Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IQ260 WiFi... anyone seen it in action  (Read 19444 times)
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2013, 10:13:36 AM »
ReplyReply

it's my own lead, tin, zinc and aluminium mix. stops all known wavelengths including those of the manufacturer/dealer kool-aid variety.
Logged
Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2013, 01:49:18 PM »
ReplyReply

....  The only thing I don't like is I can no longer hear the voices in my head.   Grin

It would be a great pity Ken, they often have some nifty ideas!
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2013, 03:13:58 PM »
ReplyReply



Naah... you need more style:



and for the 0.5 inch from the eye your going to have to hit that 70s look:

Wink
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2013, 03:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

BBC Panorama documentary on WiFi.

WiFi a warning signal

http://youtu.be/4rOkB3as-Xs

many scientists interviewed in this documentary.

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.


« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 08:43:14 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #64 on: April 21, 2013, 11:27:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Scientists doubts on SAR testing

www.emrpolicy.org/files/ewg%20report%20statement.doc
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2893


WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2013, 03:04:28 PM »
ReplyReply

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).
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2013, 05:07:59 PM »
ReplyReply

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/
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2013, 08:14:33 PM »
ReplyReply

FCC ID?
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2013, 09:36:26 PM »
ReplyReply

In doing some more research I fond some interesting information
on some testing where SAR levels were obresved for specific organs.

Quote
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
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 10:41:18 PM by FredBGG » Logged
sgilbert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #69 on: April 27, 2013, 12:16:06 PM »
ReplyReply

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.   Huh
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #70 on: April 27, 2013, 01:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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.   Huh

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.
Logged
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749



« Reply #71 on: April 27, 2013, 01:23:17 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2013, 01:33:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a better question: when was the last time Fred got out to go take photos?
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582


« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2013, 02:16:54 PM »
ReplyReply

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 Smiley. 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 Wink.
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
Logged
sgilbert
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2013, 07:00:27 PM »
ReplyReply

"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. 
Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 401


« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2013, 10:00:09 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 10:41:19 PM by gerald.d » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #76 on: April 28, 2013, 12:38:46 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Kolor-Pikker
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #77 on: April 28, 2013, 05:48:41 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
David Grover / Phase One
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1011



WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 28, 2013, 09:22:34 AM »
ReplyReply

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. Wink, 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
Logged

David Grover
Business Support and Development Manager, Software.
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #79 on: April 28, 2013, 10:52:48 AM »
ReplyReply


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.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 12:07:24 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad