rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
* Cheap remote for Nikon Dxx - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7be18a67e18073d?hl=en
* Shootin submissions due in 12th April - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe66242639312f90?hl=en
* I hate environmentalists - 9 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
* Another Camera Seized - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
* Color Photo to Grayscale Converter - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/920bf31d50780cec?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon & Nikon Image Stabilisation
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aa42f50d8a88f1c8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:37 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Bob Larter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>> []
>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>
>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>
>> Which mode? Which camera?
>
> Doesn't matter. If the sensor drives the focus mechanism, it's closed
> loop. If the lens is set to MF, it's open loop.
Have to disagree there, Bob. It's only closed loop if the focus sensing
remains active and providing input to the focus mechanism. If it's a
one-off measurement and a single calculated correction, it can be open
loop.
Cheers,
David
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:41 pm
From: Marco Tedaldi
Bob Larter schrieb:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>> David J Taylor schrieb:
>>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>>
>>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>>>>
>>> Hm.. if you ask like this:
>>> Canon EOS 40D in single shot (not tracking).
>>>
>>> The only question is, does it determinate how far and in which
>>> direction it is out of focus, or just measure while focussing. To me
>>> it seems, that it is open loop, but I can't imagine how this is done.
>>>
>>> kruemi
>>
>> Marco, my understanding is also that single-shot is open loop. It's
>> simply that you measure the focus error, and then drive the lens by
>> that measured amount of error (all given the appropriate units and
>> scaling, of course). I don't believe that focus error is measured
>> while driving the lens, but perhaps the lens position is?
>>
>> As you are suggesting, the result may not be perfect, so it may be
>> worth a further half-press of the shutter to allow the auto-focus to
>> correct any remaining error.
>
> The fact that AF systems can 'hunt' proves that they're closed-loop.
Only partwise. It depends on what part of the system we are looking at.
But Yes, if the focus really goes hunting it's a strong indication for a
closed loop overall. The contrast AF on my old Dimage A2 went searching
a lot, but I think we agree that contrast AF is definitely closed loop.
The AF on my 40D has not done this until now (but I've only taken 6000
and some pictures until now with this camera), so I can't say if this
might happen.
But Even than it might be an open loop which just checks the result and
starts over again, if the Result is not good enough.
The "proof" for open loop might be, that there seem to be problem
sometimes with systematic focussing errors which can be eliminated by
readjusting the lens. A closed loop system would correct such errors
inside the closed loop.
> An open-loop system won't 'hunt'.
>
A closed loop system should have no remaining error...
I'm not saying that you are wrong. It might be, that it is a closed
loop, but the "hunting" argument is not enough for me. And since there
is a fact that would suggest that the system is open, I'm not fully
convinced.
Greets and thanx for your feedback
Marco
--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:43 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Bob Larter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>> David J Taylor schrieb:
>>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>>
>>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>>
>>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>>>>
>>> Hm.. if you ask like this:
>>> Canon EOS 40D in single shot (not tracking).
>>>
>>> The only question is, does it determinate how far and in which
>>> direction it is out of focus, or just measure while focussing. To me
>>> it seems, that it is open loop, but I can't imagine how this is
>>> done. kruemi
>>
>> Marco, my understanding is also that single-shot is open loop. It's
>> simply that you measure the focus error, and then drive the lens by
>> that measured amount of error (all given the appropriate units and
>> scaling, of course). I don't believe that focus error is measured
>> while driving the lens, but perhaps the lens position is?
>>
>> As you are suggesting, the result may not be perfect, so it may be
>> worth a further half-press of the shutter to allow the auto-focus to
>> correct any remaining error.
>
> The fact that AF systems can 'hunt' proves that they're closed-loop.
> An open-loop system won't 'hunt'.
Yes, I had also wondered about this, but of course there are two
components - the measurement of the focus error, and the mechanical
positioning of the lens to correct this error. The mechanical lens focus
servo could well be closed-loop, i.e. measuring the focus position
continuously and attempting to precisely position the focus to the
commanded position by measuring the /mechanical/ error, and this could
cause the slight overshoot or slight oscillation seen.
I had hoped that the focus measurement /was/ closed-loop, but when I last
asked here a number of people assured me that in single-shot, at least, it
was in fact open-loop. I'd love to see a reliable reference either way.
Cheers,
David
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 2:50 pm
From: Bob Larter
David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>> []
>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>
>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>
>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>>
>> Doesn't matter. If the sensor drives the focus mechanism, it's closed
>> loop. If the lens is set to MF, it's open loop.
>
> Have to disagree there, Bob. It's only closed loop if the focus sensing
> remains active and providing input to the focus mechanism.
Exactly my point.
> If it's a
> one-off measurement and a single calculated correction, it can be open
> loop.
Sure, but AF systems don't do that. They 'hunt' for the sharpest reading
on the AF sensor. It's a classic-closed loop system.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:03 pm
From: Bob Larter
Marco Tedaldi wrote:
> Bob Larter schrieb:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>> David J Taylor schrieb:
>>>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>>>>>
>>>> Hm.. if you ask like this:
>>>> Canon EOS 40D in single shot (not tracking).
>>>>
>>>> The only question is, does it determinate how far and in which
>>>> direction it is out of focus, or just measure while focussing. To me
>>>> it seems, that it is open loop, but I can't imagine how this is done.
>>>>
>>>> kruemi
>>> Marco, my understanding is also that single-shot is open loop. It's
>>> simply that you measure the focus error, and then drive the lens by
>>> that measured amount of error (all given the appropriate units and
>>> scaling, of course). I don't believe that focus error is measured
>>> while driving the lens, but perhaps the lens position is?
>>>
>>> As you are suggesting, the result may not be perfect, so it may be
>>> worth a further half-press of the shutter to allow the auto-focus to
>>> correct any remaining error.
>> The fact that AF systems can 'hunt' proves that they're closed-loop.
>
> Only partwise. It depends on what part of the system we are looking at.
> But Yes, if the focus really goes hunting it's a strong indication for a
> closed loop overall. The contrast AF on my old Dimage A2 went searching
> a lot, but I think we agree that contrast AF is definitely closed loop.
>
> The AF on my 40D has not done this until now (but I've only taken 6000
> and some pictures until now with this camera), so I can't say if this
> might happen.
Try using an old, slow AF lens with it. I see it often when I use my
ancient 100-300/5.6L zoom. With USM lenses, the hunting is generally so
fast that you can't see it under typical lighting conditions.
> But Even than it might be an open loop which just checks the result and
> starts over again, if the Result is not good enough.
The "starts all over again" part is what makes it closed-loop. If it
just moves the focus *once*, then gives up, that'd be open-loop.
> The "proof" for open loop might be, that there seem to be problem
> sometimes with systematic focussing errors which can be eliminated by
> readjusting the lens. A closed loop system would correct such errors
> inside the closed loop.
Not if (for example) there's a slight difference between the distance
from the lens to the AF sensor, vs the distance to the image
sensor/film. You'd get a slight focus offset in your photo, despite the
AF system getting perfect focus.
>> An open-loop system won't 'hunt'.
>>
> A closed loop system should have no remaining error...
See above. The image sensor & the AF sensor aren't 100% guaranteed to be
'seeing' an identical image. The closed-loop AF system only guarantees
perfect focus at the AF sensor.
> I'm not saying that you are wrong. It might be, that it is a closed
> loop, but the "hunting" argument is not enough for me. And since there
> is a fact that would suggest that the system is open, I'm not fully
> convinced.
Try the experiment of seeing whether your camera hunts for focus under
very poor lighting / low contrast subjects, using the oldest, slowest
lens you own.
> Greets and thanx for your feedback
No worries.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:12 pm
From: Bob Larter
David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>> David J Taylor schrieb:
>>>>> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>>>>>
>>>> Hm.. if you ask like this:
>>>> Canon EOS 40D in single shot (not tracking).
>>>>
>>>> The only question is, does it determinate how far and in which
>>>> direction it is out of focus, or just measure while focussing. To me
>>>> it seems, that it is open loop, but I can't imagine how this is
>>>> done. kruemi
>>>
>>> Marco, my understanding is also that single-shot is open loop. It's
>>> simply that you measure the focus error, and then drive the lens by
>>> that measured amount of error (all given the appropriate units and
>>> scaling, of course). I don't believe that focus error is measured
>>> while driving the lens, but perhaps the lens position is?
>>>
>>> As you are suggesting, the result may not be perfect, so it may be
>>> worth a further half-press of the shutter to allow the auto-focus to
>>> correct any remaining error.
>>
>> The fact that AF systems can 'hunt' proves that they're closed-loop.
>> An open-loop system won't 'hunt'.
>
> Yes, I had also wondered about this, but of course there are two
> components - the measurement of the focus error, and the mechanical
> positioning of the lens to correct this error. The mechanical lens
> focus servo could well be closed-loop, i.e. measuring the focus position
> continuously and attempting to precisely position the focus to the
> commanded position by measuring the /mechanical/ error, and this could
> cause the slight overshoot or slight oscillation seen.
>
> I had hoped that the focus measurement /was/ closed-loop, but when I
> last asked here a number of people assured me that in single-shot, at
> least, it was in fact open-loop. I'd love to see a reliable reference
> either way.
I'd bet money that it's closed-loop - at least while the shutter's
half-pressed.
It should actually be pretty easy to test by focusing on something
nearby & moving the camera back & forth with the shutter half-pressed.
<tries it out>
Okay, what actually happens on my EOS 1Dmk2 in single-shot focus is that
lens definitely hunts while it's aquiring focus, but as soon as it does
(ie; when the focus confirm light comes on), it gives up & leaves the
focus there.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:30 pm
From: ASAAR
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:02:46 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>
>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>
>> Which mode? Which camera?
>
> Doesn't matter. If the sensor drives the focus mechanism, it's closed
> loop. If the lens is set to MF, it's open loop.
You weren't specific enough. The phase-shift focusing used in
DSLRs does not use the sensor. It uses small AF sensors that
usually require lenses to have apertures not much smaller than
f/5.6. Unlike when using contrast detect AF, after a reading, if
the camera determines that the focus isn't quite there, it knows
which direction to move the lens elements. Is your answer still
applicable?
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:37 pm
From: Bob Larter
ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:02:46 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
>
>>>> BTW: Is phase-shift autofocussing open loop?
>>> I think the answer is "it depends".
>>>
>>> Which mode? Which camera?
>> Doesn't matter. If the sensor drives the focus mechanism, it's closed
>> loop. If the lens is set to MF, it's open loop.
>
> You weren't specific enough. The phase-shift focusing used in
> DSLRs does not use the sensor.
Sorry. By 'sensor', I meant the AF sensor.
> It uses small AF sensors that
> usually require lenses to have apertures not much smaller than
> f/5.6.
Yes.
> Unlike when using contrast detect AF, after a reading, if
> the camera determines that the focus isn't quite there, it knows
> which direction to move the lens elements. Is your answer still
> applicable?
Yes. The important question is whether the AF system hunts (ie;
self-corrects) for focus. If it does, it's a closed-loop system.
Elsewhere in this thread, I posted about actually trying it out on one
of my cameras (EOS 1Dmk2), & yes, it does hunt for focus.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap remote for Nikon Dxx
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7be18a67e18073d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:38 pm
From: "Pete D"
"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:s4Sdnfal8LaeT0LUnZ2dnUVZ8sCdnZ2d@novis.pt...
> You can use a universal TV remote for your Nikon D40 -D90.
> Use one that supports Sanyo and search for the right code. Bingo!
>
> --
> ---
> Focus
>
Do a search on Ebay, there will be some cheap dedicated units that will work
with them.
Just did a search on "remote nikon d90" and had 474 hits, some as cheap as
$3.50
You can do this for any brand and get a similar response.
Pentax 220.
Sony 220
Canon 643
Olympus 158
You can also get wired interval timers, brilliant bit of kit for under $50.
Cheeers.
Pete
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shootin submissions due in 12th April
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fe66242639312f90?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:46 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:55:06 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>
>"Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
>news:49e08fec@news.x-privat.org...
>> Just posting this as a community service as Bowser looks to be still
>> without net access
>> Remember the date for submissions to Close Up is 12th April 2009
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/closeup
>>
>> My submissions have been sent, and everyone can surely do better than me
>> :-)
>
>Thanks! I've been cooped up on a secure facility for a week, and it was pure
>hell. I wasn't allowed to take any writeable devices in or out of the
>facility. Nothing. Not even pencil and paper...
>
Glad someone made your bail.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:12 pm
From: Bob Larter
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:55:06 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>
>> "Atheist Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote in message
>> news:49e08fec@news.x-privat.org...
>>> Just posting this as a community service as Bowser looks to be still
>>> without net access
>>> Remember the date for submissions to Close Up is 12th April 2009
>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/closeup
>>>
>>> My submissions have been sent, and everyone can surely do better than me
>>> :-)
>> Thanks! I've been cooped up on a secure facility for a week, and it was pure
>> hell. I wasn't allowed to take any writeable devices in or out of the
>> facility. Nothing. Not even pencil and paper...
>>
> Glad someone made your bail.
LOL.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:47 pm
From: Ron Hunter
Alan Browne wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
>>> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>>>
>>>
>> Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
>> is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
>> leave it to the animals.
>
> What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
> and balance with the environment.
>
> The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
> collectively failing to do so.
>
>
>
Are you saying that there AREN'T those in the environmentalist movement
that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
to pay more attention to them. Many of the ideas rabid
environmentalists advocate would result in human beings becoming
extinct, never mind that MOST of the ideas these people propose would
result in collapse of civilization, followed by massive starvation, and
disease, perhaps to the point of extinction.
If your idea of 'harmony and balance' means living in a strictly
agrarian society, without technology, and eschewing anything that would
cause harm to any species of animal, or plant life, that is pretty much
the definition of 'rabid environmentalist'.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:52 pm
From: Ron Hunter
Alan Browne wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
> <<>>
>>> Point is that "creationism" seems to have an origin time that is
>>> slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
>>> That is the root of creationism: real written history.
>>>
>>> I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
>>> so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
>>> claims by creationists are debunked.
>>>
>>> A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
>>> passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
>>> Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
>>> Shermer, "hindsight bias".
>>>
>> I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
>> method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
>> Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
>> religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
>> people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
>> religious beliefs, and writings.
>
> That's failed logic. A rational view of things requires evidence and
> this is what science seeks: evidence (through observation, measurement
> and experiment) to develop or support theory. Evolution theory and fact
> has been building inexorably, step by step. Where faiths say they are
> complete, science always knows that there is more and that things
> unexplained have to be declared as "not yet known".
>
> (A simple example is string theory - lot's of math and physics but no
> evidence and likely no definitive evidence will ever be found - so it's
> a declared unknown - unless some experiments at CERN prove it not to
> exist. So its non-existence can be proven, but not its existence.)
>
> As to flaws, will every little part of evolution be filled? Probably
> not. Geologic time has destroyed or irretrievably buried a lot of the
> evidence. Interpolating between that evidence is reasonable. Further
> where evolution scientists have made errors, they have been corrected
> when new evidence emerges. Again the triumph of science is that
> bad/wrong theories are discarded. OTOH, I cannot see the leaders of
> Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. getting together
> to weed out what is 'wrong' with their individual faiths to distill it
> to a "true one faith" that everyone henceforth adheres to. Much more
> likely to start a holy war (example: the two major branches of Islam
> have distrusted and warred against one another over what we would see as
> a rather minor spat back in the early days of Islam. So getting Islam
> on one page is hard enough, never mind all religions).
>
> Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
> cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
> history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
> nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
> of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
> shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
>
> Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
> indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
> This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>
> A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
> ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>
> How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
> parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
>
I don't agree with that statement, at all. Reason and faith coexist
nicely in my head. I believe in God as the cause, and science as the
method. There is no real conflict, only a misinterpretation of the
message. If you want a really good description of the 'big bang
theory', in strictly non-technical terms, read the first chapter of
Genesis. From there, it is mostly allegory. The Bible is pretty good
history, but it is a bit of a stretch to take it all literally, given
that even the earliest texts were recorded from oral tradition. As you
probably can guess, I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 1:55 pm
From: Ron Hunter
John A. wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
>> cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
>> history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
>> nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
>> of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
>> shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
>
> Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
> commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
> religious parts added on.
>
>> Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
>> indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
>> This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
>> ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>>
>> How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
>> parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
> I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
> artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
> that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
> Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
> suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
> continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
> or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
> it to dismantle religion altogether.
>
> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>
> Okay - enough rambling. :)
How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
contradiction, isn't it?
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 2:04 pm
From: Ron Hunter
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-04-10 19:46:10 -0700, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>>>> Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
>>>> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
>>>> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
>>> Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
>>> they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
>> Rightard propaganda.
>
> An exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. There are trade-offs. And
> banning DDT does make it more difficult to control malaria-carrying
> mosquito populations.
>
>>> Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
>> Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?
>
> Godwin's law already? Guess you lose the argument with Rich. Quite a
> feat, actually -- losing an argument with *that.* However, there really
> are people at the core of the environmental movement who even advocate
> human extinction. You do realize, of course, that extremist views like
> that bring a great deal of disrepute to the environmental movement?
>
They certainly don't help the cause any more than radical Islamic
terrorists help the cause of Islam. Both tend to make rational people
run screaming from their ideas.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 2:43 pm
From: Bob Larter
Ron Hunter wrote:
> John A. wrote:
[...]
>> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
>> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
>> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
>> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
>> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
>> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
>> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
>> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
>> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
>> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
>> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
>> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
>> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
>> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
>> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>>
>> Okay - enough rambling. :)
> How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
> most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
> contradiction, isn't it?
Say what? The USA is one of the very few advanced nations that *are*
markedly religious, & the most religious nations of all are way down
around 3rd world status.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 2:46 pm
From: Bob Larter
Jer wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that
>>> of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.
>>
>> Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of lazy
>> asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to piss.
>> It's about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.
>>
>> I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.
>>
>
>
> I often feel the same way about personal fragrances.
Ditto. There's nothing worse being stuck in a crowded train or elevator,
next to someone drenched in perfume or aftershave.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:15 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-04-10 19:46:10 -0700, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Rich <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <none@nowhere.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>>>>
>>>> Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
>>>> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
>>>> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
>>>
>>> Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
>>> they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
>>
>> Rightard propaganda.
>
>An exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. There are trade-offs. And
>banning DDT does make it more difficult to control malaria-carrying
>mosquito populations.
>
>>> Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
>>
>> Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?
>
>Godwin's law already?
The Nazis referred to people as vermin. So does Rich.
The similarity isn't my fault.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:17 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
>>>> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
>>> is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
>>> leave it to the animals.
>>
>> What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
>> and balance with the environment.
>>
>> The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
>> collectively failing to do so.
>>
>Are you saying that there AREN'T those in the environmentalist movement
>that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
>to pay more attention to them.
Guilt by association is a sleazy ploy.
> Many of the ideas rabid
>environmentalists advocate would result in human beings becoming
>extinct,
Many of the ideas rabid anti-environmentalists promote would have the
same result.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:21 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
>most advanced in science and technology are the most religious?
Hmmm, let's see
- Afganistan under the Taliban
- Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Indonesia (to cover the most islamic countries)
- Vatican
- Spain, Poland, Italy, Phillipines...
- Tibet, Nepal (to cover the most bhuddistic countries)
- India (to cover the main hinduistic country)
None of those with maybe the exception of very recent India strikes me
as particularly advanced in science or technology.
For Israel (to cover the last major religion) you need to differentiate.
The technological and scientific advances don't come from the orthodox
jews but from the progressive or liberal people, who don't care, if they
touch an elevator button on Sabbath.
Actually, looking back in history it's rather that people like Kepler,
Galileo, and many, many others had to denounce their inventions and
discoveries or be burned as heretics. And this doesn't apply just to
Christianity but equally to Islam. That doesn't strike me as
particularly innovative, either.
Quite the opposite, actually. Progress and innovation happened in the
Rennaisance because the dominance of the church was broken.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another Camera Seized
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d817a4a6bad12460?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 2:40 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
news:49e02654$0$21737$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote
>
>> In most states / provinces, anybody can get a licence who is not legally
>> blind. Legally blind is less than 10% normal vision, so that means that
>> people can legally drive with only 10% of normal vision. Or, if the
>> state / province words their legislation so that legal blindness is 10%
>> or less, then 11% would be the lowest legal level of vision required,
>> regardless of what state or province you are from.
>
>> Check it out; it's scary.
>
> It is indeed. It would certainly explain a lot!
>
> I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
> licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by
> cheating - you have to cover one eye and read with the other, and I'm
> extremely short sighted in my left (with both, I have excellent vision,
> including depth perception.) I peeked between my fingers!
>
> I must be alright, I've gone 35 years without hitting anything!
>
> Paul
>
Here in Alberta, you only have to pass the eye test when you apply, and
later when you hit a more advanced age -- 65 or 70, I'm not sure of the
exact age when compulsory checks kick back in.
But, in between, there are a number of eye conditions which can severely
restrict vision. I'm a proponent of compulsory checks every time a licence
is renewed...
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:25 pm
From: tony cooper
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:40:13 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>
>"Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote in message
>news:49e02654$0$21737$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote
>>
>>> In most states / provinces, anybody can get a licence who is not legally
>>> blind. Legally blind is less than 10% normal vision, so that means that
>>> people can legally drive with only 10% of normal vision. Or, if the
>>> state / province words their legislation so that legal blindness is 10%
>>> or less, then 11% would be the lowest legal level of vision required,
>>> regardless of what state or province you are from.
>>
>>> Check it out; it's scary.
>>
>> It is indeed. It would certainly explain a lot!
>>
>> I know here in Oz they did away with the compulsory eye test when renewing
>> licences many years ago. While it was there, I passed the test only by
>> cheating - you have to cover one eye and read with the other, and I'm
>> extremely short sighted in my left (with both, I have excellent vision,
>> including depth perception.) I peeked between my fingers!
>>
>> I must be alright, I've gone 35 years without hitting anything!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>Here in Alberta, you only have to pass the eye test when you apply, and
>later when you hit a more advanced age -- 65 or 70, I'm not sure of the
>exact age when compulsory checks kick back in.
>
>But, in between, there are a number of eye conditions which can severely
>restrict vision. I'm a proponent of compulsory checks every time a licence
>is renewed...
I don't think this has been mentioned, but in the US a driver's
license may be restricted and bear the endorsement (that's what they
call it) that corrective lenses must be worn. In other words, they
don't care what my vision is as long as I wear lenses (glasses) that
correct it.
The eye test is administered with and without glasses. If you pass it
with, you're OK.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Color Photo to Grayscale Converter
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/920bf31d50780cec?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:24 pm
From: Mark Franzels
On Apr 12, 2:38 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:56:14 -0700, Mark Franzels wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Are all color to grayscale converter algorithm the same? Or are there
> > many different levels of qualities to it like scanning or printing? But
> > then
> > in converting color to grayscale, perhaps there is a simple formula that
> > is used by all software, hence the same quality in all except
> > differences in brightness or contrast which you can adjust in photoshop?
>
> > Mark
>
> No - not the same. There are many ways to convert from color. As I
> recall, there is a GIMP plugin with about 27 different variations.
Where can I download it and integrate it in photoshop?
But what I was asking was whether the "Change to Grayscale"
functions in all graphic programs work the same before
you edit them with special gimp plugin. I used different
programs and convert a reference photo to grayscale,
there seems to look the same but not sure. So what
is the best program with best default for changing
color to grayscale?
Mark
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:31 pm
From: Bob Larter
Mark Franzels wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:38 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:56:14 -0700, Mark Franzels wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Are all color to grayscale converter algorithm the same? Or are there
>>> many different levels of qualities to it like scanning or printing? But
>>> then
>>> in converting color to grayscale, perhaps there is a simple formula that
>>> is used by all software, hence the same quality in all except
>>> differences in brightness or contrast which you can adjust in photoshop?
>>> Mark
>> No - not the same. There are many ways to convert from color. As I
>> recall, there is a GIMP plugin with about 27 different variations.
>
> Where can I download it and integrate it in photoshop?
No need. PhotoShop comes with the Channel Mixing tool, which gives you a
near infinite variety of ways to convert colour to greyscale.
> But what I was asking was whether the "Change to Grayscale"
> functions in all graphic programs work the same before
> you edit them with special gimp plugin. I used different
> programs and convert a reference photo to grayscale,
> there seems to look the same but not sure.
Most programs convert to greyscale by reducing the colour saturation to
zero, so most programs will give you a similar-looking result. (You can
do it that way in PhotoShop too.)
> So what
> is the best program with best default for changing
> color to grayscale?
"How long is a piece of string?"
The answer is that it depends on what result you're trying to achieve.
If you just want a generic result, just reduce the saturation to zero in
whatever program you prefer.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 11 2009 3:36 pm
From: ray
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:24:01 -0700, Mark Franzels wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2:38 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:56:14 -0700, Mark Franzels wrote:
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > Are all color to grayscale converter algorithm the same? Or are there
>> > many different levels of qualities to it like scanning or printing?
>> > But then
>> > in converting color to grayscale, perhaps there is a simple formula
>> > that is used by all software, hence the same quality in all except
>> > differences in brightness or contrast which you can adjust in
>> > photoshop?
>>
>> > Mark
>>
>> No - not the same. There are many ways to convert from color. As I
>> recall, there is a GIMP plugin with about 27 different variations.
>
> Where can I download it and integrate it in photoshop? But what I was
> asking was whether the "Change to Grayscale" functions in all graphic
> programs work the same before you edit them with special gimp plugin. I
> used different programs and convert a reference photo to grayscale,
> there seems to look the same but not sure. So what is the best program
> with best default for changing color to grayscale?
>
> Mark
I certainly can't say what program is 'best' for you. For me, the most
flexibility would be 'best'. I admit I don't use photoshop - I use GIMP -
you can download and start using it for free - there are a lot of plugins
available. I've also seen some good descriptions of the different methods
used and the different 'moods' they produce. It was either in 'Grokking
the Gimp' which is downloadable from the internet, or in the book
'Beginning GIMP'. You will get quite dramatically different 'moods' by
processing to greyscale in different ways.
If it's not clear, GIMP is a completely free, stand alone photo editor.
It has many of the same capabilities as photoshop. See www.gimp.org.
==============================================================================
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