Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: |AX| Re: Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:09 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

Paul Furman wrote:

>> Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware. The
>> camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.

That's incorrect. The algorithms used to determine pixel values
actually look at MORE than a 2x2 array! They try to determine, for example,
if an edge runs through a pixel. If it does, they use other
parts of the two sides ... outside a 2x2 array ... to try to determine
all three RGB values of the pixel. The algortithms are nonlinear ..
they do not merely interpolate. They actually GUESS.

>
> The raw file has the separate bayer parts unmerged.
>
> I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
> resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.
>

1/2 pixel increments would work.

Doug McDonald

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:49 pm
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> G R
> B G

> Together, those four photosensors make up one pixel.

Sorry, your claim is as invalid as your email address.

-Wolfgang

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:57 pm
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
> resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.

You may be interested in
http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/gallery-auto/
http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/download/ale-0.7.x-tech/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~irani/PAPERS/SR_CVGIP91.pdf

-Wolfgang

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why So Many "RAW" Formats?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c643b94093fa7617?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:21 am
From: ray

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:34:10 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2009-02-09 17:30:14 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>>
>>> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:30:15 -0800, Matt Ion wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own
>>>>>> versions of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are
>>>>>> proprietary.
>>>>> RAW, by its very definition, is not an "image format" but simply the
>>>>> raw
>>>>> data straight off the camera sensor. Thus any change in the sensor
>>>>> - including going to a higher resolution - results in a different
>>>>> RAW output.
>>>> raw data files, as any other files, have a format.
>>> But it is not an "image format".
>>
>>Sure it is. It stores an image. There is no intrinsic difference between
>>a RAW file and any other image format -- it is all 1s and 0s storing an
>>image. In fact, Nikon calls the NEF files an "image format" and compares
>>them to JPG and TIFF.
>
> Nikon Electronic Format is *not* a raw image format. Nikon often refers
> to "NEF raw image data", but near as I can tell they never call NEF a
> "raw image format". That is true because, if for no other reason, NEF is
> used for many very different types of raw data.
>
> And there *is* an intrinsic difference between a data file that contains
> raw sensor data and an image file which contains the data for one
> specific image. The raw data file *must* be interpolated to produce an
> image, and there is no one single way to do that, which means a raw data
> file's data can be interpolated many different ways. It is not data for
> one image, but rather data from which an infinite number of very
> different images can be made.

I must take exception to several statements here. A jpeg or any other
graphic file must be interpolated as well. You can't simply have it
'typed' to a terminal window. Those images can also be manipulated to
produce different images. Since there are only a finite number of
settings involved, and each has only a finite number of settings - only a
finite number of images can be produced from a RAW file - although it may
be a relatively large finite number.

>
> Regardless, to be pedantic, NEF is a TIFF image file... but the RAW data
> is not the TIFF image! (Read that with care.)
>
> Each NEF has what is usually thought of as an "embedded" thumbnail, but
> that is in fact *the* TIFF image. It also has special tags that make it
> possible to use TIFF headers to carry along the raw sensor data from
> which the thumbnail was made. Which is to say that actually the raw
> data is embedded, not the thumbnail.

So you're telling us that TIFF is not an image file format either. By
your same reasoning, nothing is a graphic file format since one can
always embed other data in the file.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:23 am
From: ray

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:44:39 +0000, SneakyP wrote:

> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in news:6vb2b2FhegoiU33@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:18:43 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Seems like every Camera manufacturer has one or more of his own
>>> versions of a RAW image format. And many (most?) versions are
>>> proprietary. Nikon even encrypts some of its RAW files to discourage
>>> 3rd parties from developing "converters" to change the raw file to a
>>> more conventional and useful format like tiff, jpeg, etc. Considering
>>> that Adobe and many other 3rd parties can successfully convert the RAW
>>> files, why all the secrecy and annoyance of having so many different
>>> incompatible RAW formats. The difference in final results can't be all
>>> that significant....Can it? What's the chances of a single,
>>> industry-standard RAW-Type format? Suppose every manufacturer used a
>>> non-standard type of jpeg format..... Where would we be? ......Your
>>> Thoughts. Bob Williams
>>
>> I expect it has to do with the way the components are assembled - most
>> likely the path of least resistance is often taken.
>
> I suspect, like others do, that the path of most $ return for newer
> camera model is taken. Change the format periodically and have others
> try to reverse engineer it. In the meantime sell the update software
> that handles it.

