone alone is 40 times more dangerous than talking over a wifi VOIP device without cellular capabilities (cellular GSM phones can reach 2 watts)… or dare I say, 40 times more dangerous than an IQ260 *gasp*
Source #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Router_(computing)
Source #2 https://code.google.com/p/siphon/ (Siphon VOIP App ca. 2008)
Source #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordless_telephone#Frequencies
Source#4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
...on top of that the Cell phone is about 3 inches from the cornea and iris while the IQ2 is about 0.5 inches away.
With the same WiFi output power 0.5 inches is about 10 times more due to the omni directional emanation of the signal.
This too is seems misunderstood and a bit of a backtrack from the previous claim of being "uncharted territory". We can’t foget Canon and Nikon which have been doing it for years. Regarding the 2.5" difference (which you've speculated without any specific documentation) it hardly seems like a difference one can claim to be “uncharted”; different perhaps but not necessarily relevant as it is presumably (Phase One aren’t stupid) cleared by the FCC in order be sold in the US.
Arguing the signal falloff for the undocumented 2.5” figure seems arbitrary. True, the inverse square law applies to WiFi signal strength, however not as you are indicating due to the vast number of undocumented variable and the actual communication signal frequency is not the direct concern. First, the “Ouptu Power” and “Signal” are related but different so your sentence is a rather misleading. Secondly Wifi radiation is between .1 and .5 watts on a 2.4Ghz system (as previously noted and can be much less when antenna placement, device geometry and shielding come into play). Again this is at the very MOST 1/6th the amount of “dangerous” radiation as the average cell phone and the inverse square law does not apply directly to the radiation only signal strength (yes these are different).
At the end of the day, 15 minutes in the sun is more of a concern for your health. This is a product approved by the governments of the world as safe to sell. If you’re worried, don’t let your infant child use the $20k camera lest they be effected by the common radiation that surrounds us daily and don’t leave your face (cornea or iris) on the IQ260 for more than 525949 minutes (the amount of time it would take for .1 watt to effect your skin).
Source: http://www.ehs.uci.edu/programs/radiation/Wi-Fi%20Safety.pdf
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
-
Sorry but this too is quite misconstrued.
1. Neither device is technically a "router" (iphone or IQ2) but if you wanted to split hairs, the iPhone could be argued as one while the IQ is not.
No one is talking about a router here. The IQ2 creates a WiFi network. A WiFi network sends out a continuous signal so as to permit
access. While it is not doing the work of a router the WiFi signal is the same.
The FCC clearly recommends maintaining a distance between the face, eyes and body from a WiFi source.
Incase you missed the earlier post:
Information for the User
Safety Notices
USA—FCC and FAA
The FCC with its action in ET Docket 96-8 has adopted a safety standard for human exposure to
radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy emitted by FCC certified equipment. The adapter
meets the Human Exposure limits found in OET Bulletin 65, supplement C, 2001, and
ANSI/IEEE C95.1, 1992. Proper operation of this radio according to the instructions found in
this manual will result in exposure substantially below the FCC’s recommended limits.
The following safety precautions should be observed:
Do not touch or move antenna while the unit is transmitting or receiving.
Do not hold any component containing the radio such that the antenna is very close or
touching any exposed parts of the body, especially the face or eyes, while transmitting.
Do not operate the radio or attempt to transmit data unless the antenna is connected;
this behavior may cause damage to the radio.
Use in specific environments:
The use of wireless devices in hazardous locations is limited by the constraints
posed by the safety directors of such environments.
The use of wireless devices on airplanes is governed by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
The use of wireless devices in hospitals is restricted to the limits set forth by each
hospital.
Antenna Use
In order to comply with FCC RF exposure limits, low gain integrated antennas should be
located at a minimum distance of 20 cm (8 inches) or more from the body of all persons.
High-gain, wall-mount, or mast-mount antennas are designed to be professionally
installed and should be located at a minimum distance of 30 cm (12 inches) or more from
the body of all persons. Please contact your professional installer, VAR, or antenna
manufacturer for proper installation requirements.
Antenna Warnings
Warning: To comply with the FCC and ANSI C95.1 RF exposure limits, it is recommended
that for the adapter installed in a desktop or portable computer, the antenna for this adapter to
be installed so as to provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm (8 inches) from all persons.
It is recommended that the user limit exposure time if the antenna is positioned closer than 20
cm (8 inches).
This is the warning on a WiFi card, not even a router.
-
That is a moot point as we've already established devices approved by the FCC (again the iPhone) uphold no such standard.
Perhaps it's recommended but its clearly not mandatory so it's a nonissue and we can move on.
-
That is a moot point as we've already established devices approved by the FCC (again the iPhone) uphold no such standard.
Perhaps it's recommended but its clearly not mandatory so it's a nonissue and we can move on.
You linked to several articles regarding safety...
This is a quote from one of them
Prof Challis, chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme management committee,
said: "Wi-fi exposures are usually very small - the transmitters are low power and some distance from the body.
"They can be near to the body, however, when a laptop is on one's lap and my own view is that just as we encourage young children not to use mobile phones we should
also encourage them to use their laptops on a table rather than their lap, if they are going online for a long time."
He recommends caution even with a WiFi device on one's lap. That is much farther away than right up against the eye.
Also he is talking about a laptop that is mainly in receiving mode, not sending or creating a WiFi network.
Later in the article:
"Add to the fact that high-bandwidth wi-fi devices are less likely to be head-mounted and there really is no issue here.
Nearly all articles regarding safety of WiFi bring up the fact that the WiFi devices are far from the body.
A fashion/commercial photographer shooting at a fair pace with 2048×1536 res preview images pumped over the WiFi
would be considered high bandwidth. With this less than an inch from the eye is something to be concerned about.
Proximity is an issue. In tests done by the State of Vermont they showed significant differences when RF was measured
in contact to a device and 12 inches away.
2,100 to 2,888 µW/cm2 in contact.
120 µW/cm2 12 inches away.
That is 24 times the power in contact.
-
Has this thread jumped the shark yet? Or should Phase include a lead shield with its new backs?
I won't be posting anymore today; I've got to turn my router off.
-
Has this thread jumped the shark yet?
From the moment it was started....
Troll Post #930, dont' feed the beast.
-
sgilbert and marlyn..
I'm actually quite interested in the new back as I think the WiFi functionality is ridiculously useful for the type
of work I do.
I sue several WiFi options currently and it is a game changer in so many situations.
The functionality that Phase has put into the App is great and leads me to believe that
a game changing body is not that far away.
Anyway in June or there about well get to see the backs and I'll take a few measurements.
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgoshegqAn1qbazqio1_500.jpg)
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgoshegqAn1qbazqio1_500.jpg)
While this may protect you from the WIFI radiation, I think such close proximity to Aluminum could be very dangerous. Need to look up studies, but will start a separate thread in the MFDB thread on this.
-
Is that the regular aluminum foil or do you recommend heavy duty foil? Is generic okay or does only a premium brand like Reynold's Aluminum foil provide the best protection? Is it okay to line our foil-cone hats with soft felt for comfort or will that negate its protective properties from this new dangerous Phase One device? The only thing I don't like is I can no longer hear the voices in my head. I'm hoping it works on trolls too...
;D
-
it's my own lead, tin, zinc and aluminium mix. stops all known wavelengths including those of the manufacturer/dealer kool-aid variety.
-
.... The only thing I don't like is I can no longer hear the voices in my head. ;D
It would be a great pity Ken, they often have some nifty ideas!
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgoshegqAn1qbazqio1_500.jpg)
Naah... you need more style:
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0812/nba_g_rodman_b1_576.jpg)
and for the 0.5 inch from the eye your going to have to hit that 70s look:
(http://image3.mouthshut.com/images/ImagesR/2009/12/Ray-Ban-925071849-6132884-1.jpg?a=4/15/2013%207:21:17%20PM) ;)
-
BBC Panorama documentary on WiFi.
WiFi a warning signal
http://youtu.be/4rOkB3as-Xs (http://youtu.be/4rOkB3as-Xs)
many scientists interviewed in this documentary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241519/pdf/ehp0111-000881.pdf (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241519/pdf/ehp0111-000881.pdf)
Exposure study. Two hours of exposure to 10mW showed damaging effects.
Link is on the National Institutes of Health government website.
What is also interesting is that mobil and portable devices are tested differently.
While portable devices are tested for MPE (maximum permisable exposure) mobil devices are
tested for SAR (specific absorbtion rate).
There are many shortcomming to the SAR method in that it assumes that significant absorbtion needs to take place for there to be
a hazzard. What is also rather unusual is that SAR testing uses a very unrealistic model in that the substance used for the test is water with salt and sugar in it that is in tanks vaguely shapped like a human, however they are far from realistic and the tissues in the human body are of many different types. The eye is very different from the brain or ear. There is no simulation of neuralogical cirquitry or the milions of delicate chemical reactions
such as the one in the test above with mice.
Here is a video showing SAR testing equipment.
http://youtu.be/HZ21DX9kA7c
Many scientists have expressed doubts on SAR testing.
Firstly because it is a gross simulation. Second it does not in anyway determin what part of the human body would be absorbing the radiation.
Third that radiation does not have to be absobed in any significant manner in order to modify cirtain delicate biological chemical processes.
-
Scientists doubts on SAR testing
www.emrpolicy.org/files/ewg%20report%20statement.doc (http://www.emrpolicy.org/files/ewg%20report%20statement.doc)
-
Just as a followup. I've confirmed the SAR testing was no different in AdHoc or Standard WiFi mode.
The "20cm guideline" exists for products which do not want to undergo SAR testing to prove they are safe at closer distances. If you don't want to do the testing (which is expensive and time consuming) you must advise a 20cm distance. For devices not meant to be used near the body there is no reason to do the testing, so they elect to do the 20cm guideline.
The IQ2, like an iPhone or Android phone is a Wifi-capable device which has passed (with flying colors) the worst-case-scenario (off of a body, held directly to the skin, transmitting 100% continuously).
-
Just as a followup. I've confirmed the SAR testing was no different in AdHoc or Standard WiFi mode.
The "20cm guideline" exists for products which do not want to undergo SAR testing to prove they are safe at closer distances. If you don't want to do the testing (which is expensive and time consuming) you must advise a 20cm distance. For devices not meant to be used near the body there is no reason to do the testing, so they elect to do the 20cm guideline.
The IQ2, like an iPhone or Android phone is a Wifi-capable device which has passed (with flying colors) the worst-case-scenario (off of a body, held directly to the skin, transmitting 100% continuously).
It would be interesting to see the testing.
What is the FCC ID?
All test reports for intentional emitters have to be published here:
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ (http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/)
-
FCC ID?
-
In doing some more research I fond some interesting information
on some testing where SAR levels were obresved for specific organs.
Among the four organs the highest SAR of
value 0.308 W/kg is in the eye and it occur at the highest frequency.
The SAR distribution in the eye shows that beyond 900 MHz its maximum value shifts towards the
interior of the eye and at 2500 MHz it is almost at the centre of the eye. In the kidney, at low
frequencies, the highest SAR is at the front layers and it gets shifted to the centre of the kidney at 900
MHz and beyond this frequency the peak SAR shifts towards the interior. SAR values inside the four
vital human body organs analyzed in this paper are below FCC standards and therefore at present we
are safe.
These levels were found to be safe, but they are levels for exposure in the environment for exposure to cell phone towers
at a great distance from the body. RF intensity is divided by 4 each time you double the distance.
What is of concern here is that the FCC certification SAR testing is a very general simulation where sugar/salt water is used.
There is absolutely no simulation of the eye that happens to have a higher absorption rate than the rest of the body doe to the shape
of the organ, the thing and spherical distribution of the retina and the position of the delicate iris and crystalline lens in relation to the
bone structure, (spherical cavity) in which the eye sits. Bone is largely composed of Calcium and Alkali earth metal that reflects radio waves.
If you consider the shape of the eyeball sockey and the sahpe of the back of the cranium you have two reflecting surfaces that are somewhat dish shaped
with some focusing properties that can produce hot spots.
This in combination to the extreme proximity of the Wifi antennas in the IQ2 series and other cameras
(though no where near as close) is something to think about.
It's also interesting that the shape of the lens in the eye is routinely changes by eye surgeons using
using Conductive Keratoplasty that used low intensity RF to re shape connective tissue in the eye.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/ck_ltk_eye_surgery.htm (http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/ck_ltk_eye_surgery.htm)
-
Obviously Phase have something to hide, or they'd have responded to Fred's demand for the FCC ID.
Here's a legitimate question from a respected and unbiased expert, yet they remain silent. ???
-
Obviously Phase have something to hide, or they'd have responded to Fred's demand for the FCC ID.
Here's a legitimate question from a respected and unbiased expert, yet they remain silent. ???
Asking for FCC ID is a perfectly legitimate question. It actually has to be printed on any intentional RF emitter.
Look on pretty much any Wifi , bluetooth or cellphone device and you will see the FCC ID No.
That said it is quite likely that they don't have the ID yet as it might still be going through the paperwork.
They may have already done the testing, but not submitted the results to the FCC yet.
It's also a fair question as they appear to be taking pre-orders for the back already.
This last week I asked several other companies for FCC IDs and they provided them right away.
I asked Camranger, eye-fi and Nikon.
It is quite useful. The reports are quite extensive and include a precise description of how the testing was done.
For some reason the Eye-Fi testing apears to have been done with the card on a table and 3m form the testing device. It appears to not be tested in a camera or in proximity to a head phantom. (Phantom is a fake body shape filled with a salt/sugar solution).
It also appears that no SAR testing was done on the Eye-Fi, but I may be wrong on that. there was however no mention of SAR testing
being done in the report.
-
I have some other questions I am hoping our expert can answer:
1. Does the red dye in M&Ms really give you cancer?
2. Can vaccinating your child cause them to have autism?
3. Did we really make it to the moon or did NASA fake it?
-
I have a better question: when was the last time Fred got out to go take photos?
-
I don't see any of this "prodding" from Fred's end to be an issue whatsoever. Its a legitimate question, and IMO, should get an answer.
Wouldn't ANY of you want to be in full knowledge of a (potential) issue that could cause bodily damage internally, BEFORE it could possibly become an issue? I believe you would.
@Andy Biggs:
Last year I met Fred, across the street from where he works(the Dolby(Kodak) Theatre. He shoots back(stage)/in-house stuff for Jimmy Kimmel, IIRC) and he was a very nice, cordial guy. He mentioned he used to shoot in Europe, but also here in the USA. Fashion stuff IIRC.
He's a straightforward, but openly honest guy; not afraid to express his opinions if something might need attending too.
I was there to check out the GX680 system, since I'm looking at it as an alternative to my HB V system for film use(and possibly digital as well, down the road).
He might seem to harp on the GX680/film & dslr front, but he uses tools that work for him.
To me, he just wants answers, and isn't afraid to ask questions :). Not a big issue, but I can see some of your points relating to MFDB's and some feeling them being "downtrodden".
Honestly, I think a lot of MFDB users only use them because of "big dick" syndrome. Pretty much everyone wants a big one, but still can't understand how to use what they already have to its full potential ;).
I've assisted for a couple people(both in/out of towners here in LA) who have been "awed" by the quality capable with MFDB's, but many relish the speed/ease of DSLR's. Sorry, if you want 80mp files, you'll need to slow down a bit on the fps rating vs your 5DIII. They just buy it to have/use something that many other photographers simply cannot afford to own, and can toot their own horn, "I use...." "Oooh.... that must be expen$ive..." . Or to show off for clients.
But when they can't keep delivering the same "feel" with their shots, they and their clients suffer.
Back to the wi-fi topic:
If someone(in this case, Fred) is asking LEGITIMATE questions relating to design and a (potential) health-hazard, I'd want to know answers to them.
I highly doubt P1 would skirt FCC qualifications, and would only include a wi-fi transmitter/receiver module in a back if it was cleared for worldwide use according to int'l laws in place.
pax,
Dan
-
"I don't see any of this 'prodding' from Fred's end to be an issue whatsoever. Its a legitimate question, and IMO, should get an answer."
I guess this remark illuminates the issue. If you believe that Fred is acting as an ombudsman to protect photographers from the danger of IQ2xx backs, then his "prodding" might not be an issue. (Though if he really wanted to find out the information he demands, he might ask Phase or a Phase dealer.)
If you believe that he's a troll who enjoys tweaking Phase and the people who use their products, who inhabits medium format threads not because he owns or uses digital medium format gear, but to trash Phase One for amusement or malice, then maybe not.
I don't know what Fred's story is; he may be well intentioned. But that's hard to believe, given the effort he expends researching his many arguments and claims.
-
I don't think you'll find an FCC ID for these new backs yet.
Now, it is of course entirely possible that Phase One submitted the backs for testing through a third party, but they themselves appear to have only registered as a Grantee on April 24th of this year. I'm sure of course that it is entirely coincidental that this is the same date Fred asked for the FCC ID(s) for the back(s).
Their FCC Grantee code is SYF, and those who know how to search the FCC databases will be able to keep an eye on any future submissions.
Regards,
Gerald.
-
I have some other questions I am hoping our expert can answer:
1. Does the red dye in M&Ms really give you cancer?
2. Can vaccinating your child cause them to have autism?
3. Did we really make it to the moon or did NASA fake it?
I'm only going to answer this with what I am doing tomorrow. I am going to meet with a good friend
and help her get her affairs in order as she has terminal cancer and can't manage to deal with it all herself.
She needs to make provisions for her young daughter among other thing.
I think that in this day and age making sarcastic comments about cancer is uncalled for.
-
I think that in this day and age making sarcastic comments about cancer is uncalled for.
Political correctness is even worse than cancer.
But I certainly agree about the "in this day and age" part; isn't it wonderful how the number of terminal sicknesses that still remain can be counted over on one hand? Not 100 years ago, about half of anything you could get was terminal, even a cold. Families had kids a dosen because only a few were even expected to survive. But in this day and age, even if one in 1000 people were to get cancer, it'd be considered a tragedy... thank god for modern medicine.
-
Wow.
I normally just browse the Capture One part of the forum as I am in the software dept.
However, I am currently touring the USA on the IQ2 World Tour as one of the speakers. So far Toronto (yep, I know that's not in the USA. ;), New York and Miami, next stop Chicago.
So, I thought I would have a quick look at the MF forum.
I think my conclusion to draw Fred, is that if it didn't pass the FCC test (plus multiple other tests that one engineer has been spending 90% of his time on), that you wouldn't be able to buy it and will be spared from the 'dangers'.
Moving on from lunacy, this is my fourth in total of IQ2 events. The WiFi implementation is working brilliantly.
As Doug pointed out sometime ago, the reasons for Joe's slow performance was due to an option in Capture Pilot which we will improve. Respecting retina resolution does make the zooming into the image slower.
If you have watched any of the IQ2 events you will know that the IQ2 only sends to the iPad the 'tiles' from the image that are required for the 100% view. So it is not like we have to render out a whole image for you to zoom into 100%. 100% details are cached so you can browse around an image without it having to redraw previously visited areas.
WiFi can be turned on and off if you are not wearing a tin hat.
Wifi can operate in Ad Hoc mode or via a router if one is available.
From an R&D standpoint this is only the beginning of what we can do and I am sure it will lead to lots of exciting options for reviewing and control.
Hope to see some of you in next stop Chicago.
http://www.anpdm.com/newsletter/888051/424559477740425C4571
David
-
I think my conclusion to draw Fred, is that if it didn't pass the FCC test (plus multiple other tests that one engineer has been spending 90% of his time on), that you wouldn't be able to buy it and will be spared from the 'dangers'.
David
I NEVER suggested that Phase One did not do the required testing or that it would try to somehow avoid it.
I am interested in the FCC ID because I would like to take a look at the testing as I'm interested in the issue of having an
intentional WiFi emitter less than an inch from the eye.
-
This will be my last post with a thread that Fred has started as a sub rosa dig against medium format......
Fred, I can say with certainty that you won't be purchasing or using a product (IQ260) from a company that you have ranted against for the past number of months. I will buy you a beer and burger if I am wrong.
-
Wow.
I normally just browse the Capture One part of the forum as I am in the software dept.
However, I am currently touring the USA on the IQ2 World Tour as one of the speakers. So far Toronto (yep, I know that's not in the USA. ;), New York and Miami, next stop Chicago.
So, I thought I would have a quick look at the MF forum.
I think my conclusion to draw Fred, is that if it didn't pass the FCC test (plus multiple other tests that one engineer has been spending 90% of his time on), that you wouldn't be able to buy it and will be spared from the 'dangers'.
Moving on from lunacy, this is my fourth in total of IQ2 events. The WiFi implementation is working brilliantly.
As Doug pointed out sometime ago, the reasons for Joe's slow performance was due to an option in Capture Pilot which we will improve. Respecting retina resolution does make the zooming into the image slower.
If you have watched any of the IQ2 events you will know that the IQ2 only sends to the iPad the 'tiles' from the image that are required for the 100% view. So it is not like we have to render out a whole image for you to zoom into 100%. 100% details are cached so you can browse around an image without it having to redraw previously visited areas.
WiFi can be turned on and off if you are not wearing a tin hat.
Wifi can operate in Ad Hoc mode or via a router if one is available.
From an R&D standpoint this is only the beginning of what we can do and I am sure it will lead to lots of exciting options for reviewing and control.
Hope to see some of you in next stop Chicago.
http://www.anpdm.com/newsletter/888051/424559477740425C4571
David
You may try to dismiss this as lunacy and make sarcastic comments on tin hats.
How about this.
If it's lunacy can you show us at least one study on dual WiFi antennas being placed
at under and inch from the very complex and delicate structure of the eye that demonstrates that it is safe and does not
result in any alterations.
Can you also cite any other Wi-Fi product that puts a Wi-Fi antenna right in front of the eye?
-
Fred, why on earth do you give a shit???
-
Fred, why on earth do you give a shit???
Because I "give a shit".
For example a photographer just added a camera and lenses to his system.
It looked like his might not of arrived in time so I lent him my camera and lenses to use with his IQ160.
Never spoken to him before, but seeing he was going into a rather large job I thought it
would be nice to help out. I'm sure he will find a way to help someone else out sooner or later.
-
You may try to dismiss this as lunacy and make sarcastic comments on tin hats.
How about this.
If it's lunacy can you show us at least one study on dual WiFi antennas being placed
at under and inch from the very complex and delicate structure of the eye that demonstrates that it is safe and does not
result in any alterations.
You're more apt to be injured by running, tripping and poking your eye out with that "external antennae" you suggested than any of this lunacy posted here. Of course, I don't run with scissors either. Well, I guess if you don't like the stylish tin hats, you can always wrap the IQ260/280 in tin foil shield. Might as well do the same to the iPad. Hey, more weather proofing while you're at it... ::)
I recommend Reynold's Heavy Duty Aluminum Foil, not because it is a better WiFi shield, but because summer is fast approaching and heavy duty foil can serve double duty and is better for BBQ season. And I give a shit. ;D And it's the same difference really. Your loaning out a camera to someone has absolutely nothing to do with the WiFi capabilities of the IQ260/280 (both Phase One systems in which it is very apparent you have zero interest in using or purchasing). If you think you have standing, make a complaint to the FCC and FTC.
;) ken
-
Moving on from lunacy, this is my fourth in total of IQ2 events. The WiFi implementation is working brilliantly.
David
David.
I will not take offense to your accusation of Lunacy and comment on the software and workflow implementation
of WiFi preview/review that phase one came up with.
Brilliant is the right word. The idea of moving around only the data needed to display what is seen on the screen is really smart.
It's efficient and logical. The cashing of previously viewed parts of the image makes that even better.
Burried in the thread I made some suggestions that I think could be handy for certain users.
For example one thing that photographers will often want to do is check focus on the eyes.
Using face recognition on the ipad side could be very handy to speed things up.
Full length photo is uploaded to the ipad.
The ipad in the background looks for the face.
The ipad requests the tile of the face from the back and caches it ready for the photographer
to view without having to wait for the image to come from the back.
IF I am not mistaken there is already face recognition in the iPad that might be able to be leveraged.
Another option that might be worth considering is an option to initiate sending files to the ipad when done shooting
a set up or part of a setup. A quickly accessible optional menu item.
It could be used like this..
Photographer shooting with a MF SLR and IQ2.
HE is shooting away with his eye jammed up to the viewfinder with the WiFi on "hold" (paused so to speak).
Any time the photographer pauses he or she can send a few frames over to the iPad.
You could have an option to send frames for example starting from the last ones or send 1 in 5.
You could then have this option set up to go back to "hold" when the photographer half presses the shutter release.
This could be useful in several ways. First it would reduce exposure of the eye to the Wifi RF, save batter use, as well as help keep clutter off the iPad during a shoot. There are also many times that in the flow of things one needs to keep shooting even if the subject looks wrong just to move past what is wrong. This would be a nice way to keep this sort of stuff in the camera and off the Ipad. There is no reason to show either client or
subject the wonky shots.
-
David.
I will not take offense to your accusation of Lunacy and comment on the software and workflow implementation
of WiFi preview/review that phase one came up with.
Brilliant is the right word. The idea of moving around only the data needed to display what is seen on the screen is really smart.
It's efficient and logical. The cashing of previously viewed parts of the image makes that even better.
Burried in the thread I made some suggestions that I think could be handy for certain users.
For example one thing that photographers will often want to do is check focus on the eyes.
Using face recognition on the ipad side could be very handy to speed things up.
Full length photo is uploaded to the ipad.
The ipad in the background looks for the face.
The ipad requests the tile of the face from the back and caches it ready for the photographer
to view without having to wait for the image to come from the back.
IF I am not mistaken there is already face recognition in the iPad that might be able to be leveraged.
Another option that might be worth considering is an option to initiate sending files to the ipad when done shooting
a set up or part of a setup. A quickly accessible optional menu item.
It could be used like this..
Photographer shooting with a MF SLR and IQ2.
HE is shooting away with his eye jammed up to the viewfinder with the WiFi on "hold" (paused so to speak).
Any time the photographer pauses he or she can send a few frames over to the iPad.
You could have an option to send frames for example starting from the last ones or send 1 in 5.
You could then have this option set up to go back to "hold" when the photographer half presses the shutter release.
This could be useful in several ways. First it would reduce exposure of the eye to the Wifi RF, save batter use, as well as help keep clutter off the iPad during a shoot. There are also many times that in the flow of things one needs to keep shooting even if the subject looks wrong just to move past what is wrong. This would be a nice way to keep this sort of stuff in the camera and off the Ipad. There is no reason to show either client or
subject the wonky shots.
Fred,
I am not an expert on wireless technology nor have the technical knowledge to make sound comments. When the IQ2 begins to ship and you are ready to purchase, if you feel there is a safety issue then I would direct your comments to the relevant licensing authority by which we are measured.
Now, you make some very good suggestions to the use of wireless tech in the IQ2!
As I said this is only the beginning and I am sure, well positive, we will add to the wireless capabilities of the IQ2 series.
I've no idea if face recognition is an API that can be leveraged in the iPad. If it is then certainly that kind of option could be possible if the data moving around doesn't take too much toll on performance.
Lots of possibilities.
David
-
"When the IQ2 begins to ship and you are ready to purchase, if you feel there is a safety issue then I would direct your comments to the relevant licensing authority by which we are measured."
:)
-
"When the IQ2 begins to ship and you are ready to purchase, if you feel there is a safety issue then I would direct your comments to the relevant licensing authority by which we are measured."
:)
Ever heard of rental?
One does not necessarily have to buy something to be concerned with the safety of it's use or the most prudent way of using
a first time implementation of WiFi less than an inch from the eye. That said if the promised new body from Phase is a massive improvement
on the current DF I would most likely be a Phase One owner again.
-
Yes, it's truly uncharted territory using a wifi device near your head.
Except for the 250 million iPhones sold and the enormous number of wifi-enabled Android phones.
-
This has been covered already Doug.
It takes a lot more power to broadcast a wifi signal than it does to receive one, so unless you're habitually making and receiving phone calls whilst your Android or iPhone is serving traffic to a tethered device, I'm not sure your comment is at all relevant.
-
This has been covered already Doug.
It takes a lot more power to broadcast a wifi signal than it does to receive one, so unless you're habitually making and receiving phone calls whilst your Android or iPhone is serving traffic to a tethered device, I'm not sure your comment is at all relevant.
Except that it's an existing feature, and on a mass market device, certainly the FCC wouldn't pass something with an optional feature that could cause harm, even if the 99% won't use it? To put it in different terms, would it be alright to install machine guns in cars, just because the switch to fire them was in the trunk? Or a 3 hour long movie filled with friendship and happiness needs only 5 seconds of gruesome death to bump the rating up to mature audiences.
Personally, if I were reviewing the technical parameters of the iPhone, and someone said "oh, and you can turn it into a wifi hotspot that can fry your brains, but no one's going too use that", I wouldn't let the device pass.
I'm not of the tin foil hat crowd though, we have so much magnetic radiation around us every day in any typical city environment, with at least a dosen different wireless devices in any office, that I highly doubt it can have a detrimental effect on out health any more than it may already have.
-
Yes, it's truly uncharted territory using a wifi device near your head.
Except for the 250 million iPhones sold and the enormous number of wifi-enabled Android phones.
Very big difference Doug. WiFi enables cell phones are used on the side of the head and the antennas of
modern smart phones are placed on the bottom of the phone that results in the antennas being about 2 to 3 inches from the side if the face.
On the side of the face there are bones before any organs and the sensitive parts of the inner ear are quite deep in the head.
Also the uncharted territory is placing the WiFi antennas RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE EYE and MUCH CLOSER. The eye is also directly exposed
and is or a spherical shape as well as seated in a conical/spherical eye socket. Both these factors can lead to hotspots and NO SAR TESTING
takes into account eye structure or the bones around it. Research studying the RF absorption of different organs in the body found three organs
that have higher absorption rates. The testicles, the kidneys and the eyes. The eyes being the most exposed.
This week end I asked an Eye Surgeon (award winning researcher and surgeon currently with UCLA) what he thought about this and his immediate response was that the positioning of the antenna right in front of the eye is a bad idea. You should have seen his face.
He told me as I already had read that low intensity RF is used to treat certain eye conditions by modifying the connective tissue
around the lens.
Another thing. I went to the FCC website and looked up the Samsung Galaxy SIII SAR testing reports.
It is quite interesting. Being a smart phone that is both dual band and WiFi enabled all three were tested and at different frequencies.
Thanks to this one can see a good comparison between WiFi and cell signal SAR levels.
What is interesting is that the SAR level of the cell signal is only 4.8 times stronger than the WiFi SAR level. And these were measured on the side of the head with the phone in inclined position with the antenna about two inches from the cheek with just the speaker touching the ear.
It is also important to consider that the Samsung Galaxy is a billion dollar product and much more work goes into it as far as minimizing SAR levels.
-
Except that it's an existing feature, and on a mass market device, certainly the FCC wouldn't pass something with an optional feature that could cause harm, even if the 99% won't use it? To put it in different terms, would it be alright to install machine guns in cars, just because the switch to fire them was in the trunk? Or a 3 hour long movie filled with friendship and happiness needs only 5 seconds of gruesome death to bump the rating up to mature audiences.
Personally, if I were reviewing the technical parameters of the iPhone, and someone said "oh, and you can turn it into a wifi hotspot that can fry your brains, but no one's going too use that", I wouldn't let the device pass.
First of all the FCC DOES NOT DO ANY TESTING. The testing is carried out by Independent private companies. The situation is similar in Canada and if you look at the safety statement for Canada in the manual of products it states that the item has passed regulatory tests, but that that is not a
statement by the Canadian gov that it is safe.
The SAR testing procedure tests for absorption using a plastic half body cast filled with sugar/salt water. It does not come close to a realistic model
for the eye that is a very complex organ that is exposed to the surface and has 2,000,000 rods and nerves.
What is also interesting is that the plastic body cast called a Phantom is made from a shape developed by the Army that is based on the size of a
soldiers head that is not representative of the general public.
Then there is a last factor to be considered. Cell phones use very smart power optimization and bring the transmission signal as low as possible
in order to preserve battery power and keep signal congestion in general down. Power levels can also be lowered to a point that includes thousands of digital errors because the data being transmitted for speaking is only for communication purposes and the acceptable level of artifacts is quite high. Sending digital files over WiFi cannont be done with errors especially if compression is involved. WiFi does use lower power, but does not have the power management of cell phone transmission. Just try using a very low power WiFi device in a building with many different WiFi networks running at the same time. It just won't work, even in close proximity.
-
I'm not of the tin foil hat crowd though, we have so much magnetic radiation around us every day in any typical city environment, with at least a dosen different wireless devices in any office, that I highly doubt it can have a detrimental effect on out health any more than it may already have.
Proximity makes a MASSIVE difference when it comes to RF signals.
When you are out and about in the city the RF signals are never coming from very very close. When a signal comes from a distance the effect on the body is very different from when it is coming from very close and directly infront of an exposed organ like the eye.
Also as far as a WiFi cluttered office goes you should be aware of the fact that FCC regulations only take into account one device AND DO NOT TESTING with combined devices. It's a complete gray area as far as what the impact of multiple wireless devices all going off at the same time
in a confined space.
Just last week I was over at my favorite restaurant owned by a triathlete, ironman and marathon runner.
He is a vegan and young. He and his doctors are puzzled by the fact that he has high blood pressure.
Well his wireless router is about two feet from where he works 90% of the time
and he runs two laptops and his two cell phone (on WiFi) that are on the counter.
The signals go through him daily for hours.
I borrowed an RF measuring device from the tech department of a broadcast TV show and went and measured the signals
that were in the area he works in. Well the signal was high especially if two of the devices went off at the same time.
He is replacing everything with hard wired lines and is moving the WiFi access point to the opposite side of the restaurant.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Going back to the issue of multiple devices lets consider this.
High speed flash sync at 1/1600th on MF requires using the Prophoto wireless sync in high speed more that keeps the two radios
connected all the time. If the photographer is also using WiFi from his or her back that is two devices transmitting at the same time
in very close proximity. I wonder what even the somewhat limited SAR testing would find if this setup were tested.
It would also be very interesting to see what the hotspots that could be created from shooting in front of a giant silver Elinchrom Octa or the
giant Broncolor 130" para. I'll do a test with my Octas.
-
Just last week I was over at my favorite restaurant owned by a triathlete, ironman and marathon runner.
He is a vegan and young. He and his doctors are puzzled by the fact that he has high blood pressure.
Well his wireless router is about two feet from where he works 90% of the time
and he runs two laptops and his two cell phone (on WiFi) that are on the counter.
The signals go through him daily for hours.
I borrowed an RF measuring device from the tech department of a broadcast TV show and went and measured the signals
that were in the area he works in. Well the signal was high especially if two of the devices went off at the same time.
He is replacing everything with hard wired lines and is moving the WiFi access point to the opposite side of the restaurant.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
FredBGG MD
-
It takes a lot more power to broadcast a wifi signal than it does to receive one, so unless you're habitually making and receiving phone calls whilst your Android or iPhone is serving traffic to a tethered device, I'm not sure your comment is at all relevant.
And again, according to all the engineers I've spoken to safety studies are normally done at max transmit/receive. Wifi enabled devices capable of transmitting and receiving are tested while transmitting and receiving.
-
FredBGG MD
Same old pattern. Attack with insults and sarcasm.
I'm not an MD and my friend is seeing more than one MD.
One doctor told me that they are using low RF signals to disrupt nerve activity that when over active can cause high blood pressure.
Here is a link to the studies made by Emory University.
http://shared.web.emory.edu/whsc/news/releases/2011/12/emory-study-uses-radiofrequency-energy-to-permanently-lower-blood-pressure.html (http://shared.web.emory.edu/whsc/news/releases/2011/12/emory-study-uses-radiofrequency-energy-to-permanently-lower-blood-pressure.html)
Again.... can you point to any studies that demonstrate that RF form WiFi in very CLOSE FRONTAL PROXIMITY
to the eye is safe.
What is also very interesting is that testing required by the FCC does not involve using a real human being.
One would wonder why once SAR tests are passed on a phantom why not do some testing on a real body?
Again can you point to any professional use of a WiFi device that has it's antenna in such close frontal proximity to the eye?
-
What about all these?
http://gizmodo.com/5903007/the-best-inexpensive-point+and+shoot-camera-with-wi+fi
Is there any such discussion on the other LL camera discussion forums? No? Oh, surprise.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
What about all these?
http://gizmodo.com/5903007/the-best-inexpensive-point+and+shoot-camera-with-wi+fi
Is there any such discussion on the other LL camera discussion forums? No? Oh, surprise.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
And you call that a good example...... I'll get back to you on this one.....
-
In my opinion, many more people will be buying those less expensive WiFi gadgets. Fred, I believe that the amount of people you could save would be greatly increased by preaching to those unsuspecting uninformed buyers.
And to think, such great companies like Canon, or Sumsung, or possibly Nikon (soon) will be putting so many people at great risk.
-
It's a wonder we don't have pages of complaints of undue eye strain caused by the LCDs.
Wait - that'll be coming soon......
-
Oh goodie! I can't wait to see what revelations from Google are forthcoming! :o ::)
I'll check back later. Gotta go to Costco and get some economy-sized rolls of Reynold's Heavy Duty Aluminum Foil...Since reading this thread we just go through rolls of the stuff... You can never be too sure.
;) ken
-
It's a wonder we don't have pages of complaints of undue eye strain caused by the LCDs.
Wait - that'll be coming soon......
How about carpal tunnel from handling these things? I think that should be considered as well. These damn Copal shutters are going to be the death of my left hand.
-
Same old pattern. Attack with insults and sarcasm.
Interesting comment coming from somebody who called Nick-T a dick and fredjeang2 homophobic....
-
What about all these?
http://gizmodo.com/5903007/the-best-inexpensive-point+and+shoot-camera-with-wi+fi
Is there any such discussion on the other LL camera discussion forums? No? Oh, surprise.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Not a relevant example at all for various reasons.
First they are not pro or high end cameras intended for occupational use where they would be used for many hours at a time.
Second and most importantly neither of them have an eye piece viewfinder that would require them being used held up against the face.
Both these cameras are designed to be used held at quite some distance away from the face and it's practically impossible to
see the screen if you hold them too close.
This is from the Samsung WB150f manual:
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the
following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and
(2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that
may cause undesired operation.
RF exposure statements:
This device is for handheld operation only. The antenna(s) used for this
transmitter must be installed to provide a separation distance of at least 20 cm
from all persons and must not be co-located or operating in conjunction with any
other antenna or transmitter.
(http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_ELPH_320HS/profile/elph320hs_blue_586x186.gif)
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/19/Samsung_WB150F_35154796_07_620x433.jpg)
No face or eyes near the camera when shooting
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/01/Sony_Cybershot_DSC_RX100_35326410_01_620x433.jpg)
The face is normally about a foot away if not further. Different camera model, but same type of screen and no eyepiece
-
Not a relevant example at all for various reasons.
First they are not pro or high end cameras intended for occupational use where they would be used for many hours at a time.
Second and most importantly neither of them have an eye piece viewfinder that would require them being used held up against the face.
Both these cameras are designed to be used held at quite some distance away from the face and it's practically impossible to
see the screen if you hold them too close.
(http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_ELPH_320HS/profile/elph320hs_blue_586x186.gif)
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/19/Samsung_WB150F_35154796_07_620x433.jpg)
No face or eyes near the camera when shooting
(http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/01/Sony_Cybershot_DSC_RX100_35326410_01_620x433.jpg)
The face is normally about a foot away if not further. Different camera model, but same type of screen and no eyepiece
I think it is quite possible these may be used for as many or more hours than a professional photographer would use them for. I don't think the manufacturers of these products would create a potentially harmful product banking on their customers not using their products that much. It's probably the opposite - they imagine people using these constantly.
It's true the face would not normally be as close, but that wouldn't mean these are without risk. Or what I mean, is that they wouldn't be manufactured with the risk, banking on the notion no one would use these near their face. There are also wifi enabled cameras that have EVF viewfinders.
And what kind of chassis material are these made of - plastic? As opposed to aerospace grade alloy for the IQ series? Which is more likely to leak out contamination? I guess what I am saying is that if this is a real concern of yours, you should be spending more of your time looking into these plastic wifi cameras that are going to impact millions and millions rather than a few thousand...
Failing to do so would seem to place your integrity and motives in a curious light.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I think it is quite possible these may be used for as many or more hours than a professional photographer would use them for. I don't think the manufacturers of these products would create a potentially harmful product banking on their customers not using their products that much. It's probably the opposite - they imagine people using these constantly.
It's true the face would not normally be as close, but that wouldn't mean these are without risk. Or what I mean, is that they wouldn't be manufactured with the risk, banking on the notion no one would use these near their face. There are also wifi enabled cameras that have EVF viewfinders.
And what kind of chassis material are these made of - plastic? As opposed to aerospace grade alloy for the IQ series? Which is more likely to leak out contamination? I guess what I am saying is that if this is a real concern of yours, you should be spending more of your time looking into these plastic wifi cameras that are going to impact millions and millions rather than a few thousand...
Failing to do so would seem to place your integrity and motives in a curious light.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
The important point here is proximity.
The cameras you gave as an example are used about a foot away from the eyes.
The IQ2 with WiFi when used on the Phase One DF body is about an inch from the eye and dual antennas.
Exposure dramatically goes down with increased distance.
"The energy or intensity decreases (divided by 4) as the distance r is doubled; measured in dB it would decrease by 6.02 dB per doubling of distance."
It's the inverse square law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Inverse_square_law.svg/420px-Inverse_square_law.svg.png)
IF we have a value of 100 at 1 inch this is what things would look like:
1in 100
2ins 25
4ins 6.25
8ins 3.125
That is a huge difference.
-
And what kind of chassis material are these made of - plastic? As opposed to aerospace grade alloy for the IQ series? Which is more likely to leak out contamination?
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
What are you trying to say with this?
Arn't the WiFi antennas placed outside of the aerospace grade alloy chassis of the IQ2 backs?
(http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series/~/media/Phase%20One/1-Camera-Systems/Digital-Backs/IQ2-series/IQ2-features/wireless-built-in.ashx)
Also there's a gapping big hole in the aerospace grade alloy chassis on the back:
(http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ2-Series/~/media/Phase%20One/1-Camera-Systems/Digital-Backs/IQ2-series/IQ2-features/IQ2-rugged-design.ashx)
By your logic would there not be a risk of contamination coming out of there? None would be getting out the other way..... or what?
What "contamination" are you talking about. Radio signals travel down a screened cable to the antenna for various reasons.
-
And what kind of chassis material are these made of - plastic? As opposed to aerospace grade alloy for the IQ series? Which is more likely to leak out contamination? I guess what I am saying is that if this is a real concern of yours, you should be spending more of your time looking into these plastic wifi cameras that are going to impact millions and millions rather than a few thousand...
Failing to do so would seem to place your integrity and motives in a curious light.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Actually I called more than one camera maker asking some questions.
A WiFi CF card maker asking why the tests on the FCC website were done in a card reader and in a camera.
I asked another why no SAR testing was done when the camera is a pocket sized camera and it would most likely still be transmitting when placed back in the pocket after taking
a set of shots. It does take a while to transmit images.
-
In my opinion, many more people will be buying those less expensive WiFi gadgets. Fred, I believe that the amount of people you could save would be greatly increased by preaching to those unsuspecting uninformed buyers.
And to think, such great companies like Canon, or Sumsung, or possibly Nikon (soon) will be putting so many people at great risk.
WiFi for D800 is available and because it connects to the USB it can be positioned further from the eye, even though the on camera position is already farther from the eyes.
It also offer ehternet connection.
There is also the camranger. It to connects via usb, so it too can be positioned at a convenient distance.
A system that is internal is more elegant and the ideal would be an internal system with the option of an external antenna.
-
Actually I called more than one camera maker asking some questions.
A WiFi CF card maker asking why the tests on the FCC website were done in a card reader and in a camera.
I asked another why no SAR testing was done when the camera is a pocket sized camera and it would most likely still be transmitting when placed back in the pocket after taking
a set of shots. It does take a while to transmit images.
Well I'm glad you're making the effort.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
For those that may think that the regulatory bodies "looking out for consumers" regulating wireless
are impartial and keeping the public safe....
Look at who is being stated to head the FCC.
The leading Wireless industry lobbiest.
Wheeler previously served as president of lobbyist group the National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
and then as CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).
He's currently managing director at investment firm Core Capital Partners.
Core Capital Partners a venture capital company is heavily invested in wireless and cloud companies.
One of them:
PureWave Networks develops high performance, compact outdoor base stations for the 4G marketplace.
PureWave Networks is the only company that utilizes smart antenna technology to achieve the coverage
and capacity of a macro base station in a small form factor that can be deployed anywhere.
Our solutions are versatile enough to be deployed for small cell urban coverage or for macro base station rural coverage.
The PureWave Quantum Base Station family offers an open end-to-end solution that allows customers to
build their networks using any component available in the vibrant WiMAX ecosystem.
All solutions are designed for any type of operator, from small WISPs to large mobile service providers.
This is an example of what is behind regulatory bodies.
FCC run by venture capital CEO that was also CEO of the largest wireless lobbying group in the world.
CTIA calls itself the wireless association.
So all these companies got there guy to head the very body that is supposed to regulate them!!!
http://www.ctia.org/membership/ctia_members/ (http://www.ctia.org/membership/ctia_members/)
and just for fun here is a graphic from the CTIA Show website. (buzz graphic for CTIA's MobilCON convention.)
(http://daily.ctia.org/files/CTIAShows/MobileCON_ShowsSiteImage.jpg)