rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* It's just wrong - 13 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* give it a rest kiddies - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/783a15a6284cbbda?hl=en
* Another source condemns 3:2 format - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
* Best way to extract single frames from an MPG movie file - 3 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8054fcd174c82258?hl=en
* Canon A590 - quality a disappointment - lemon, or typical? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bea3b5f0ddccbd2e?hl=en
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 4:46 am
From: "Atheist Chaplain"
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:77fdh6F1gfchrU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote:
>> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>>> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RHaQl.35820$0S.6714@newsfe22.iad...
>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>
>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>>
>>> so why do you think "paedophiles" when you see an innocent statue of a
>>> girl helping a younger child to get a drink ??
>>>
>>> political correctness now has everyone jumping at shadows.........
>>>
>> Mea Culpa!
>> I did not examine the sculpture closely enough.
>> I thought that the older person was a male, and as such, the position
>> was suggestive. But as so many pointed out, the older person is
>> obviously a female.
>> So the sculpture does not appear to me tosmack of pedophilia.
>> Bob Williams
>
> Unless of course the older person is a male cross dresser or a
> shemale.
>
> Have any of you pornography experts checked out any of the major
> public art galleries? They've got filthy pictures and statues in there
> which make this one look like two kids at a drinking fountain!
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
I get all my best porn from Art Galleries ;-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 4:55 am
From: Caesar Romano
On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:29:55 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote Re Re: It's just wrong:
>It's a fabulous bit of art.
It's junk.
THIS a fabulousbit of art:
http://nooblogs.gr/ballas/files/2008/05/michelangelo_david2.jpg
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:04 am
From: "Bowser"
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:t7v415leqbl7grotvni95fdumj7j7g89ku@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 16:22:28 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Bowser wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>>> Bob Williams
>>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>>> in this sculpture....
>>>
>>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the
>>> mirror.
>>I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
>>picture, and both of them are male, so if there is a pedophile in the
>>photo, it is homosexual one, is it not?
>
> Who said paedophiles are only after boys?
Pretty telling, no?
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:06 am
From: "Bowser"
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:NtmdnXQLQM3NRYzXnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> Bowser wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:
>>>
>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser"
>>>>> <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this
>>>>>> statue in front of
>>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another
>>>>> connotation for you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>>>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a
>>>> number of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed
>>>> that I offered some meaning in my original post. I did not. I
>>>> posted merely to provoke and see what happened. And look what
>>>> happened!
>>>
>>> Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
>>>
>>> You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
>>>
>>
>> Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
>> Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a
>> little fun with the locals, that's all.
>
> Geez, you really need a vacation.
Hell, I took the pic while I was on vacation. Can't afford another one right
now, unless you'd care to take up a collection from the newsgroup regs. I'm
betting it'd be a total waste of time.
Besides, I bet I can find something else absurd on my next vacation on
Martha's Vineyard. Not to worry, I'll post that one, if it happens, as well.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:08 am
From: "Bowser"
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:878wktzk0l.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:2o-dnb8BWNeRT4zXnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4p2d@giganews.com...
>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser"
>>>>> <up@gone.now>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong
>>>>>> with this statue in front of
>>>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on
>>>>> another connotation for you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type
>>>> of reaction it provoked. I offered no opinion of my
>>>> own. None. Despite that, a number of posters have
>>>> injected many meanings, and have assumed that I
>>>> offered some meaning in my original post. I did
>>>> not. I posted merely to provoke and see what
>>>> happened. And look what happened!
>>> Excuse me? YOu said "there's something just
>>> wrong...." No value judgment there? NAWWW.
>>
>>True. But did I say what? Did I lead the reader to some conclusion? Nope.
>>The perversion started on its own. Hey, I'm just the shooter reflected in
>>the window. Don't blame me.
>
> No, you started the perversion. The blame is entirely
> yours, and you've *admitted* that was your purpose so
> there is little point in denying who should be blamed.