If that's the reason - it does not work - at least for me and for many
others as well. For one fundamental reason it will never work for me and
many others: they don't supply Linux executables.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now he went and did it....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/65ca924332e76a06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:23 am
From: "David Ruether"

"bowzer" <its@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message news:tqfkl.202$X6.110@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gmcdtp$84j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

>> It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which
>> argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by
>> the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if
>> the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting
>> of the relative values of the many characteristics that are a part
>> of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago
>> (1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
>> Nikkors)", at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
>> and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group
>> of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different
>> from those used by others, but they produce relative quality
>> values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for
>> the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with
>> my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you
>> point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get
>> somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect
>> wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals,
>> then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker
>> cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with
>> gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing
>> when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
>> on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
>> you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
>> --DR

> Bricks? Seriously? I hate to ask, but what was that theory?

Durned iffin I no...! 8^) Mebbe it keepz th' ee-lek-tronz frum
a-shakin' tu much...? 8^) Dunno...! But it sure was hard to suppress
my laughing! ;-)

> And yes, any 12 guage multi-stranded copper wire is fine. You don't need welding cable to drive speakers. I read a story once
> about Fabio (the Italian model) and his audio system, which costs over $100K. He spend nearly $15K on cables alone. Haven't
> stopped laughing over that one yet.

Yes. I once did a demo at a Seattle Audio Society meeting showing
the differences on a 1k square wave shape (and therefore the frequency
response) with various things hung on the output end of speaker wires,
with nothing, a 10 ohm resistor, a 10 ohm resistor paralleled with a
.1 mfd capacitor (to roughly approximate my electrostatic speakers),
and a two-way dynamic speaker (with the usual impedance curve bass
and mid-range bumps and HF rise) using various gauges of wire (and,
of course, the length also counts...). The differences in the square waves
were all different enough to be clearly visible, even with a high damping
factor amplifier. And, yes, one can easily hear 1/8th db broad-band
differences in frequency response, even with poor speakers. This is not
to say that low damping factor amplifiers and skinny speaker cables may
not sound better in some instances, but I do say that expensive cables
are likely to be a waste of money (it is the proper matching of the parts
for the best outcome that matters...). BTW, for more on my audio,
see -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Audio.html
--DR

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is Motorola USB not Blackberry USB (chargers = 5.0v, 5.9v, 350ma,
500ma)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/64eaad19632bb668?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 8:43 am
From: Michael Black

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, J. Clarke wrote:

> Emily wrote:
>> On 28 Dec 2006 13:06:44 -0800, dhoffman@talkamerica.net wrote:
>>

Pay attention bozo. The message you replied to is over 2 years old,
which you'd have seen if you'd checked the date. The discussion has
long moved on, and chances are good that many who were reading the
newsgroups at the time are no longer around.

And if you'd been around back then, you'd know that this "Emily" was
regularly posting about this "I thought USB was USB", and lots
of people would have given a decent answer. Nothing you could
say 2 years later adds to the conversation, especially not when
anyone is around to care.

Michael

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 9:49 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Michael Black wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Emily wrote:
>>> On 28 Dec 2006 13:06:44 -0800, dhoffman@talkamerica.net wrote:
>>>
>
> Pay attention bozo.

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 11:56 am
From: Joe Pfeiffer

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> writes:

> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>>> On 28 Dec 2006 13:06:44 -0800, dhoffman@talkamerica.net wrote:
>>>>
>>
>> Pay attention bozo.
>
> http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

A warning for those of us reading usenet in our offices would have
been polite.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally, an interesting Antarctica shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68565f1dbf4004b8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 9:42 am
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:01:16 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Kulvinder Singh Matharu <real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> wrote in
>news:92mjo4169sl5q6uee9qlvitdpfauh8nq97@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myp
>
>Factor out the birds, those mountains would look outstanding in B&W. Great
>cloud texture, tonality.

Hey ;)
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 9:53 am
From: Kulvinder Singh Matharu

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:09:21 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
wrote:

>On 2009-02-04 10:28:09 -0800, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
><real-address-in-sig@lineone.net> said:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:32:52 -0600, Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't describe how sick I am of looking at endless shots of frigging
>>> Penguins. Ever since that movie came out, and the "yuppies" decided it was
>>
>> Then you won't like this:
>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm
>
>Well the concept seems valid, however the end result did not translate
>itself well for me. I enjoyed an abstract, fuzzy out of focus panning
>waste of bandwidth.

Something is broken...what OS/browser combo do you use?

>> Heh, heh, heh!
>>
>> What movie?
>>
>> I don't think that I'd call Reichmann a yuppie :o
>>
>> And whoever does go to Antarctica, it's their money, their time,
>> their experience. I'd say "Go for it". Why not?
>>
>> And well done Reichmann & Co, some of those photos are much better
>> than those from 2005, but I wasn't too impressed with the tractored
>> vehicles. But each to their own ;)
>
>I think you missed the point and purpose of the "tractored vehicle"
>shot, I don't believe you were meant to be impressed. It was a sad
>illustration of a chapter of Antarctic exploration.

"impressed" is a word that can be used in many ways. Rather like the
word "fantastic".

The image did nothing for me. Not sad. Not happy.

>There is more to Antarctica than penguins, regardless of their
>photogenic qualities.

Of course there is; who said otherwise?

The other images were great...don't recall seeing even a single
penguin in any of those shots.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:20 am
From: "David J Taylor"

>>> http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/antarctica/rook.htm

Very nice shot!

David

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:38 am
From: Paul Furman

Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> "Rich" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> He's also not the only one to begin questioning the validity/value
>>>>> of DXO Mark scores.
>>>>
> Here's the article that talks about DXO Mark & features that pic:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
> actually the 'measurebater' story starts here:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml

I responded to this in another thread but nobody replied. Maybe I should
have mentioned the Face of God in the title <g>.

re-post:

My summary and a few opinions on these two articles in a series about
data measuring vs subjective camera testing and about the price
difference for relatively little additional performance:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/quality-vs-value.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

Nice concise description of the situation. Of course he throws some
opinion in too.

He says DXO Mark does not include megapixel count... OK that was not
clear to me. Seems easy enough to figure in though. I would probably use
a linear measure rather than area but you can just assess that for your
print size needs if you like.

And he describes how the DXO Mark data is done with raw files on the
same raw converter - and how some cameras like Nikons have pattern noise
reduction processing applied to the raw conversion where others rely on
the jpeg conversion or proprietary raw converters to accomplish that
step. And how the medium format digitals apply antialiasing in post.
Feel free to correct my reading of that or other factors I missed.

Then he says because of these irregularities, the data approach is not
very reliable. The comparison is made to the audio recording industry's
conversion to digital[1] and he asserts that the data model was rejected
by audiophiles in the end, citing at least one example of how
manufacturers cheated to create good numbers at the price of fidelity.
Well, I don't discount that but this is where it gets into religious
territory: saying that it's all just too complex and we can never know
the true nature of the universe. That's of course somewhat true but the
numbers are something we can know and continue to evaluate and learn
more about and it looks to me like they are mostly spot on so far,
especially given the above qualifications.

Lastly, he discusses price for performance ratio. He gives personal
examples breaking the rules in both directions for the advice given in
these discussions so I'll write that off as Rockwellian hyperbola <g>.
But yes, there is a big jump in price for not much performance
improvement as you go up and everyone will obviously find their own
priorities to solve these issues. It seems about right when he says a
5-point difference is statistically insignificant where today's DSLRs
come in between 50 and 80 on the DXO Mark scale, with P&S at around 35.
I'm guessing a crappy web cam or cell phone might be about a 10 on that
scale.

[1] one might also compare the transition of video from analog to
digital, and to higher resolution, which is really still in it's
infancy, to the extent that file size & compression have more to do with
image quality than anything else as far as I know, again, feel free to
correct and add info here <g>.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cool new photography website
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/08c02ba0d220a98d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 9:50 am
From: Douglas Johnson

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:

>For those who drank the poison Kool-Aid of "I will provide tax cuts
>for 95% of all Americans", it seems that NO ONE understands that
>the president is including ALL Federal taxes paid by individuals,
>including Social Security and Medicare in that, except that these
>DO NOT COUNT!

Do not count on which scoreboard? They certainly count for the folks that pay
them. It is the most regressive federal tax we have. -- Doug

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abstract paintings of Will Dockery
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eb3e469fc2f0a98e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:22 am
From: Meat Plow

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:45:24 -0500, "Will Dockery"
<will-dockery-group@knology.net>wrote:

>I've posted a new gallery of some of my recent abstract paintings, which
>some of you may have an interest in checking out, for whichever reasons you
>prefer.
>
>These paintings are made with a variety of materials from oil, watercolor
>and pastel paints, to housepaint, solvents and melted plastics:
>
>http://www.fototime.com/inv/E917106F136751F
>
>Comments and critique, as with all my work in all forms, is most welcome.

Looks like you put the canvas on the floor and dumped paint on it.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:28 am
From: On The Highways and Bi-Ways God Built

In article <2ip670.5i3.17.9@news.alt.net>, Meat Plow says...
>
>On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:45:24 -0500, "Will Dockery"
><will-dockery-group@knology.net>wrote:
>
>>I've posted a new gallery of some of my recent abstract paintings, which
>>some of you may have an interest in checking out, for whichever reasons you
>>prefer.
>>
>>These paintings are made with a variety of materials from oil, watercolor
>>and pastel paints, to housepaint, solvents and melted plastics:
>>
>>http://www.fototime.com/inv/E917106F136751F
>>
>>Comments and critique, as with all my work in all forms, is most welcome.
>
>Looks like you put the canvas on the floor and dumped paint on it.

don't be absurd, MP, you're completely off here.

dockery put a canvas on the floor because he can't afford a rug (or much else),
got drunk, and when he passed out he fell into a shelf that had paint cans on
it.

when he woke up 12 hours later, he noticed the paint cans had fallen on the
canvas.

two weeks later, when he finally decided to clean up, THAT'S when he noticed
that he could pass the mess up as something he created.

and in a way he did.

you give him too much credit!!! :D

most sincerely,

GodBuilt

--
-----------------------------------------------
"I am a false prophet and God is a superstition.." "Again!"

There Will Be Blood

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A tale of two Sigmas
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe6c590dbd0e533b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:12 am
From: "J. Clarke"

I made the horrible mistake of assuming that two Sigma flash units
would work together as they are documented to do. Got a Sigma EF-140
EO and a Sigma EF-530 DG Super EO, expecting that they would work as
documented as master and slave under E-TTL II on a 30D.

Well, turned out that the 530 would fire most of the time in that
mode, but it did it before the shutter opened. So called Sigma, did
everything their tech said to do, still the same problem, the tech
told me to send them in. So I sent them back to Sigma.

Well, Sigma LOST THE BLASTED THINGS. Finally after diddling around
for a week and a half they decided to send out replacements. Well,
the replacements DO THE SAME THING.

At this point I feel like sending them back to Sigma again would be
putting good money after bad. The sensible thing to do would be to
just put them up on ebay with a disclaimer about the problem and put
the money toward the Canon equivalents. Anybody have any other
suggestions, practical, impractical, or otherwise?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 video as it relates to lens width / angle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/54606969be2ffe97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:53 am
From: Paul Furman

Destin_FL wrote:
> thanks everyone!!
> I so appreciate everyone's willingness to help.
>
> About the 'video-then-grabbing-screenshots' ..... I would be using the
> actual video, not grabbing screenshots from video. So for instance in a
> presentation of a property, I would build a video that included both
> stills and actual video footage put together in Premiere Elements or
> Cyberlink or Pinnacle or whatever.

In that case, yes you could do portrait orientation video but it would
probably require some custom settings in the video editing software
(which I'll bet is not easy), and would likely not play on a TV screen
unless you added a bunch of black space on the sides. But I've done
non-standard aspect ratios... it's certainly possible.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Recent climate in your area?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aedb1e425101ef5d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 10:56 am
From: Robert Sneddon

In message <Xns9BADCF974E516ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI-Powered
<none@none.sn> writes

>Horse puckey! I'm not at all convinced that all this crap about
>greenhouse gases is even real, but burning wood is in NO way
>different than burning oil or natural gas or coal - it RELEASES CO2
>and some methane trapped in the wood itself into the atmosphere in
>gaseous form.

