~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob" <luna5nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:H3A9i.3$WP5.0@newsfe02.lga...
> "The WoodMitch Shop" <mitchell@cwo.com> wrote in message
> news:1369bljip0ar803@corp.supernews.com...
>> On eBay, No Reserve, opening today at only $9.00.
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=300118256689&rd=1&rd=1
> Great speakers...I have had a pair for almost 30 years...still sound really
> good.
> Bob
If these are the version with the soft black dome tweeters
(rather than the Phillips recessed tweeter with the spider
protector), I agree. This speaker and the first Polk 7
(two fuses on the back instead of one) are two of the
best relatively low-priced speakers ever, I think. Real
classics, and fun to listen to (very "musical", with no
annoying flaws that eventually get to the listener...).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message news:fLOdndxb9LHW7_DbnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@comcast.com...
> Does anyone know where I can find pictures of tits boobs knockers jugs
> headlights big and small? No? What about tits live webcams boobs all
> naturals? Or not naturals, who am I kidding, I'm not the discriminating
> type.
> ;-)
Neither am I, but probably for a different reason...;-)
Speaking of which, I was at the local art museum and
turned around from a giant hand-colored photo of a
junked Cadillac, to be surprised to find myself next to
a very "photo-realistic" sculpture of a naked woman on
a chair. Hmmm... Great photo-op for some, I guess...;-)
> (time to build some subject line filters, I guess)
> --
> www.mattclara.com
Yes.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dejola" <johnandjanet@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1181911164.391397.113260@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I just bought a used Sony 36XBR400 TV which is HDTV capable.
Whew, these are expensive! Coulda had a nice big flat panel
TV instead...! ;-)
> Connected
> the HDTV Converter provided by Optimum (Cablevision) and it works. But
> I have two problems. #1. There are horizontal black bands above and
> below the picture on HD programming. Is there any way to get rid of
> them or is this just the nature of the beast;
HDTV is 16x9 proportion; your TV is 4x3. Some cable box remotes
do let you enlarge the image to fit top to bottom, but at the price of
losing the sides. This at least keeps proportions of the parts of the image
correct, unlike the sidways stretching of 4x3 images to fill 16x9 screens...;-)
> #2 Two nights ago I
> watched programming on all of the available HD channels (700 series of
> channels) and they looked great. Last night, however, when I tried to
> do the same thing on most of the channels the picture was a still
> picture but with audio. I had regular moving video on only one or two
> of the HD channels.
> Can anyone help?
Probably best to contact your cable company, though it may be a
TV problem (but some TV remotes have a "freeze" button - check
yours...). Also (nothing to do with this) have them be sure that your
cable box is set to accept 1080i signals - it is surprising how many
people who should know better are watching upsampled 480i
signals unintentionally, thinking they are HD...;-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message news:150620071142266094%not@aol.com...
> In article <1181919423.994873.69280@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> davek57 <davek57@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a D50 and love its light weight and stellar metering. But I'm
>> not sure it's a combat-ready body. I'm considering the D80 for its
>> better metering, or the D200 so I don't have to worry about bonking it
>> about. Any thoughts, opinions, watch-outs would be helpful.
> The largest difference between the D50 and the 80/200 is the improved
> viewfinder. The biggest plus to the D200 is a sturdier body, but it's
> at the cost of about 1/2 lb. weight - and somewhere around 300 bucks.
The D200 can also meter with MF Nikkors, important for those of
us with large collections of these (unlikely true for the OP, though - but
there are many fine used MF Nikkors available at good prices).
> You really shouldn't be banging them around anyway; much as I like the
> D200 I think the D80 is a better value.
And I prefer its smaller size and lower weight in addition to its "lighter"
price...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message news:fh4673t7agcl31lqatk679f9uvfu2nt0b8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote:
>>> The largest difference between the D50 and the 80/200 is the improved
>>> viewfinder. The biggest plus to the D200 is a sturdier body, but it's
>>> at the cost of about 1/2 lb. weight - and somewhere around 300 bucks.
>>The D200 can also meter with MF Nikkors, important for those of
>>us with large collections of these (unlikely true for the OP, though - but
>>there are many fine used MF Nikkors available at good prices).
> I have a D200 and I do not have any old lens. The camera is heavy. Because
> of this I'm considering downgrading to a D80. Or wait for the D80
> successor. My suggestion to the OP is to only buy a D200 if you have old
> lens.
>
> David. I was up in Ithaca this past weekend. I did take some pictures.
> Eventually I'll get them on the web. I tried getting some birds in
> Sapsucker Woods, but 300 equivalent is not enough when out in the woods.
>
> Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms)
The "nasty joke" around here is that the bird sanctuaries don't have any
birds in them - we go to them for the beautiful woods and board-walks
over swamps...;-) Cornell's "Bird Lab" is a great one, though, with a
wonderful collection of bird and other sounds. Cornell's gardens and
plantations are also notable and we visit them often, but the main attractions
are the countless multitudes of waterfalls and the glens and gorges all
over the place (I also like the rolling hills and farmlands) - with four
amazing state parks in Ithaca and another in nearby Watkins Glen. I
think this area should have been a national park - its scenic feature
density and numbers exceed those of several eastern national parks,
with only Maine's Acadia and New York's Niagara Falls really able
to compete with this area for number of natural items to see (and one
of our waterfalls is considerably higher than Niagara, with two others
close...;-). The scenery is why I kept returning to Ithaca to live and
finally "stuck" here, even though the weather is terrible...;-) BTW,
if you return to Ithaca and aren't familiar with the area, holler and I can
tell you the best places to go (but not for birds - the dumpster at the
old Bird Lab used to be the best place for that...;-).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dicko" <drwho@universalclock.com> wrote in message news:m7fa73tm0f4le04rhj3v0hggmurpr6qrbq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:54:04 -0700, "<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com>
> wrote:
>>I was watching a re-run of CSI Miami,
>>and I marvelled at the intense, saturated colors.
>>
>>Is this done 'with filters",
>>or "with computer program" ?
>>
>>How could I get this effect in my pics ?
>>Any speculation ?
>>
>><rj>
> I stopped watching the show because of those colors. I kept wanting
> to gouge my eyes out. It is so totally unnatural.
>
> dickm
Ah, but oh so "purdy" on my TV! (A really sharp 42" LCD with
excellent color, viewed close.) Beautiful visual technique, I think,
and things like "tobacco" filters and boosted saturations that I
usually dislike are used to good effect. No, it's not "realistic"
(no representation really is, so you may as well have fun with
it...;-), but it is very involving visually. My only peeve with the
CSI Miami visuals (BTW, the sound is also excellent) is that
air views of the city are almost always slightly tilted clockwise.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message news:137auvv4jnavdf1@corp.supernews.com...
> dicko wrote:
>> I stopped watching the show because of those colors. I kept wanting
>> to gouge my eyes out. It is so totally unnatural.
>>
>> dickm
> I couldn't agree more regarding that "Miami" pseudo-color. A Sunset or a
> dawn is one thing, but when all scenes are given the treatment it is
> unwatchable.
> The other factor making CSI Miami unwatchable is the Caruso presence.
> What drama school teaches THAT method?
>
> 'duck
Methinks you have missed the point of CSI Miami's characteristics.
It is a *stylistic* (not realistic) exercise! The acting, characters,
lighting, effects, camera angles, music, sound, and (preposterous)
technological marvels displayed in this show all clearly point to this.
Enjoy it all as parts of very pretty fairy tales (though the stories are
also good...;-). It is soap opera at its VERY best, on all levels! ;-)
If you want "realistic" (not really possible for any show - all
representations of reality must be incomplete/faulty...), try Law
and Order - but I will continue to enjoy the additional entertainment
content offered by CSI Miami...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"george" <nowhereman@only4news.com> wrote in message news:LzUci.34$5Q.30@newsfe06.lga...
> How about the people who "cherry pick" lenses? I've seen postings from
> people who've said that they've purchased four (and returned three)
> "samples" of a particular lens before they got a "good one". Should you
> take the first one and deal with warranty service to "make it good"???
I do test all new purchases - lenses do vary, and some are inherently
sub-par regardless of samples by my standards. I do not generally
buy more than one sample, but if it shows poor opposite corner/edge
agreement under the identical conditions (poor alignment), I return it
for exchange until I get one that is well aligned. If poor alignment is not
an issue, but poor performance is (at reasonable stops for the lens type),
I usually give up and return it for refund. Using poor or defective lenses
is not acceptable to me (see here to see what a nut I am about this:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html ;-).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warning: This Nutty Bigoted NG Spammer Is Back - Ignore Him!
This jerk is back, spamming many NGs again with this bigoted crap!
Just a suggestion: that it may be best to ignore him (and hope that he
gets help...). Unfortunately, in unmoderated groups the crazies with
their OT crud cannot be prevented from posting - but we can just
not engage them in what almost invariably turns out to be one way
exchanges with illogical nonsense on their parts. Too bad some
people cannot think beyond their own prejudices...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:J%gei.15360$2v1.10459@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>I recently obtained a Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS lens. That's about 200mm on a
> D200 DSLR. Here's my observations:
[...]
> 2) It's not very sharp, at least wide open which is the only reason I'd
> use it. That's OK for portraits & that whole soft dreamy look. Sharper
> would be nicer but the new version is mucho more expensive & this was a
> fairly cheap old beater.
Here's what I have to say about it on my Nikkor comparison list at
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
"heavy and large, very sharp center to corner at f2 at mid to long distances
but with some very slight field curvature barely detectable at wide stops
near infinity; performance is poor near minimum focus at wide stops (both
conditions together), otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open" - and
I rate it "4.9" beyond about 10' (almost as good as any lens gets), "3" at
minimum focus (almost the worst of any Nikkor at any distance), with
three samples checked. This is FF on film (and BTW, I have one FS...;-).
I think you got a lemon (you did say it was a beater...) - this lens is
normally, used with an understanding of its shortcoming, really excellent!)
> 4) It doesn't focus very close (4-1/2 feet) and Bjorn R's review says
> it's at it's worst sharpness at close focus. A head portrait is near the
> closest focus. Anything past 25 feet or so and the ability to fully blur
> out the background diminishes so it's a pretty specialized niche lens.
Hey, B. R. agrees with me (as he often does...;-).
And at - http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Bjorn Rorslett says
about this lens, "I recently reran tests with the 135/2 on my D2X and
was actually quite surprised and pleased by the results. Image sharpness
at closer range still needed some stopping down (to f/4) to get really
crisp, but for distant subjects, I found the 135/2 capable of delivering
quite sharp images even set wide open." The lens is useful for minimizing
DOF at 20+' on film, and is useful when speed is useful at greater
distances (i.e., for night, aerial, sports, etc. shooting), and for soft
portraits close in, or for sometimes-interesting foliage/flower photos.
A sharp macro lens it is not...;-)
[...]
> 5) The focus ring is very stiff. This lens ain't for action shooting but
> I suppose it was intentional, so that you can tune the focus in very
> precisely & have it stay put. It's not too hard to see where you are
> focused at a longer focal length like this with such a bright view.
[...]
> --
> Paul Furman Photography
They appear to all be somewhat stiff in focus (but should be smooth).
I guess that is so they hold focus when pointed up or down - the lens
is heavy. I would try another sample...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message news:uIBei.2031$iz5.915@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
>> I figured out an objective way to judge sharpness ...
> A resolution target? ?? ???
>
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
>
> The Sunday classifieds tacked to the wall?
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Maybe if you tacked enough of them up so you could get far enough
away to get into the 135mm f2's good-performance distance range,
and you were VERY sure your axial alignment was correct (not easy...).
I find shooting targets often misleading as tests for showing what lenses
do when shooting at more usual distances. I prefer using familiar finely-
detailed infinity targets (with the camera in different orientations
relative to the subject with all controls locked) that removes the
alignment/distance problems and show how "real" subject material
looks in the image...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:467a91bb$0$22433$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 8:24 am, DeanB <deanbrow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I don't understand this:
>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
>>>
>>>Why is it the 14mm lense has a 114 degree FOV, while the 16mm has a
>>>full 180? Is there something special about fisheye lenses (the 16mm in
>>>this case) vs. non-fisheye?
There are various types of perspectives (rectangular, spherical,
orthographic, reverse-spherical, cylindrical, isometric (one best
approximated with very long telephotos, as in old Japanese
paintings and drawings of buildings made without perspective
effects), etc. In all, made by all lenses, the focal lengths are rated
similarly (by the distance of the lens optical center from the
sensor at infinity focus) - but the perspective types (and distortions
within the perspective types caused by lens design shortcomings)
may cause straight lines of subjects running off axis of the image
center (of an unshifted lens relative to the sensor) to be curved,
which causes a shift in image magnification away from the center
of the image, sometimes permitting a greater angle of view to be
photographed using some lens perspective types. Or, a truly
"distortion-free" rectangular-perspective type of lens will show
the same magnification in the center as a truly "distortion-free"
spherical-perspective type of lens (fisheye) of the same FL, but
as you look away from the image center, the fisheye will show
increasingly less subject magnification, and therefore more
included subject area (a greater angle of view).
>> Indeed, when we get to extreme fisheyes, the idea of focal length
>> controlling field of view breaks down.
Not really - see above...
>> In order to truly get 180
>> degree FOV with conventional optics, it would take zero focal length,
>> which is of course impossible. So extreme fisheye lenses MUST have
>> distortion.
Not "distortion", but a different set of perspective rules - see above...
>> Effectively, the focal length is not constant with field
>> angle. That "distortion" gives the field of view at the more extreme
>> field angles.
> One other possibility is that the 14mm f/2.8D ED AF isn't a full frame
> lens, as this isn't specifically mentioned in the description for this lens.
It is full-frame...
> The 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-Nikkor is specifically described as having
> "Full frame 180 degree fisheye coverage...", so I can only guess from
> this that it will definitely cover the whole 24x36mm 135 film frame.
It will...
> Another possible reason for the 14mm f/2.8D ED AF not being as "wide" as
> the 16mm lens is that it might be a rectilinear (distortion corrected) lens.
> This tends to "stretch out" the edges of the image to make objects
> appear the same size at the same distance regardless of how off-axis it
> is and make the angular coverage less than a non-rectilinear lens.
Ah, close - but it doesn't really "stretch-out" the image edges. Try
a pinhole camera - it renders perfect rectangular perspective, but has
no optics to "stretch" things...;-)
> I don't have either lens and can't do anything other than speculate.
>
> Perhaps looking through pbase.com for images tagged as being made with
> these lenses will answer this aspect of the question?
See above...;-) I also have an article, "On Seeing and Perspective" on
my web page, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective
in which I try to explain how we see, and in which perspective type (it
may surprise you, but it is easy to prove that we see in spherical
perspective...;-).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:f5e78m$9jm$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "DeanB" <deanbrown3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182432267.686836.119360@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>I don't understand this:
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
>>
>> Why is it the 14mm lense has a 114 degree FOV, while the 16mm has a
>> full 180? Is there something special about fisheye lenses (the 16mm in
>> this case) vs. non-fisheye?
> See my post below...
Oooops! Shoulda been, "above"...;-)
But it got me thinking - and I will probably add an article on my web
page next to "On Seeing and Perspective" called "On Lenses and
Perspective Types" (at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message news:rvFei.3232$Rw1.2205@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message
> news:234vdj2s5fr9tgsp7idlgv4ip4@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>> In article <f5e78m$9jm$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
>> David Ruether <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>"DeanB" <deanbrown3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1182432267.686836.119360@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>I don't understand this:
>>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
>>>>
>>>> Why is it the 14mm lense has a 114 degree FOV, while the 16mm has a
>>>> full 180? Is there something special about fisheye lenses (the 16mm in
>>>> this case) vs. non-fisheye?
>>>See my post [above...]
>> Do you know if there is standard formula for fisheyes?
There must be, but I don't know what it would be - though Nikon
made two FF fisheye designs, both rated as 16mm. One covers
180 degrees, but the other covers 170 degrees (maybe due to
inaccuracies in FL rating?). Some other mfgrs. rate their FF 35mm
fisheyes as 15mm lenses. I think technically the spherical perspective
type may be defined as one in which as the lens is rotated, a subject
element at the image edge is rendered the same size in the middle
of the image, unlike for rectangular perspective lenses where it will
reduce in size under the same conditions...
>> For rectilinear lenses it is easy: just imagine a pinhole at the focal
>> length distance of the sensor, and you can compute the projection.
>>
>> For fisheyes, I never found an obvious way to translate focal length into
>> field of view.
See above for a possibility, though optical designs could easily
introduce slight variations on it...
> Doesn't a fish-eye lens really have a very large amount of pincushion
> distortion?
I think you meant "barrel"...;-)
> It looks to me like computing the angle of view is not such a simple task.
> Jim
Probably not hard if the lens designer designed a true spherical
perspective lens - but impossible otherwise...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:1182520323.845408.184720@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 21, 8:22 pm, "Jim" <j...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't a fish-eye lens really have a very large amount of pincushion
>> distortion? ["barrel" and "distortion" - both I think are incorrect...]
>> It looks to me like computing the angle of view is not such a simple task.
>> Jim
> Indeed, it MUST. Otherwise either the focal length must be zero or
> the format size infinite. Now, distortion is a variation in focal
> length with field angle.
Only if you recognize as "correct" the perspective type "rectangular",
and then apply its rules to fisheyes - but there are other perspective
types that are correct (spherical, orthographic, isometric, etc.), and
lenses that accurately follow these are not "distorted"...
> In a true 180 degree lens the focal length
> must change from whatever it is at small field angles to zero as the
> field angle approaches 90 degrees.
This cannot be true, since that would indicate that there could be
no discernable detail (zero magnification of image parts at 180
degrees...), and one can easily see detail at the edge of coverage
of lenses that cover 180 degrees (or even more, like the 6.2mm
Nikkor, with 220 degrees of coverage).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:467bdbe5$0$22423$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>>>Do you know if there is standard formula for fisheyes?
>>>
>>>For rectilinear lenses it is easy: just imagine a pinhole at the focal
>>>length distance of the sensor, and you can compute the projection.
>>>
>>>For fisheyes, I never found an obvious way to translate focal length into
>>>field of view.
>> But to get true 180 degrees the pinhole would have to be of infinitely
>> thin material. That is, the length of the pinhole itself must be
>> zero, i.e., zero thickness aperture stop (pinhole) material. For a
>> true rectilinear lens the extreme field ray leaves the pinhole
>> PARALLEL to the aperture stop plane (the material the pinhole is in).
>> Thus unless the format size is infinite, the focal length (distance
>> between pinhole/stop) and focal plane must be ZERO.
There is also the matter of rapid illumination roll-off away from the
image center that makes super-wide flat sensor pinhole cameras
impractical (but, see below...).
> In practice, it isn't possible to have a 180 degree field of view captured.
> It's possible to get very close, by curving the film plane (for example
> into a **semi-circle**) so that the ends are very close to the panel with
> the pinhole in it.
> Something like this (excuse the ascii art):
>
> /pinhole
> /
> V
> _________________ _________________
>
> * *
> * *
> ** **
> ** **
> *** ***
> **** **** <---film
>
> I don't know what the image would look like when developed and printed,
> perhaps distorted like a fisheye lens would make?
It is easy to imagine (and I used to shoot paper in a camera like this,
but I added a single glass lens element taped behind the pinhole - it
appeared to improve image quality some) if you have ever seen images
taken with a camera with a rotating lens. BTW, this adds one more
perspective type, "cylindrical"...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:467c804c$0$22462$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:467bdbe5$0$22423$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> <snip>
>>>In practice, it isn't possible to have a 180 degree field of view captured.
>>>It's possible to get very close, by curving the film plane (for example
> >>into a **semi-circle**) so that the ends are very close to the panel with
> >>the pinhole in it.
>>>Something like this (excuse the ascii art):
>>>
>>> /pinhole
>>> /
>>> V
>>> _________________ _________________
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> *** ***
>>> **** **** <---film
>>> ***** *****
>>>
>>>I don't know what the image would look like when developed and printed,
> >>perhaps distorted like a fisheye lens would make?
>> It is easy to imagine (and I used to shoot paper in a camera like this,
>> but I added a single glass lens element taped behind the pinhole - it
>> appeared to improve image quality some) if you have ever seen images
>> taken with a camera with a rotating lens. BTW, this adds one more
>> perspective type, "cylindrical"...;-)
> How did you orient the extra lens and how did it effect the image?
I taped the magnifying glass lens (checked to see that it had an infinity
focus FL that would bring its focus maybe 1/3rd in front of the furthest
area of the "film" - with the tiny aperture taking care of DOF) centered
on the rear of the thin material I made the pinhole in (probably a piece
tin can lid, punched to make a dimple, then sanded to make a very thin
point through which a number 10 needle could be poked - and I cleaned
the hole's edges afterward). I used to take it outside with a piece of
grade 1 5X7 paper loaded, shoot it, then go back to the nearby
darkroom to process it. The original negatives were kinda nice, and
good contact prints could also be made (not the very highest technical
quality possible, but the camera cost only a couple of dollars to make
out of illustration board, glue, and tape - and the results could be
pleasing). One could argue that the lens wasn't needed, but it seemed
to help...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:467e166d$0$29004$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 9:25 am, dj_nme <dj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>>>>>Do you know if there is standard formula for fisheyes?
>>>>>
>>>>>For rectilinear lenses it is easy: just imagine a pinhole at the focal
>>>>>length distance of the sensor, and you can compute the projection.
>>>>>For fisheyes, I never found an obvious way to translate focal length into
>>>>>field of view.
>>>>But to get true 180 degrees the pinhole would have to be of infinitely
>>>>thin material. That is, the length of the pinhole itself must be
>>>>zero, i.e., zero thickness aperture stop (pinhole) material. For a
>>>>true rectilinear lens the extreme field ray leaves the pinhole
>>>>PARALLEL to the aperture stop plane (the material the pinhole is in).
>>>>Thus unless the format size is infinite, the focal length (distance
>>>>between pinhole/stop) and focal plane must be ZERO.
>>>In practice, it isn't possible to have a 180 degree field of view captured.
>>>It's possible to get very close, by curving the film plane (for example
>>>into a semi-circle) so that the ends are very close to the panel with
>>>the pinhole in it.
>>>Something like this (excuse the ascii art):
>>>
>>> /pinhole
>>> /
>>> V
>>> _________________ _________________
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> ** **
>>> ** **
>>> *** ***
>>> *** ***
>>> **** **** <---film
>>> ***
>>>
>>>I don't know what the image would look like when developed and printed,
>>>perhaps distorted like a fisheye lens would make?
>> Unfortunately, while that IS possible with film cameras, mass produced
>> silicon chips are flat, so it will not work with a mass-produced
>> silicon camera. it still requires a non-rectilinear lens, however,
>> since the aperture stop plate cannot be zero thickness (though it can
>> be close).
>> Actually, there were film cameras made that could produce a 360 degree
>> panorama, using a periscopic lens arrangement. One could make such a
>> camera using silicon chips, but it is very much a custom thing, not
>> something you're likely to see off-the-shelf.
> Do you mean a digital version of a KMZ Horizont (or Horizon)?
> The film gate of that is curved into a semicircle, so I don't know if
> there is a manufacturer of curved CMOS or CCD sensors that could make
> this into a reality.
No - a camera that looks up toward a rotated-parabolic(?) mirror
surface (with short end down, pointed at the lens). The result is a
doughnut-shaped 360 degree image that can then be processed
to other formats, if desired. A curved digital sensor would have
problems with needing to expose its parts smoothly sequentially,
as is done with rotating-lens film cameras, but I suppose this
could be done...(?)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[This article will soon appear on my web page in the articles
section at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html, but
I include it here since there has been so much recent discussion
(and misconception...) here on the topic - though this version
has been changed to agree with the web version...]
"On Lenses and Perspective Types"
There are several types of lens and image perspectives.
Some of these are rectangular, spherical, reverse
spherical, orthographic, cylindrical, and isometric.
The pure rectangular perspective type can be defined as
one in which straight subject lines remain straight in
the image regardless of how the lens is turned (but, in
common with most other perspective types, subject element
sizes in the image will not remain constant as the lens
is turned). An example of a camera that makes perfect
rectangular perspective images is the pinhole camera.
The pure spherical perspective type can be described as
one in which small subject elements remain the same size
in the image regardless of how the lens is turned on its
axis, and all subject straight lines off axis of the lens
will curve away from the image center, progressively more
the further they are from the lens axis. A lens with
moderate spherical perspective (or it may be full, but
with only a small part of the full perspective area
being used to make the image) is said to have "barrel
distortion", but this may not truly be distortion (it
may be just unwanted). This is most common in many wide
angles, some fast normal lenses, and most zooms toward
the shorter focal length ("FL") ends of their zoom
ranges.
A rectangular perspective lens will show the same
magnification of a small subject element placed in
the image center as will a spherical perspective lens
(fisheye) of the same FL with the same object placed
at the same distance from it (this is also true for
the other perspective types), but as one looks away
from the lens image centers (without rotating the
lenses) at a series of identical objects placed in
planes perpendicular to the axes of the lenses, the
fisheye will show progressively decreasing off axis
subject magnification and the rectangular perspective
lens will show constant magnification of these same
subject elements. Therefore, there must be more included
subject area (a greater angle of view) with the fisheye
compared with a rectangular perspective lens of the
same FL. A fisheye lens can even have a wider angle of
view than a rectangular perspective lens with a shorter
focal length.
A reverse spherical perspective type of lens will show
straight subject lines as straight lines in the image
only so long as they pass through the optical axis of
the lens and image center (with an unshifted lens) - but
this characteristic of showing straight image lines of
straight subject lines that cross the image center is
true for all of the perspective types. Also, off-axis
subject straight lines will curve inward toward the image
center, progressively more the further they are from the
image center. Image edge magnification of subject
elements will increase, reducing the angle of view. This
type of perspective is most often seen in modest amounts
(called "pincushion distortion") with some telephotos
and with most zooms toward the longer FL ends of their
zoom ranges.
An orthographic perspective type of lens shares many
of the characteristics of the spherical type, but its
off-axis curvature is somewhat more mild over most of
the image area, and then more extreme toward the image
edge.
Panoramic cameras that use swinging lenses shooting
through slits (which are generally used as a focal-plane
type of shutter) onto curved film produce a cylindrical
type of perspective, defined as one that shows straight
subject lines as straight in the image that are parallel
with the slit, but as curved lines in other axes. These
can produce very wide but natural-looking landscape and
cityscape photographs if handled well. In digital,
stitching of several images shot in a sequence along
one axis can approximate this perspective type.
Isometric projection has essentially no perspective (and
no curvature of subject straight lines in the image).
The effect can be approximated by the use of VERY long
telephoto lenses, which appear to "smash" everything
together into one plane, with no differentiations due
to distance size relationships (everything appears to
be in the same scale, regardless of distance). This can
also be seen in old Japanese paintings and drawings of
buildings, often viewed from above.
These various perspective types may cause straight lines
of subjects running off axis of the image center (of
an unshifted lens relative to the sensor or film) to be
curved, which results in a shift in image magnification
away from the center of the image. This results in
greater or lesser angles of view being photographed under
the same conditions with different lenses of the same
FLs (but with different lens perspective types) on the
same camera. Usually the angle of view differences are
subtle (with the visible curvature of straight subject
lines being perhaps not so subtle) except with fisheye
lenses. Using the same lens on different formats and/or
camera types will result in different angles of view
being photographed (i.e., a 65mm FL lens is a super wide
on a 4x5 camera and on a 120 swing-lens panorama camera;
a moderate wide angle on a 2 1/4 square format; a longish
normal lens on 35mm; a short tele on most dSLRs; and a
long tele on most consumer Mini-DV camcorders).
In all images, made by all lenses, the focal lengths are
rated similarly (by the distances of the lens' optical
centers from the sensors at infinity focus). This
number, in millimeters, is used in combination with
the sensor format diagonal dimension and perspective
type to get an idea of what the resultant angle of view
is. Complicating this, though, is that many lenses are
not accurately rated for FL, may change FL with focus
(many zooms and macro lenses do this), and/or do not
accurately follow their perspective types - and sometimes
perspective types may be combined in one image, as with
the "wavy-line" or "moustache" rendering of straight
lines (combining spherical and reverse spherical
perspectives) toward the image edges of some wide
angles and zooms.
For more, see my article, "On Seeing and Perspective".
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton@verizon.not> wrote in message news:1Z9fi.408$RZ1.114@trnddc05...
> David wrote on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:30:04 -0400:
>> I just put up below - "On Lenses and Perspective Types" -
>> this should answer this and other posts in this thread
>> (and even more...;-) --DR
[I just modified it again, and it is "generic", not Nikon-specific, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#perspective-types]
> I know this does not concern Nikon wide-angle lenses but does
> anyone remember the moving-lens cameras used for group
> photographs? Perhaps, professional photographers still use them
> but I've not had the opportunity to check. There was a story
> that if you ran fast you could be on both sides of the same
> picture :-)
> James Silverton
Versions of these are still made - which use either 120 or 35mm
film (kinda hard to still find the enormous rolls of film the antique
versions used...;-).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Bobert" <nobody@nowhere.nowhow> wrote in message news:nobody-731F7E.15422620062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>I can get a Sony Camcorder at the employee discount price.
> I am looking at both HD and Tape models.
>
> My question is about the recording media. Are hard drives more delicate
> than tape? I know neither will take a big bump, but would, say, when
> falling off a table or chair or car seat damage the HD before it would the
> Tape.
>
> I don't plan to be rough with either, but which is the most durable?
>
> I'm leaning toward Tape because it has been around longer, and seems it
> would be more durable than a HD.
[...]
As others noted, this is not a video NG - but being a video
nut also (see my web page for much on it...), I will respond.
The image quality for tape is better than for hd or disk
camcorders, assuming equal quality cameras. There are few
problems with tape if reasonable care is taken with it - and
it is so easy to upload raw footage to computers, edit it,
and download the results back to tape for archiving without
quality loss. It's a "no-brainer", unless you just want instant
results and won't edit much...
(BTW, I have some excellent low-use LN thoroughly
tested Sony camcorders FS at -
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm )
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1182452997.597104.210620@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> The image quality for tape is better than for hd or disk
>> camcorders, assuming equal quality cameras.
>> --DR
> How can image quality possibly differ when each media is digital?
Imagine one system that records in 60x80 pixel frames at 20x
compression vs. another that records in 2800x3600 pixel frames
at 1X compression - all digital...;-) But in the media in this thread,
the compression systems are different.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jon Burke" <jon.burke50@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:r%Aei.984$KE1.124@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> I recently took some shots at 40th birthday celebration, an afternoon tea at
> a grand hotel. The room we were in was quite dark; all wood panel and dark
> leather sofas, with no natural light. As a tripod was out of the question I
> knew flash was the way to go. Although some pics are bright enough, on most
> the colour is quite washed out.
>
> I feel like I can salvage a few shots with some editing, but any advice on
> how I can cut down on this happening in the first place would be greatly
> appreciated.
If your camera does not adjust its output according to distance,
it does it with subject reflectivity. If most of your subject is very
dark-toned, it will render the tones closer to middle grey, over
exposing the photos (just as in the reverse situation where I suspect
your camera may underexpose snow scenes, trying to make the
wide areas of white also grey). Exposure meters are dumb, so if
the predominant tonality of the subjects in the frame is unusual (not
close to medium-toned), exposure compensation may be needed.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message news:srhi-6CF5EE.06175522062007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <r%Aei.984$KE1.124@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
> "Jon Burke" <jon.burke50@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I recently took some shots at 40th birthday celebration, an afternoon tea at
>> a grand hotel. The room we were in was quite dark; all wood panel and dark
>> leather sofas, with no natural light. As a tripod was out of the question I
>> knew flash was the way to go. Although some pics are bright enough, on most
>> the colour is quite washed out.
>>
>> I feel like I can salvage a few shots with some editing, but any advice on
>> how I can cut down on this happening in the first place would be greatly
>> appreciated.
> What kind of flash and camera did you use? Ideally, you would put an
> opaque shield over your flash (I forget what those things are called) to
> soften the light. When you are shooting in the direction of highly
> reflective objects, it might also be helpful to aim the flash up and
> bounce the light off the ceiling.
Hmmm....;-) I don't think you meant "opaque" ("doesn't pass light"),
but "diffusing"...;-) But, this misconception has existed "forever and
a day" in photography - but what counts is not diffusion, but the true
relative size of the light source - which can be increased by good use
of a large reflector or diffuser that is truly larger than the flash alone
(like bouncing its light off the ceiling, using an umbrella, or even using
a large Styrofoam cup over an upturned flash). I think, though, the
OP's problems arose from shooting dark subjects and not
compensating the exposure to maintain proper darkness in the image,
as I pointed out in a post above...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:uhaq731o9hskpd77kte211s2g2oavlo36a@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:17:07 -0400, "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu>
> wrote:
> : "Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in message news:srhi-6CF5EE.06175522062007@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> : > In article <r%Aei.984$KE1.124@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
> : > "Jon Burke" <jon.burke50@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> : >> I recently took some shots at 40th birthday celebration, an afternoon tea at
> : >> a grand hotel. The room we were in was quite dark; all wood panel and dark
> : >> leather sofas, with no natural light. As a tripod was out of the question I
> : >> knew flash was the way to go. Although some pics are bright enough, on most
> : >> the colour is quite washed out.
> : >>
> : >> I feel like I can salvage a few shots with some editing, but any advice on
> : >> how I can cut down on this happening in the first place would be greatly
> : >> appreciated.
> : > What kind of flash and camera did you use? Ideally, you would put an
> : > opaque shield over your flash (I forget what those things are called) to
> : > soften the light. When you are shooting in the direction of highly
> : > reflective objects, it might also be helpful to aim the flash up and
> : > bounce the light off the ceiling.
> : Hmmm....;-) I don't think you meant "opaque" ("doesn't pass light"),
> : but "diffusing"...;-) But, this misconception has existed "forever and
> : a day" in photography - but what counts is not diffusion, but the true
> : relative size of the light source - which can be increased by good use
> : of a large reflector or diffuser that is truly larger than the flash alone
> : (like bouncing its light off the ceiling, using an umbrella, or even using
> : a large Styrofoam cup over an upturned flash). I think, though, the
> : OP's problems arose from shooting dark subjects and not
> : compensating the exposure to maintain proper darkness in the image,
> : as I pointed out in a post above...
> Actually, the word I think Shawn wanted is "translucent", a term that
> describes the transnission characteristics of most diffusers. But anyway ...
Well, isn't that what I said...? ;-) But, as I pointed out, that will not
help with flash for the reason given...
> Did we ever fully establish what the problem was? The OP said his pictures
> were "washed out", which generally means overexposed. But most of the answers
> have assumed that he meant they were underexposed.
> Bob
I have twice mentioned the likely cause of the problem, with, "the OP's
problems arose from shooting dark subjects and not compensating the
exposure to maintain proper darkness in the image". You can't shoot
predominantly light or dark subjects (which means everything in the
frame that is metered) and expect good exposures without compensations.
The meter has no way of "knowing" what is not really supposed to be
medium grey - which is all it can properly produce in the image without
more input from the shooter...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob S" <notarealaddress@nodomain.invalid> wrote in message news:oq3m73dd3sebvbpkb0srm8ens1oo2otenv@4ax.com...
> Does anyone out there have experience with add-on diopter correction
> lenses for DSLR eyepieces? Are they effective? Do they add so much
> thickness that you cannot see the whole screen? Do you use them with
> or without your glasses?
Your choice, though the choice changes the diopter strength
unless your prescription and eyesight are both best at one meter
(my glasses are...) and you cannot use the VF variable-diopter
feature to do what you want.
> What is the "virtual distance" to the screen?
Usually about a meter, modified by the setting on the VF diopter
adjustment. BTW, I made up a 4-way glasses arrangement that
gives both ideal camera viewing and ideal general seeing - see it
at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#glasses
> I am old enough to have very little accommodative power left, so I
> would probably need a close guess at the right distance and thus
> correction power.
> Bob S
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nice article on photography --
http://www.luminous-landscape.com:80/essays/Framing%20Art.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<sferguso@telus.net> wrote in message news:qciv7310eku3mreidm28028889g10efhck@4ax.com...
> Im looking for a basic manual Nikon to add to my bag along with my
> D80. Other than the weight difference, any pros and cons I might look
> for?
Other than in a posting to the almost inactive (film) rec.photo NGs...? ;-)
Since you are here, I'm familiar with most of the Nikon film bodies,
so I can give you some information. The F3 (IMHO) is the very best
film body ever made, incorporating the excellent bright, 100%-coverage,
non-distorting, sharp-all-over VF characteristics of the Nikon F and
F2 (and also in the later rather huge and heavy F4/5/6) - and a great
internal meter, excellent handling characteristics, and excellent durability.
The FM and FE (and FA) are essentially the same camera, but with
differences in the meters. The FM uses purely mechanical timing on
the shutter speeds and a match-LED metering display. The FE's
electronic timing permits an aperture-priority auto mode, and the
display is a match-needle type. I prefer the FA, which has a softer
shutter release (as does the F3), and it is a bit easier to handle (and
uses an F3-like LCD meter display - and offers M, A, S, and P
modes plus matrix metering (I *never* use this! ;-). Only the FE-2,
FA, and F3 (with unique shoe) offer TTL flash metering, but in
common with all, 400ASA is the top film speed for TTL flash.
Skip the motors on these - they add much weight and are noisy.
BTW, I have a mint FA in box (and motor), and some F3 accessories
available FS. I also have a nice N80 and battery pack FS...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:f5ol0c$bn0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> <sferguso@telus.net> wrote in message news:qciv7310eku3mreidm28028889g10efhck@4ax.com...
>> Im looking for a basic manual Nikon to add to my bag along with my
>> D80. Other than the weight difference, any pros and cons I might look
>> for?
> Other than in a posting to the almost inactive (film) rec.photo NGs...? ;-)
> Since you are here, I'm familiar with most of the Nikon film bodies,
> so I can give you some information. The F3 (IMHO) is the very best
> film body ever made, incorporating the excellent bright, 100%-coverage,
> non-distorting, sharp-all-over VF characteristics of the Nikon F and
> F2 (and also in the later rather huge and heavy F4/5/6) - and a great
> internal meter, excellent handling characteristics, and excellent durability.
> The FM and FE (and FA) are essentially the same camera, but with
> differences in the meters. The FM uses purely mechanical timing on
> the shutter speeds and a match-LED metering display. The FE's
> electronic timing permits an aperture-priority auto mode, and the
> display is a match-needle type. I prefer the FA, which has a softer
> shutter release (as does the F3), and it is a bit easier to handle (and
> uses an F3-like LCD meter display - and offers M, A, S, and P
> modes plus matrix metering (I *never* use this! ;-). Only the FE-2,
> FA, and F3 (with unique shoe) offer TTL flash metering, but in
> common with all, 400ASA is the top film speed for TTL flash.
> Skip the motors on these - they add much weight and are noisy.
> BTW, I have a mint FA in box (and motor), and some F3 accessories
> available FS. I also have a nice N80 and battery pack FS...
> --
> David Ruether
I realized after posting that I may have left the incorrect impression that
the F3 was similar to the others mentioned - it isn't. And I didn't point out
that the FM/FE/FA VF is unusually sharp in the center (it's best to use a
"B" or "E" screen with all of these, including the F3 for easy/quick MF),
but gets softer toward the corners and has some pinchshion linear distortion,
unlike the F3 VF. Also, other bodies to consider are the FG (a nice really
small body with most of the features of the FE-2) and the N2000 (also
similar, but still compact even with a built-in motor) - and I have both also
available FS (I can't hand-hold cameras steady any more, and don't shoot
much...).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SMS wrote:
> I've made several additions to http://batterydata.com, a web site that
> compares the pros and cons of NiMH AA batteries and Li-Ion battery packs
> for digital cameras.
>
> You can also get there by entering "nimh versus li-ion" on Google or
> Yahoo, and it'll be the first result (on Google just click on "I'm
> Feeling Lucky."
>
> Steve
> http://batterydata.com
With the advent of Eneloop and similar, the most serious drawback of
NiMH has been overcome, namely self-discharge.
While I prefer a camera that uses AA's I wouldn't let that seriously
affect my choice of camera.
Since I've only charged my eneloops once since last September, I'm not
too worried about whether I'll get 300, 500 or more cycles. By the time
my great grandchildren inherit them they may well be other choices out
there for them.
Dave Cohen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<skarkada@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182965751.035702.130510@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Since I have been in the market for a high definition camcorder, I
> have done some research comparing the two formats. I have read many
> threads on various newsgroups and forums and consolidated my findings.
> I have posted these findings at http://skarkada.googlepages.com/minidvvsharddisc%3Aprosandcons
>
> My intention is to help other people save some time in their research.
> Please take a few minutes to review the document and post any
> recommendations here. I will try to update the Web page with the
> suggestions.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> (In case you are wondering, I haven't decided on a high-def camcorder
> yet. It has to be either HV20 or SR1.)
In looking over your web page, I noticed a couple of things that
may not be correct. Under "Quality", the Mini-DV compression
rate is 5:1 (not none), but it is frame-by-frame, with a clever error
correction system in place that covers well most small drop-outs.
Under "Convenience 1", you are not limited to 1 hour of
recording time with tape - 90-minute tapes are available (these
have equal image and sound quality, but may risk a slightly higher
drop-out rate, which is rarely a problem with well maintained
gear), and the shooting camera can be FireWire connected to
a cheap second Mini-DV camcorder in VCR mode ready to
record a second 1.5 hours of continuous recording on tape (3
hours total!). Having a cheap second camera also likely solves
the "Future" problem...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<skarkada@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1183049507.236087.209200@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 8:55 am, "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> In looking over your web page, I noticed a couple of things that
>> may not be correct. Under "Quality", the Mini-DV compression
>> rate is 5:1 (not none), but it is frame-by-frame, with a clever error
>> correction system in place that covers well most small drop-outs.
>> Under "Convenience 1", you are not limited to 1 hour of
>> recording time with tape - 90-minute tapes are available (these
>> have equal image and sound quality, but may risk a slightly higher
>> drop-out rate, which is rarely a problem with well maintained
>> gear),
> I have updated the Web page with the proints you brought up.
>> and the shooting camera can be FireWire connected to
>> a cheap second Mini-DV camcorder in VCR mode ready to
>> record a second 1.5 hours of continuous recording on tape (3
>> hours total!). Having a cheap second camera also likely solves
>> the "Future" problem...
> Interesting concept. Can the second "cheap" camcorder do its work even
> if the main camcorder is high definition?
I don't know - but since the FireWire connection and recording deck
are just passing and storing digital info and not processing it, it seems
likely that it would work so long as the HD camera used normally
records on D25 tape...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:5eicafF381m07U1@mid.individual.net...
> <petgray@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183051326.920262.16830@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> It's an interesting theory that Sony, Canon and Panasonic deliberately
>> limit the quality of their video recorders but is there any hard
>> evidence for this?
> Yes, though it's circumstantial. Sony's new ACVHD high-def machines use a
> codec that is specced to a bandwidth of 25 mbps. However, Sony's consumer
> implementations of ACVHD arbitrarily limit that bandwidth to between 12 and
> 17 mbps, depending on the model. There is no reason for this arbitrary
> limit and it results in signficant motion artifacts and other undesireable
> concommitants of over-compression. With respect to the Sony line, the
> change in philosphy occured after Sony retired the TRV900. This was an
> excellent 3ccd camcorder, with good low-light sensitivity and a nice,
> noise-free, saturated image. In fact, the camcorder was so good that many
> small event videographers were buying it, rather than the prosumer VX1000
> which cost roughly 50% more. Sony's next iteration of camcorders consisted
> of the VX2000 (which I have) and the TRV950. The VX2000 was significant
> improvement over the VX1000 -- it has outstanding low-light characteristics,
> and a rich, noise-free, very saturated and beautiful video image. The
> TRV950, however, added all sorts of silly gimmicks, e.g. Bluetooth, but had
> dramatically reduced low-light capability, a relatively noisey and poorly
> saturated image (the result of using smaller, higher density sensors) and
> was unsuitable for prosumer applications like weddings and small event
> videography. Sony has maintained this clear demarcation in quality
> throughout its subsequent introductions, e.g. the prosumer HDV machines
> offer dramatically better high-def video than its consumer ACVHD machines
> which, as I noted above, have arbitrarily-limited data bandwidth.
> Canon and Panasonic have done, essentially, the same thing.
>> If one of them did this unilaterally, the other
>> two would out-compete them and they would lose sales. If they all
>> covertly agreed to do it together, this would be a very anti-
>> competitive practice and almost certainly illegal.
> They haven't conspired to do this. Canon's prosumer offerings were never
> threatened by Canon's consumer machines -- Canon did not (and, for all I
> know, still does not) offer a 3ccd consumer camcorder. There was also a
> greater spread in price point for Canon. Its XL1 and XL2 were (and are)
> more expensive than Sony's VX2000 and VX2100. Canon's GL2 was competitive
> with the VX2000 in price, though not offering as good an image.
>
> Sony "paved the way" for lowered consumer expectations with respect to video
> quality. The other manufacturers simply followed suit.
This is a nice summation - and, BTW, my last good camera is FS, a TRV900
in perfect condition, listed at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm
(I've had to get out of video and photography due to health issues...).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message news:5uedncaFOfW2nhnbRVnytgA@pipex.net...
>I know this is going to sound like a really daft question, but I have just
> bought a Canon 50mm 1.2L and don't know what protection filter to buy for
> it. There are so many!
>
> I usually don't like using any protection on my lenses, as I want it to be
> as it left the factory, however looking at the front of it, it looks like it
> has a stupid design that is going to be susceptible to dirt and moisture
> ingress.
>
> Therefore, any recommendations on a decent 72mm filter to use to
> protect/seal the front of the lens that won't affect the image in any way?
Ignore the advice directly above - most UV filters are colorless and
even if not, the AWB of the camera will compensate in digital, or
the printer will with film. Adding color casts to slides seems silly unless
there is a specific reason for doing so - and if you add it to one of
your lenses used for shooting slides, you would want to add it to all
of your lenses to keep good color matching among your lenses. Hoya
single-coated UV filters are an economical and high quality solution
(more expensive filters offer nothing of real value...) . A UV filter
offers good protection (especially if a proper lens shade is added)
for expensive glass, with none but "theoretical" downsides to its use...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Malcolm Smith" <malcolms@cyberone.com.au> wrote in message news:468464b3$1@news.comindico.com.au...