Nope, I said nothing except I thought something was wrong. Readers were free
to draw their own conclusions, and many did.
>
> In fact, there is just *nothing* wrong with that statute.
> It is a fabulous bit of art.
Well, it's OK. A little strange, but not too bad.
>
> And now the discussion turns to what is wrong with the
> guy who posted the claim that the statue wasn't right...
> and you are an appropriate topic.
Old news. I think the cold winter has taken it's toll.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:09 am
From: "Bowser"
"Caesar Romano" <Spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:eqm31552tg681ep9chsulilrpqmvhji7pf@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:33 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote Re
> Re: It's just wrong:
>
>> BTW, loved Beaufort and SC. Thinking
>>of retiring down there and getting the hell out of Massachusetts.
>
> Have you ever been there during the summer mosquito season?
Not yet. But the summer mosquito season where I live isn't anything to
relish, either. I'll be down there again in August, so maybe I'll get a
chance.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:11 am
From: "Bowser"
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q8p315l18tudf31m3kunf7bs92uq4227rl@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:33 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill" <carver-rem-33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>news:8rh315hg8k5khm6hsg2tgm226u4jvc3iae@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>front
>>>>of
>>>>the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
>>> that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
>>> damn thing that they see or hear.
>>
>>And that's what I wanted to see. I showed this pic to a few friends, and
>>all
>>of them had the same reaction; WTF? It's just a couple of kids. You can
>>read
>>into it what you want, and apparently, provide a glimpse into our minds.
>>
>>>
>>> To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
>>> hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
>>> the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
>>> another person.
>>
>>And you win the prize! Totally agree. BTW, loved Beaufort and SC. Thinking
>>of retiring down there and getting the hell out of Massachusetts.
>
> I guess it was because it was North Carolina, but my first thought was
> that it symbolized desegregated drinking fountains. I wouldn't have
> thought that if there hadn't been an agenda suggested by the post.
There is a Beaufort NC, but this one is in SC. Besides, they pronounce them
differently. Unfortuntely, the pronunciations don't come across clearly on
usenet.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:18 am
From: Paul Heslop
Caesar Romano wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:29:55 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote Re Re: It's just wrong:
>
> >It's a fabulous bit of art.
>
> It's junk.
>
> THIS a fabulousbit of art:
> http://nooblogs.gr/ballas/files/2008/05/michelangelo_david2.jpg
which 'bit' :O)
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:36 am
From: tony cooper
On Tue, 19 May 2009 08:11:19 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:q8p315l18tudf31m3kunf7bs92uq4227rl@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:33 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bill" <carver-rem-33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8rh315hg8k5khm6hsg2tgm226u4jvc3iae@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>>front
>>>>>of
>>>>>the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>
>>>> No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
>>>> that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
>>>> damn thing that they see or hear.
>>>
>>>And that's what I wanted to see. I showed this pic to a few friends, and
>>>all
>>>of them had the same reaction; WTF? It's just a couple of kids. You can
>>>read
>>>into it what you want, and apparently, provide a glimpse into our minds.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
>>>> hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
>>>> the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
>>>> another person.
>>>
>>>And you win the prize! Totally agree. BTW, loved Beaufort and SC. Thinking
>>>of retiring down there and getting the hell out of Massachusetts.
>>
>> I guess it was because it was North Carolina, but my first thought was
>> that it symbolized desegregated drinking fountains. I wouldn't have
>> thought that if there hadn't been an agenda suggested by the post.
>
>There is a Beaufort NC, but this one is in SC. Besides, they pronounce them
>differently. Unfortuntely, the pronunciations don't come across clearly on
>usenet.
There are differences between North and South Carolina, and I do know
one from the other. As far as segregated drinking fountains in the
past, though, they were the same.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:17 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2o-dnbwBWNcJTIzXnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4p2d@giganews.com...
> Bowser wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>> in this sculpture....
>>
>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the mirror.
> I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
> picture, and both of them are male, so if there is a pedophile in the
> photo, it is homosexual one, is it not?
I saw incest too. ;-)
I find it strange that two kids of quite different apparent ages would wear
the same
type/style of clothes unless they were related.
And that bloke with the sandals and knee length shorts adjusting his
spectacles
looks a bit of a shady character, and as for the pervert taking the picture
well
what can one say except lock'em all up ;-)
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:25 am
From: George Kerby
On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6.35@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
"Bowser" <over@the.rainbow> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>
>
> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
> and see what happened. And look what happened!
I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
happened!
"Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:26 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C636C4AD.2A8A7%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
> BoqdnaGzt_s22IzXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>> in this sculpture....
> "Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
> holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the
> fountain.
I find the clothes too similar to be a boy and a girl, the older girl seems
a little flat chested but that could be because 'she' is young, but those
shoes don;t lok
like young girls shoes, and the smaller child lokos quite tall enough to be
able
to take a drink from the fountain themselves.
Do we know the name or title of this statue or the name of the
sculpture/artist whatever.
>
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:35 am
From: George Kerby
On 5/18/09 2:37 PM, in article
f92414d2-b74e-40cd-bb2e-f0232b3c93c2@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 5:59 am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?
>>
>> Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
>> before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
>> anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
>> groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...
>
> Ah, I see!
>
> You mean the culturally-diverse-created world where this supposedly
> moral Christian beauty-contest entrant had done topless photo shoots
> previous to entering the contest, but somehow forgot to mention that
> fact because it would have automatically excluded her from
> competition? (The same world where she's *still* claimimg that she
> didn't know the wind had blown her vest open and her nipples were
> showing? Yeah right...)
>
You obviously have never been on a shoot that involves glamour.
> Or is it the world where she promptly claimed that she'd only lost the
> contest because of her views on gay marrage, and then ignored the
> terms of her contract with the beauty pageant folks to go out and do
> appearences for Fundie groups?
>
You obviously have never had someone challenge your right of opinion.
> No, I don't think "Cultural Diversity" brought about *that* world.
>
You obviously do not have any 'balance' with that small pointed pinhead.
> That's just your every-day right-wing Fundie hypocrisy functioning the
> same way it always does.
>
You obviously are functioning with the same myopic approach to life as your
ilk always does.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 4:39 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Nick Cramer wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>>>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> whisky-dave <whisky- dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with
>>>>> firing a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>>>
>>>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>
>>> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid
>>> about firing a gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>
>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
>> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
>> them.
>
> And the more nearly vertical that bullet is fired into the air, the
> more nearly that terminal velocity will approach the muzzle velocity.
Not so much. No matter what the angle, in a frictionless environment the
terminal velocity will be exactly equal to the muzzle velocity. In the real
world in which friction plays a role, though, General Hatcher researched
this, like he researched many other things involving firearms, and found
that for a 30 caliber bullet the terminal velocity when fired vertically
upward would be around 300 feet per second. While the drag coefficient of
the particular bullet will alter this somewhat, it's not going to make a
huge difference. A larger caliber will come down faster--a .50 caliber
machine gun bullet will come down at around 500 feet per second for example.
Pistol bullets, being in general shorter than rifle bullets of the same
caliber and thus having less mass, will come down a bit more slowly all else
being equal.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:23 am
From: Chris H
In message <20090519025955.218$i5@newsreader.com>, Nick Cramer
<n_cramerSPAM@pacbell.net> writes
>Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> > "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
>> >> "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>> >>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> >>>> whisky-dave <whisky- dave@final.front.ear> writes
>> >>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>
>> >>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>> >>>>> They are aren;t they.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>> >>>
>> >>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with
>> >>> firing a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>> >>
>> >> Because that is criminal and stupid!!
>>
>> > What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about
>> > firing a gun in to the air, he had NO target.
>>
>> The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
>> sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
>> little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
>> them.
>
>And the more nearly vertical that bullet is fired into the air, the more
>nearly that terminal velocity will approach the muzzle velocity.
This is not correct in any shape or form
Upon leaving the muzzle friction and gravity play a part. The bullet
will start to slow as soon as it leaves the barrel.
The nearer the vertical the more direct the effect of gravity and the
faster the bullet slows. When fired horizontal the effect of gravity is
ay 90 degrees and pulls the bullet down but not back.
If fired vertically eventually at some point the bullet will cease
upwards movement.
It will then descend downwards starting from zero accelerating at
32m/s/s to its terminal velocity determined by it's mass and friction
It will achieve nothing like muzzle velocity.
I can post all the maths from by ballistics books if you like? (Seer
and Sierra bullet loading manuals)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:22 am
From: Chris H
In message <gutroq$i4b$3@news.eternal-september.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>
>> I agree. Any idiot can get a gun in the UK. They are very easy to get
>> almost anything from a sub-machine gun to a pistol
>
>The lack of street crime involving guns in the UK seems to indicate that
>this is not the case.
Then as I have suspected you are an idiot.
There is a vast difference between reported gun crime and actual gun
crime and the number of guns in circulation.
Ie the number of guns used in a reported crime.
the number of guns used in a crime (inter gang fighting, muggings etc)
that is not reported.
And the number of illegal guns carried but not actually used (other than
occasionally waving around)
By guns I mean firearms. The UK police sometimes tend to drop air
weapons into the mix depending on what the want to do with the stats
(and they wonder why people don't trust them). .
Talk to the police. I have and do. There is also are hell of a lot more
guns in the UK than there were. Specifically sub-machine guns that were
never legal in the UK.
The Eastern Europeans and Drugs people are even more heavily armed than
before.
It is very easy to get almost any type of illegal firearm in the UK.
Before you quote any government statistics remember the Independent
Office of statistics has already had a go at the government about it's
miss use of statistics. Particularly in respect to the crime figures.
BTW If gun crime is so low why have the numbers of armed officers
increased at such a high rate. (And that had NOTHING to do with
terrorism as we have had terrorism since the early 1960's )
I expect from William an answer like "I know and you are wrong" with no
evidence or credibility what so ever. As he did in his private emails to
me.
I William also set the follow ups to a different NG. I think we have
another troll
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: give it a rest kiddies
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/783a15a6284cbbda?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:13 am
From: "Bowser"
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:77e3ulF1h13p5U3@mid.individual.net...
> How about at least TRYING to act like intelligent adults for a while?
> Quite obviously neither a P&S or a DSLR is going to be what everyone needs
> - if that were so, then one or the other would die. You simply can't
> accept the fact that different folks have different needs and let it go at
> that!
Right. Asking us to be mature. Like asking a starving dog to refuse food.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another source condemns 3:2 format
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/058d826c39e92f11?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:19 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net
On May 19, 5:50 am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
I thought folks had gotten over the "necessity" for 8x10s or 4x5s
years ago. I print my own and print a full frame be it 8x12, 11x17,
12x18 or 16x24. the small print standard at least is 4x6 which is a
2x3 format and most good printers offer 8x12 at least. 8x10 or 16x20
is still good when I'm using a 2 1/4x2 3/4 or 4x5 film. The only group
who hasn't adapted is the cheap frame industry, they tend to ignore
2x3 until they get to a 20x30 poster format. So I print and cut my own
mats and there are plenty of frame dealer where I can get channel
frames of the size I need. This was more of an issue when photo paper
came in 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 etc. Way back when I was in college or
teacher told us to print full frame and that is what we did.
Tom
Tom
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:18 am
From: Don Stauffer
David J Taylor wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> The editorial in Amateur Photographer for May 16th.
>> Maybe condemn is too strong, but it's been clear for too long that the
>> 3:2 or APS-C format (and the so-called, "full frame" 35mm format) is
>> too wide. The 4/3rd ratio is more logical and results in far fewer
>> instances of cropping an image. What good are 12-24 megapixels if you
>> have to hack away 1/4 of them most of the time?
Still leaves 9-18 MP, which should be enough.
>
> Rich,
>
> The format needs to fit the image, so it will (in theory) be different
> for every photo taken, so you will always be cropping and loosing
> pixels. With displays now moving to 16:9 for TV, I would have said that
> 3:2 was too narrow, not too wide!
Yep, I generally crop every picture I mount. Nothing wrong with that.
I have owned cameras with square, 3:2, and several in-between. None is
ever perfect. So what?
>
> A format I've never used is the 2 1/4 inch square format (or any square
> format). Resolves the age-old problem as to whether landscape or
> portrait fits best, and arguable makes the best use of the lens.
>
> David
>
> [cross-posting trimmed]
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Best way to extract single frames from an MPG movie file
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8054fcd174c82258?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:27 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net
On May 19, 7:40 am, Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
> I have a Sony Cypershot (DSC-W150).
>
> Last weekend, we had a birthday party for my grandson. There was a lot
> of fairly fast action, which I tried to capture. Most of the photos
> were blurry, but the movies were pretty good.
>
> Each movie shot produced two files, a large MPG file and a small THM
> file.
>
> Is there a good way to extract a single frame from the movie and make
> it into a still photo? I would appreciate any tutoring on how to do
> this.
>
> Thanks
Any video editing program will let you grab a frame. I use Corel Video
Studio, Adobe Premier Elements also will work. Not sure what is out on
the free world.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:36 am
From: bugbear
tmonego@wildblue.net wrote:
> On May 19, 7:40 am, Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
>> I have a Sony Cypershot (DSC-W150).
>>
>> Last weekend, we had a birthday party for my grandson. There was a lot
>> of fairly fast action, which I tried to capture. Most of the photos
>> were blurry, but the movies were pretty good.
>>
>> Each movie shot produced two files, a large MPG file and a small THM
>> file.
>>
>> Is there a good way to extract a single frame from the movie and make
>> it into a still photo? I would appreciate any tutoring on how to do
>> this.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Any video editing program will let you grab a frame. I use Corel Video
> Studio, Adobe Premier Elements also will work. Not sure what is out on
> the free world.
Any video player with freeze frame + screen shot software would work!
BugBear
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:51 am
From: "David J Taylor"
bugbear wrote:
> tmonego@wildblue.net wrote:
>> On May 19, 7:40 am, Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
>>> I have a Sony Cypershot (DSC-W150).
>>>
>>> Last weekend, we had a birthday party for my grandson. There was a
>>> lot of fairly fast action, which I tried to capture. Most of the
>>> photos were blurry, but the movies were pretty good.
>>>
>>> Each movie shot produced two files, a large MPG file and a small THM
>>> file.
>>>
>>> Is there a good way to extract a single frame from the movie and
>>> make it into a still photo? I would appreciate any tutoring on how
>>> to do this.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Any video editing program will let you grab a frame. I use Corel
>> Video Studio, Adobe Premier Elements also will work. Not sure what
>> is out on the free world.
>
> Any video player with freeze frame + screen shot software would work!
>
> BugBear
Not if the video player talks directly to the video card.
The OP should also be aware that indivdual frames are likely to appear
much noiseier (grainier) than the video, and will have limited resolution,
of course.
I would use IrfanView or Virtual Dub, if no other software was available.
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon A590 - quality a disappointment - lemon, or typical?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bea3b5f0ddccbd2e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:46 am
From: ASAAR
On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:27:04 +0100, bugbear wrote:
> I note your use of the word "apparently"; I would (genuinely)
> welcome any advice on working out if I have an "actual"
> problem, as opposed to an apparent one.
Do some tests. The A590 is a pretty nice camera, but it's not
rare for Canons (even some of their DSLRs) to have sensors that
aren't properly positioned or have other alignment problems. It
should produce pictures competitive with the A630 unless the light
is low, and then it will also focus more slowly and less accurately.
Now that I've looked at your images, I don't think that your A590
is performing below par. Speaking of low light, unlike you, I see
little difference between the crops as far as detail goes except for
the darker area of the tiles. There, it doesn't even seem that the
A590 is lacking detail so much as the color is muddier, which helps
to give the appearance of reduced sharpness. But the A590 uses a
much smaller 1/2.5" sensor compared with the A630's 1/1.8" sensor.
Both are 8mp sensors, so it would be reasonable to assume that the
A630's larger pixels do better because they'd have a better dynamic
range, which would allow it to perform better than the A590 in the
darker shadow regions. In other words, if you gave both cameras
+2.0 exposure compensation (probably blowing highlights and
whitening the blue sky), the A590 would probably put in a better,
similar showing in the shadowy tile areas.
Put the A630's images side by side with those from larger sensor
P&S cameras (such as Panasonic's LX3, Fuji's F100fs, and S100fs) and
the A630's images will also appear worse in the shadow areas. In
other words . . .
> My particular a590 is clearly less good than my particular a630.
> What I need to know is:
>
> Do I have a duff a590 (which needs returning to the retailer), or
> is my a630 an unfair basis for comparison?
By its nature, the A630 is a better camera than the A590, but both
are very good for their class, and your A590 is being unfairly
compared. Keep the A590. I don't think a replacement would perform
any better. If your tests showed similar results from both cameras,
I'd worry about what might be wrong with your A630. :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 5:56 am
From: chrisj.doran@proemail.co.uk
On 19 May, 12:11, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-
part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
> > chrisj.do...@proemail.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 15 May, 21:20, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com> wrote:
> >>>http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>
> >>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt
> >>> seem to appear that he did anything wrong.
>
> >> The case was thrown out:
> >>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Greek_photographer_Tube_pho...
>
> > Thanks for the followup.
>
> > BugBear
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> I sometimes wonder how I would deal with police, who perhaps have strong
> local accents, and who were addressing me in a foreign language?
>
> David
When I was challenged, we played verbal ping-pong with: them, "It's
against the law to photograph children" and me, "There is no such law"
and they eventually let me go after giving me a PNC check and
verifying that I was one of the organisers of the public event I was
photographing (not that that mattered). But we were all speaking the
same language, and I knew the UK legal position. It would be a
different matter with a foreign language and unknown laws.
Chris
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:02 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:odn215tal6tjfquneq6r9rhlbaurmneur7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 11:43:43 +0100, "whisky-dave"
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
>>> man claiming to be the girl's father pursued the Greek photographer
>>> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
>>> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>>> 'public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>>
>>Was this person that claimed to be her father her father.
>
> That's standard newspaper practice: using "alleged" or "claiming to
> be" when they don't know for sure. The man said he was the father,
> but the newspaper couldn't verify this, so they used "claiming to be".
> It's not really indicative of anything shady. It protects them if the
> man is just the partner of the mother and the real - biological -
> father makes a fuss about someone else being identified as the father.
>
> Newspapers are silly this way. They'll write "The alleged thief was
> arrested..." even if there are 100 witnesses and the act was caught on
> film. Their reasoning is that the person is not a thief until he is
> convicted in court.
Oh OK I understand that I wonder how the photographer knew that the women
that was complaining that he was taking photos of her daughter knew she was
indeed her daughter.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, May 19 2009 6:05 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4A117BDE.AF6385EB@blueyonder.co.uk...
> bugbear wrote:
>>
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> > nailer wrote:
>> >> what was family's ethnic background?
>> >
>> > why?
>>
>> Because if you're trying to be sensitive to someone's
>> cultural mores, you have to know WHICH culture they belong to.
>>
>> Bugbear
>
> ah... but some of us don't worry about these things, we just try to
> get along with everyone on an even surface. it would be nice to not
> have to wonder who or what we are going to upset every time we do
> something.
>
yes it seems here in the UK in order to follow equality
you have to treat everyone differently according to their gender, racial
or religious background :)
==============================================================================
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