That wood was atmospheric CO2. As it burns or rots, it turns back into
CO2 in a regular loop, meaning that atmospheric CO2 levels remain
roughly even (in equilibrium). The problem is that coal, natural gas and
oil was atmospheric CO2 hundreds of millions of years ago. Vegetation
such as grasses and trees were trapped by geological processes
(mudslides and such) and buried deep underground. This is what is called
sequestration, where something is removed and locked away, inaccessible.
Wood and other vegetation burning and rotting today is not sequestrated
like these fossil fuels.

Nowadays we dig up coal and pump up oil and gas and burn it, allowing
the CO2 produced to escape to the atmosphere and increasing the total
amount of CO2. That extra fossil-fuel CO2 absorbs and retains more of
the sun's energy, hence global warming. The "anthropic" part of the
problem is human beings digging up carbon that was locked away and
returning it to the atmosphere by burning it. Measurements show that
atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled in the past fifty years or so, and
virtually all of that can be ascribed to human beings burning fossil
fuels.

Planting more trees helps, but we burn billions of tonnes of fossil
carbon each year and we don't have enough land to grow enough trees to
balance out our existing carbon burn never mind making up for the
cumulative effects of the last couple of centuries of industrialisation.
The better (and probably the only) solution is to cut down on fossil
fuel burning and move to non-CO2 energy sources -- I'm partial to
nuclear power, myself.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 11:59 am
From: "mianileng"

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Are we talking recent WEATHER or recent climate? There is a
> difference!

Both, really. The present winter and some recent ones here have
been very mild, but then so were some recent summers. I started
the thread out of curiosity about what the rest of the world has
been like this winter *and* the past one year *and* in recent
years. Throw in some tidbits about rainfall, storms, etc if you
like.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 1:00 pm
From: "~^ beancounter ~^"

i expierenced dramatic climate change this am, when the sun came
up....again.......

==============================================================================
TOPIC: can't see transferred .JPG on my Sony Cybershot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa5ec0871d64fca2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 11:42 am
From: marco polo

hi all,

i copied a JPG photo from my computer
to my digital Sony Cybershot,
but it doesn't show up in the Preview Mode

any help seeing this picture on the camera?

thanks
marc

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:12 pm
From: Jürgen Exner

marco polo <MarkPHd21@gmail.com> wrote:
>i copied a JPG photo from my computer
>to my digital Sony Cybershot,
>but it doesn't show up in the Preview Mode

That is quite typical. Most cameras are VERY picky about the format and
naming of files. They won't display any unless it matches exactly the
dimensions and other parameters of a file it would take itself.

jue

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:32 pm
From: Bob Williams

marco polo wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i copied a JPG photo from my computer
> to my digital Sony Cybershot,
> but it doesn't show up in the Preview Mode
>
> any help seeing this picture on the camera?
>
> thanks
> marc

That is the case with most, if not all, digital cameras.
David Taylor, a frequent contributor to this NG, has programs that will
allow you to do this for many cameras.
If David does not see your post and advise you, just PING him.
Bob Williams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: gizmo
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/269071f0b8cf3292?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 10 2009 12:16 pm
From: Rich

tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:82u1p41trp6dpjvq8shgja2uajch88hl9v@4ax.com:

> At the Mt Dora Art Festival this past weekend, a guy had this set-up
> to mechanically record some sort of panoramic view of the crowds
> (estimated attendance 250,000 to 300,00):
>
> http://tonycooper.fileave.com/camera.jpg
>
> He had it set up on the top of some steps to a building where it could
> shoot the crowds at the center of the festival. He said it would
> take 8 or 9 hours to download the images, but I forgot to ask how the
> images are stored.
>
> This isn't my type of thing, so it may be old hat to everyone else
> here. I'm posting it because I thought the gear-heads might be
> interested.
>

All that and he couples a crap P&S to it? You could do it as well with a
rock tumbler, or a cheap astronomical telescope mount. However the trigger
mechanism (for the shutter) you'd have to do yourself.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic