rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* New Mandate: Punography - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
* Automatic Synchronization - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
* New foto of my small model ship. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
* Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch 2513.30.00 - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d44990ac6bb7ee3?hl=en
* Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
* what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
* Focus! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 5:54 pm
From: Leon@here.com
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:26:21 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Leon@here.com wrote:
>
>> They say we use 2 halves of our brain differently, one for language and one for
>> graphics. I confess I'm better at graphics than language! When someone asks me
>> to explain what I mean, I often grab a pencil and paper to draw what I mean. I
>> always thought it was because I didn't know the words!
>
>Paint the following words: " Red " in blue paint
> " Green " in purple paint
> " Yellow " in red ...
> etc.
>
>And ask people to tell you the color that the word in painted in...
>
>Some people do it without a pause, others are so caught by the word they
>have to think for a second or two to name the color.
I have a copy of that test here somewhere, I can do iit but it's hard for me!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Automatic Synchronization
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/57b2d58f43b64865?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:00 pm
From: "Jeff R."
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:08:04 +1000, Jeff R. wrote:
>> Clo-Clo wrote:
>>> "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote
>>
>>> Have you rigged together an equally ingenious stereoscope?
>>
>> Yes, for parallel pairs (which my sample above is not), but I usually
>> distribute my pix via the web, cross-eyed free-viewing is far
>> superior. Easier for me, at my age, too.
>
> The better technique is to view them wall-eyed, IMO. Maybe that's why
> yours did not look 'dramatic' enough -- they were switched
> left-to-right?
Sighhhh...
By "wall-eyed" I presume you mean parallel. This was the way I learnt to
view stereo pix, and the only way I viewed them for decades. It was the
decreasing accommodation of my eyes that led to me to adopting cross-eyed
instead. Then I discovered the vast superiority of the method - largely
because the images can be huge.
I now reserve parallel (or "wall-eyed" if you like) for viewing
transparencies through a viewer.
>... Or, maybe it was the artifacts introduced by
> sharpening and compression -- which would be different in each and
> which would be more apparent in stereo viewing.
...and did you notice how these artifacts cancel out when the two images
combine?
The stereo effect in my sample is quite dramatic. I Can count at least
seven distinct planes of interest. If you cannot see them, or they seem
"backwards" then....
> Hint: Viewing them in Firefox with it's image resizing as you resize
> the window helps get the centers of the pictures closer to a
> reasonable range that can be accommodated by your IPD.
Sigghhh again. It has 'nowt to do with IPD when viewing cross-eyed. If
viewing parallel then the images must be tiny - one way or another.
> I first learned how to do unaided stereo viewing when I worked one
> Summer as a go-fer for a surveyor in the 'bad lands' of western
> Colorado's oil shale country (circa 1966). He would lay out two
> USGS aerial photographs on the hood of the truck and go wall-eyed to
> see the terrain features. It's Way Less head-achy for me than
> cross-eyed.
Either he stood back a long way or he was viewing them cross-eyed. Your
hesitation in identifying my example as cross-eyed seems to confirm that
suggestion.
> Jonesy
--
Jeff R.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New foto of my small model ship.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7497445075c878e7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 6:30 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 21, 5:12 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> So, is there now a mini-industry that grinds the flanges to near scale??
> :-)
Close, but no prize: they sell entire wheel-sets, replacement drivers
for locos, and etcetera.
~Pete
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch 2513.30.00
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d44990ac6bb7ee3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 8:17 pm
From: fashionbag14@gmail.com
Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch 2513.30.00
Watches Collection Site : http://www.watchepay.com/
Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch 2513.30.00 View Full :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/watch_6689.html
Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch 2513.30.00
AdditionalInfo :
Brand : 2009 New Arrival Watches ( http://watchepay.com/watchs/2009-New-Arrival.html)
Handbags Name : Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch
2513.30.00<br>
Code : Omega Seamaster NZL32 Chrono (NEW) Mens Watch
2513.30.00<br>
Gender : Mens <br>
CaseMaterial : Stainless Steel <br>
Bezel : <br>
Movement : <br>
2009 New Arrival Watches Collection Series :
Jaeger LeCoultre Reserve de Marche Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/jaeger-lecoultre-reserve-de-marche-watches.html
Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/omega-seamaster-aqua-terra-watches.html
Omega Speedmaster Reduced Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/omega-speedmaster-reduced-watches.html
Other Chopard Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/other-chopard-watches.html
Cartier Tank Solo Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/cartier-tank-solo-watches.html
Movado Horwitt Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/movado-horwitt-watches.html
Movado Valeto Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/movado-valeto-watches.html
Cartier Baignoire Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/cartier-baignoire-watches.html
IWC Classic Pilot Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/iwc-classic-pilot-watches.html
Corum watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/corum.html
Patek Philippe Aquanaut Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/patek-philippe-aquanaut-watches.html
Breitling Hercules Watches Collection :
http://www.watchepay.com/watchs/breitling-hercules-watches.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why DSLR mirrors must eventually go
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/68febc4ea5622551?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 7:59 pm
From: "Matt Clara"
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:M4qdnUg3aaGrd3DUnZ2dnVY3goSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
>> "Hans Kruse" <hans.kruse@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>Live view is a great tool to use to make sure that you get the sharpest
>>>image on a tripod. I use it all the time instead of MLU.
>>>
>>
>> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror shock,
>> does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you won't have
>> to deal with it?
>
> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops. Nikon
> gets something seriously wrong.
Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
Nikon's live vue equal no possibility of MLU at all? If not, that would be
a serious flaw indeed.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 9:29 pm
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Instead of MLU? Live View does not in and of itself reduce mirror
>>> shock, does it? Or did you tear the mirror out of your DSLR so you
>>> won't have to deal with it?
>>
>> You must be a Nikon user. When you take a shot in live view mode on a
>> Canon camera, the mirror stays up and there is no mirror slap. Oops.
>> Nikon gets something seriously wrong.
>
> Is it possible to use Nikon's live vue in conjunction with MLU, or does
> Nikon's live vue equal no possibility of MLU at all? If not, that would
> be a serious flaw indeed.
I don't know: that's something I read from a Nikon user here.
Apparently the Nikons flop the mirror down to do an AF. Maybe if AF were
turned off they'd do the right thing.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is full frame? No this is NOT a Troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d4bed118a3e3f05?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 9:37 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And yes, if there was a film camera for a 16x24mm film, then you could
>use those 'digital' (=DX) lenses on that film camera without any
>problem. It's just that nobody makes such a camera because a) the
>Advanced Photo System has already been a failure before and b) customers
>are unlikely to flock back to film.
Actually, after some thinking, the Nikon Proena system could use F-mount
lenses. So if you happen to have an old Pronea camera, then you could
use a 'digital' lens on that camera just fine without problems.
Maybe it is really better to call them correctly DX lenses and not
digital lenses.
jue
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 11:07 pm
From: rwalker
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
snip
>
>I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>
>If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>
> BugBear
Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 11:58 pm
From: Chris H
In message <60dtu4hkuit13uruta8n0fgvs0rjnfetjq@4ax.com>, rwalker
<rwalker@despammed.com> writes
>On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:34:55 +0100, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>I think it's backwards compatibility with 35mm (film) lenses.
>>
>>If it was (all) about image quality, we'd have bigger
>>sensors than so-called-full-frame.
>>
>> BugBear
>
>Exactly. When I think "full frame" I think 6 x 7 cm.
:-)
That was my point. It is relative. So the DX size sensor is "full frame"
for DSLR's and all this rubbish about going "full [35mm]frame" is just
marketing.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Focus!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d4b654a4398ea89d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 21 2009 11:50 pm
From: SoShinethTheIdiotASSAR
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:27:51 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:52:42 +0100, Focus wrote:
>
>>> FYI: That's not a put-down for people in wheelchairs, mind you. I used to
>>> volunteer for an organization that took the blind and paraplegic on 3-5
>>> week wilderness adventures into remote areas that even some seasoned
>>> backpackers and canoeists would hesitate to go. Portaging a wheelchair is
>>> a bitch but I always volunteered for that job for some strange reason, mostly
>>> because nobody else would take on that job. Those spokes and hardware will
>>> try to latch onto any snag 100-yards away every chance they could. Those
>>> people in wheelchairs were worth knowing. The stalking trolls living out
>>> their imaginary lives in this newsgroup are not even worth acknowledging
>>> their sadly self-inflicted useless existence.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> I admire people that do voluntary work. Usually they're are the "non-BS"
>> kind.
>
> Uh, Focus m'lad, you've been gulled by "Clayton Ramsey", another
>manifestation of our Anti-DSLR sock puppet troll. Ironic because
>*he* (not real volunteers) rarely offers anything but pure BS. Read
>his reply one or two more times and see if you don't agree. Then
>again, based on your opinions of the D90, perhaps you believe that
>blind, wheelchair bound paraplegics would willingly go on 3 to 5
>week wilderness adventures into remote areas so wet and wild that
>portaging would be required. If you're not familiar with the word
>"portage" look it up. If you are, wow, you sure are gullible.
You really need to get out of your basement and sad mistake of a life
someday, as should the rest of the resident trolls just like yourself. But
we won't hold our collective breath waiting for that to ever happen.
http://www.wildernessinquiry.org/
And in case you are so disabled and lame that you can't find the right page
there, http://www.wildernessinquiry.org/register/integrated_adventure.php
Do read the list on that page, of disabilities of people that have gone on
their extensive wilderness adventures. Something that you would never do,
you really are THAT lame. You have less incentive and life than someone who
is paraplegic or blind. You've just proved that.
Go ahead, kill yourself. You know it's the right thing to do. Your life is
already dead and over with. You just have to admit it to yourself. It's
already glaringly obvious to everyone else.
>
> This, by the way, is the same sock puppet troll that has said
>several times that he has taken many award winning photos and that
>he won't let the public see them (he despises the public too, not
>just DSLR users) and claims that he will have them destroyed when he
>dies to insure that the undeserving public will never be able to see
>them. You don't need or want support from weevils like that.
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment