decosnapper

The Solar Winds hack has spooked more than one customer to run anything risky or with a hint of compromise on an air gapped no internet system. So it's one way of reducing risk I guess.

No Mac support (I love my Mac...but read on...) and NVIDA is the card of choice. Against my better thinking...our tech director pushed me to get a Windows PC. To date, its sat there and done its thing...at a price point and performance that has been impressive...I love my Mac HW but the business case isn't there. It just sits there and works*. *I hope I do not regret writing this...

For us switching was a moral as much as a technical decision. After what happened (and is happening) in Ukraine we could not sell software authored and owned by a Russian company. The thought of the tax revenues ending up funding things that are abhorrent was enough even if the sums are tiny. We still consult and train Metashape but will not sell licenses. It was an uncomfortable decision as we like Metashape but the process of discovering an alternative was very, very useful indeed and gave us deep insight into what was out there. Having worked with both to a deep level and written training courses for each I can say Zephyr has certain advantages; Clean outputs with less noise, inherent recursive optimisation, simplified GCP placement, laser scan alignment, masking and editing tools all are easier to use. The workflow is the same...but with less manual intervention to achieve a comparable level of accuracy and confidence. For us the difference between the basic and Pro is easy - both us and our clients work with geo location and scaling data. We have a paper coming out soon that explains the value and uses the SS Thistlegorm model and site as its source. Scaling really, really adds value. The amount of research conducted in the comfort of the office based on valid, robust and accurate 3D reconstruction is a world away from creating an attractive shape. We would not have learned as much as we have without scaling, and to a lesser extent geo location. Thing is, adding this value is not difficult...but its so often overlooked in the rush to create something that looks right. So its more about the need. Is a representative shape...something about right...needed? Or is it more about learning, interpretation and analysis? Make sense? Drop me a line if you need a longer chat or a view of what Zephyr can do - happy to show.

The US National Parks Service have spent some time documenting the aircraft wrecks at Kwajalein, and have been kind enough to allow us to write up a short blog: WW2 Aircraft at Kwajalein

I do a bit of photogrammetry and from time to time get requests by others to use the models I create, but this use is just so off-the-wall its worth sharing: https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/ell2.12810 Never did I imagine a 3D model could or would end up being used for sonar simulation research.

No complaint. Just an observation.

Fixed that for you... A cursory glance at the topics shows a strong leaning towards a very kit-biased line of what camera to buy and what secondhand kit others wish to sell. Very rarely is there a question about composition, light or anything about the creative side. Which is why I had to ask for a password reset. It had been a very long time... Back to the original thread. I can't offer anything in this case, but I would urge everyone entering competitions to read the terms and conditions carefully, and then check them against the Artists Bill of Rights (http://www.artist-bill-of-rights.com/guides/bill-of-rights-introduction) and perhaps check if the terms offered by the competition is supportive of creators? Is there a rights grab? How can the competition exploit the images? Is a credit for the winners mandatory? Are the judges identified? This list is not exhaustive, but I would encourage anyone entering a competition to check and if there is any doubt to find another more worthy contest.

There are several things one can do:- 1. Refuse to supply image use rights for fees that fail to reflect the cost and risk of creation. 2. Register your works with the US Copyright Office and hand over all infringements to an attorney. 3. Carry on creating and publishing images but use them as PR for another product, goods or service from which you can derive benefit/payment from. Asking photographers and their egos to stand their ground with option 1 is not going to happen any time soon, but I subscribe to this policy. Option 2 derives an irregular but handsome income stream for me in spite of not publishing anything new for nearly two years. Option 3 helps sell all sorts of things; trips, books, courses - whatever. There will be other ways and means. But its not stock, direct sales or Facebook likes of that I'm quietly confident. Besides, the concept and practice of underwater 2D imagery is a bit old hat. Here's the latest from Scapa Flow:- https://skfb.ly/IGBF And yes, some have been licensed. And work quoted for.

For some, this is the new way of making money. If there is any hint that the individual or company responsible can be traced to an address, forget DMCA (a truly dreadful piece of legislation...) and find an attorney/lawyer who will work on contingency. Takedown notices simply reinforce the view its OK to take and then remove if asked...meaning they simply carry on and find another creator's work. It has occurred to me that since around 2010 there has not been a day when I have not been in litigation of some form...such is the new way of making money.

Whenever I see an image I have a natural curiosity to understand its creation and - crucially - the level of manipulation applied to achieve the end result. How many of us share our rushes? All of them? On the back of the camera after the dive? On the editing screen? Not many I guess, because initially* it can feel like taking a s**t in public. And yes, the perfect published world will only reinforce the view that anything that isn't processed/cropped/magic dust/filtered beyond belief is not worthy. And at some point, credibility/belief is lost. But there is nothing really new with that one. So yes, unrealistic expectations with regard to backscatter. Unless you are diving the truly crystal clear waters under waters of the Ross Ice Shelf or in Te Waikoro Pupu Springs in New Zealand**. *initially it did feel like taking a dump when sharing with another photographer. But that emotion passes...and its quite liberating. Highly recommended. **Last time I heard, diving had been banned in Pupu Springs.

Why do you think the shop is UK-based?

Forget agencies. Ring the picture desk and negotiate directly. Higher return...less grief...quicker payment...

Something I have been working on for a while now is underwater 3D photometry. The subject are a pair of WW2 era Valentine Tanks. Used extensively by the allies, these are duplex drive (DD) variants designed for amphibious landings. These examples were lost during Exercise Smash in 1944, a training exercise leading up to D-Day. A further 5 tanks were lost and sadly six of their crew drowned. The models are derived from around 700 individual frames, all shot on one dive:- Firstly, the intact example:- https://sketchfab.com/models/4f755bb9f4d74e98aa34bf40dc1d31fc Secondly, the damaged example:- https://sketchfab.com/models/2f76cf180a8c4dd184515d2fbeeb64bf The tanks are annotated to highlight a few of their features.

Cheers all. Second Valentine Tank is processing right now...and the offshore Coronation wreck site comprising cannon & anchors (not all of it...) is under way... Watch this space!

So it sounds like I'm asking for the moon on a stick. Here's why:- https://sketchfab.com/models/2f76cf180a8c4dd184515d2fbeeb64bf