> Frank
> I have just bought an 85 f1.2 II L and it is very obviously sharper than my
> 24-70 f2.8L - i therefore purchased the best UV filter in consultation with
> my PRo dealer ( a HOYA Super HMC Pro 1 UV(0) ) so as not to impinge on lens
> sharpness. It did cost more. The next lens I will buy is the 50 f1.2 and
> will do the same. I tested both lenses and their sharpness is astounding
> when compared to the 24-70 f2.8L.
> Malcolm
I don't find the "bells and whistles" of the HMC of any value over
the cheaper and easier to clean single coated Hoya UV filter - and
its optics stand up with the best.
Save your money...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"the_niner_nation" <the_niner_nation@sf49ers.com> wrote in message news:4685326b$0$16315$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>I am thinking of splashing out on the Canon 70-200 mm f4 USM L lens for my
> canon 400d and read a lot of favourable reviews.
> A lot of the reviews, however are very excited about having a 'good copy' of
> this lens.
>
> As a newbie, i am confused...arn't ** all** these lenses made to the exact
> same specification and manufacturing processes?
In theory, yes - but it is my impression that the manufacturers
in practice may check relatively few samples, mostly early in
the production runs - and some lens designs are more difficult
than others to get right consistently. Even with producers like
Nikon, that has a generally good reputation both for high image
quality in the lenses across its line, and for good sample-to-sample
consistency, small variations are common - and there is the very
occasional "dud" (for more, see my extensive lens comparisons,
including multiple samples of the same lens, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html ).
> And how can you tell a 'good' copy' of this lens from a 'bad copy' ?
I test using detailed and familiar infinity-distance targets to
establish that all four corners are equally sharp (or possibly
unsharp at wide stops...;-), as are opposite sides of the frame
(with all camera controls locked down) at the widest stop, f5.6,
and f11. There is more to it than this, but this can get you
started - but just don't become preoccupied with it(!). For
digital, adding newspaper targets can be useful if you are not
shooting too close, since this can show assymetrical CA problems.
Have reasonable expectations for the performance of the tested lens
(which should be very high for the lens you mentioned - it should
check out as quite sharp in all corners and edges wide open if
properly focused and the sample is good).
> Just how much *worse* can a bad copy can be from a 'good copy' ?
With some lenses, very much worse. For instance, many people
like the Nikkor 35-200mm f3.5-4.5 MF, but two samples I had
were very soft. Nikon's 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 MF also varied,
but not quite so much (from so-so to superb) - but these were
the only two Nikkors I found much sample variation with. In other
brands, I have seen many more...
> And again, I am staggered that there are discrepencies that are pretty
> important on somrthing I believed was manufactured in a mass production
> system..it's not like buying a hand made silk suite etc.
This is why I ALWAYS recommend that new gear be checked
IMMEDIATELY! I'm amazed when pro acquaintances buy gear,
don't bother to check it out, then later discover the problems when
it is too late for an exchange/refund. I've found that warranties on
lenses are nearly useless - repair people often cannot correct lens
manufacturing faults (just possibly the damage from accidents).
> I am thinking of buying this online, what sort of test can i do with this
> lens to ensure it's a 'good copy' and can I legally return it to the seller
> if it turns out to be a 'bad copy'?
See above - but establish in advance the seller's return/exchange
policy. (BTW, I like dealing with the no-nonsense people at
B&H Photo (www.bhphotovideo.com). Just don't expect them to
hold your hand...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:jn%gi.417$eY.399@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritty/2007-06-28-traffic&PG=1&PIC=3>
>>>Any guess what would cause that banding/striping?
>>>1) grime on the lens elements
>>>2) grime on my car windshield
>> When you focus close you are in fact focusing on [close to]
>> the car windshield
>>
>> Your light source is a point - it is going to produce a detailed
>> shadow-gram and diffraction pattern of everything that is between the
>> lens and the point source.
>>
>> My guess:
>>
>> o A refractive pattern from molding or cooling when the windsheild
>> was made. Possibly from the slab of glass from which the lens
>> elements were cut.
>>
>> o When you focus close to get the bokeh you are in fact focusing on
>> or close to the windshield. Could be streak marks from cleaning.
>>
>> o A diffraction pattern, possibly due to the geometry of the
>> 'almost a point source' reflecting surface? Diffraction patterns
>> get to be a bother if the source is monochromatic or a point source.
>>
>> o Space aliens
> All interesting suggestions so far. Here's some more info on the
> conditions & some more thoughts in response to the suggestions:
>
> I'm assuming it's not sensor dust because that doesn't happen at wide
> apertures but maybe it does again in this freaky situation where the OOF
> circle is crisply in focus at it's edges. The lens does have various
> little nicks & grime & I have swabbed the sensor before though I did
> just give it a good brush & blow.
>
> It was a few VERY bright reflections on a dark background so hard to
> reproduce but I'll try... shooting the sun might work... maybe car
> headlights. It is interesting how the intensity of the point source
> causes the OOF circles to have crisp edges rather than become soft. You
> can see a range of effects in these examples.
>
> The angle of the streaking would make sense for winshield wiper marks
> but it's not possible at that distance to have been focused on the
> windshield, except by some strange optical trick perhaps.
>
> The blobs show in each OOF circle, repeating but offset in different
> orientations relative to one another.
> --
> Paul Furman Photography
See "AustinMN"'s comments ("It is almost certainly windshield streaking.
Because of the point source, anything on the windshield would be in
focus *even without a lens*. In this case, the effect would wash out
without a lens because there are multiple point sources, but the presence
of a lens, even one badly out-of-focus, serves to sort out the point sources.") .
And also see my images that intentionally make use of these effects that he
described for making images, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html,
particularly the 3rd and 4th images down...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:w8whi.5119$vi5.3398@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> See "AustinMN"'s comments ("It is almost certainly windshield streaking.
>> Because of the point source, anything on the windshield would be in
>> focus *even without a lens*. In this case, the effect would wash out
>> without a lens because there are multiple point sources, but the presence
>> of a lens, even one badly out-of-focus, serves to sort out the point sources.") .
>> And also see my images that intentionally make use of these effects that he
>> described for making images, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html,
>> particularly the 3rd and 4th images down...
> It's a bit hard to sort out in those photos but I guess you are using
> the big OOF circles to add DOF. Neat idea!
> --
> Paul Furman Photography
You can sort it out easily - the image elements that have no detail but
outlines are the ones "shadowed" in the OOF circles. I thought it neat
that images could be made (straight...) combining normally (refracted)
images with shadowed images of the same material - so long as there
are strong point light sources in the image area (here, sunlight near-point
reflections off water, placed behind subject elements).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:YHRji.18576$2v1.763@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> The swirl of green & white is a tree branch hanging in the foreground &
> shrubs with white seeds in the background:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/North/clear-lake/crow-bar/2007-07-05/full-set&PG=2&PIC=10>
> I guess it's actually an example of bad bokeh but it's interesting. The
> picture before that one has a smoothly OOF branch in the foreground for
> comparison. Tokina 300mm/2.8 at f/4
> --
> Paul Furman Photography
Shadowing, again, of foliage elements in OOF strong point
light sources (likely sun reflections off water). Again, see my
examples at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html,
especially the third image down. It isn't "bad bokeh", but an
interesting way to form an image by combining refracted and
shadowed subject elments in the image. You can make this
kind of image with any lens (though normal to long FLs are
easier), and the relative distances from subject elements and
OOF point light sources, plus the aperture used, affect the
result.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Malcolm Smith" <malcolms@cyberone.com.au> wrote in message news:4685a9d4@news.comindico.com.au...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:f63sdm$qbu$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Malcolm Smith" <malcolms@cyberone.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:468464b3$1@news.comindico.com.au...
>>> I have just bought an 85 f1.2 II L and it is very obviously sharper than
>>> my 24-70 f2.8L - i therefore purchased the best UV filter in
>>> consultation with my PRo dealer ( a HOYA Super HMC Pro 1 UV(0) ) so as
>>> not to impinge on lens sharpness. It did cost more. The next lens I will
>>> buy is the 50 f1.2 and will do the same. I tested both lenses and their
>>> sharpness is astounding when compared to the 24-70 f2.8L.
>>> Malcolm
>> I don't find the "bells and whistles" of the HMC of any value over
>> the cheaper and easier to clean single coated Hoya UV filter - and
>> its optics stand up with the best.
>>
>> Save your money...
>> --
>> David Ruether
> David
> What you say is interesting - how did you come to this conclusion - did you
> do optical tests and if so what camera, lens and test method did you use.
> Malcolm
Optical problems with filters get worse the longer the FL of the
lens, especially one with a relatively wide f-stop, so I set up a
test with a very sharp 400mm f3.5 Nikkor using a distant, detailed,
well defined (clear air, shooting over water) horizon line as target.
I shot (at f3.5) first with the included rear filter, then with a good
front filter added (Nikkor, now with two filters), then with just the
front filter, then with no filter (refocusing was necessary when the
rear filter was removed/replaced). Multiple frames were taken
with each situation, with refocusing done with each. There was no
sharpness difference that could be attributed, with careful examination,
to anything but very slight miss focus on a few frames. In other words,
adding a good filter does not affect image sharpness in any meaningful
way. Next, I looked for (with short FL lenses, which tend to show
the effects in the frame of off-axis bright light sources more than
longer FLs do) effects with both multi-coated and single-coated
filters on the lenses. No meaningful difference was seen. I did not
try, but have read, that there is one possible instance when a
multi-coated filter can help. Some poorly designed longish FL
zooms will show bright small light sources repeated in their images
up side down in the frame. Also, shooting directly into the sun but
slightly off axis with these may produce a duplicated image of the
sun symmetrically removed from the original in the frame.
Multi-coating the filter **may** help here, but I suspect not by
much if at all...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Malcolm Smith" <malcolms@cyberone.com.au> wrote in message news:4686e6b8@news.comindico.com.au...
> David
> Sounds like a very reasonable test and I will ponder your comments. I would
> be interested in knowing if your tests were film or digital and if so what
> size sensor..
Slow film, FF...
> My main concern was going to a very high megapixel camera soon (my current
> is 11Mp) which as a full frame sensor and knowing that these sensors (as
> oposed to a 1.4 crop sensor for example) can have problerms at the edge of
> the frame. Canon have been upgrading their lens design over the last few
> years to eliminate these problems (and i suspect Nikon havnt released a full
> frame sensor model for this problem) and the 85 mm l lens i have recently
> bought is probably their best (sharpest and other criteria) lens, it was
> expensive and I didn't want to possibly degrade it in any way so my choice
> of filter.
> Regards
> Malcolm
Non-zoom lenses in the 85mm to 135mm (or 180mm), FF, tend to be the
very easiest to design with the least number of shortcomings. Theoretically,
for realistic prices, the slower lenses in this range should be better, but
it is easy enough to design in this range that very high performance lenses
(at high prices) should be possible. I would guess that the Canon 85mm
f1.2 (really only a bit faster than f1.4...) should be really excellent for
you - especially if it has been designed for FF digital, which is what you
want to use it for. I guess that if you feel more comfortable using an
expensive UV filter on it, go for it - but check it for defects (these are
not unknown even in the "high-priced spread" - I once had a Nikkor
that had a weak power that caused a 200mm to not focus to infinity,
and I've seen other unflat filters that were good only as soft-focus filters,
and Tiffen filters, with their self-fogging, are good only for diffusion after
a few months if they have not been cleaned just before use). Of many,
I've seen no optically defective Hoya filters (except for the occasional
out of place glass retaining wire on new ones, easily pushed back into
place), but their MC filters are exceptionally hard to clean, so I avoid these...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Kilpatrick" <iconmags3@btconnect.com> wrote in message news:z_CdnXN8k-1JBxrbnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@bt.com...
> RichA wrote:
>> No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
>> market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
>> cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
>> But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
>> many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
>> supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
>> their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
>> like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
>> professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
>> heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
>> was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
>> other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
>> huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
>> was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
>> stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
>> considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
>> if in fact that is what they've done?
> In the UK they 'seeded' the press/media market from the late 1970s on,
> lending unafforable big lenses to the papers etc, who of course needed
> to use Canon to be able to use those lenses. But so did Olympus, and
> even Minolta, who seeded stuff to one major provincial/national group.
> Around 1980-ish the press desks had cameras and lenses pressed on them
> for 'we'd like you to try this out' reasons constantly.
>
> Canon won, because they had the right things to be tried out. Olympus
> nearly got there. Canon has always kept doing so, with close
> relationships to major newspaper picture desks.
>
> You must remember that the leading photo magazine used senior newspaper
> picture desk/chief photogs as columnists for years in Britain = Ron
> Spillman, Victor Blackman, Mike Maloney etc. They were also legitimate
> PR targets for loan/test gear for their 'Amateur Photographer' magazine
> pages. And of course, they passed it round the staff photographers.
>
> There are not so many staffers now and the same would be hard to do, but
> Canon did undertake such a PR campaign, and they did use loaned or
> seeded gear to win it. It's long in the past. These days they just use
> better service and support, especially at international events.
>
> David
Canon has for as long as I've known them (the '60s...!) been excellent
at marketing, and as a result, even with products that were not
necessarily better than those offered by others at the time, they were
predictably likely to "win" in the long run (since their success provided
for more research money to gradually improve the relative quality/range
of their offerings). Canon used to provide "loans" of gear to student
newspapers (get 'em used to your gear early - a successful marketing
technique also used by Apple with its cut-rate prices to school
departments). I ran across this effect also in consumer video, where
far more often in the early video NGs about Mini-DV would be the
question, "Which Canon camcorder should I buy?", than, "Which
camcorder is best at my budget price point?". The answer at the
time was rarely "Canon", but Canon had marketed their name and
products more skillfully than others, including cozy factory relationships
with reviewers - that other manufacturers did not attempt. Even with
demonstrably inferior products (and even ones defective in design!),
people's first inclination was often to buy Canon. The power of good
marketing trumps the quality of the goods offered - but fortunately,
Canon has used the proceeds to improve its offerings...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:871wfs9xhs.fld@apaflo.com...
[...]
> The only thing close is that there actually are some
> zoom lenses with a variable maximum aperture where the
> diaphragm blades are mechanically closed slightly to
> effect the aperture variation at one end of the zoom
> range.
[...]
There are also some constant-aperture zooms that "cam"
the diaphragm to close the aperture at the short FL end
to maintain constant aperture. These appear to be more
often (always?) WA or WA-to-tele constant-aperture
zooms than tele-only zooms (you were correct on this
in another thread - I was not). For one, look at the
36-72mm f3.5 E Nikkor. I'm fairly sure that others of
the many constant-aperture zooms I've owned in the past
also had this characteristic...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:1183383590.298556.53190@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 8:24 pm, Allen <a...@nothere.net> wrote:
>> Dave Cohen wrote:
>> > Magnusfarce wrote:
>> >> I have an old Gossen Super Pilot light meter that appears to be in
>> >> very good physical condition. I'm a casual user of a digital SLR and
>> >> have never used a light meter of any kind. Surprisingly, there are
>> >> several of these available on e-Bay, one claiming that it is a useful
>> >> device, the other considering it a collectable at best.
>> >> It's pretty cool looking so I won't toss it in any case, but does it
>> >> have any practical usefulness in today's world?
>> >> - Magnusfarce
>> > Put it away somewhere nice and safe together with your slide rule etc.
>> > You never know when these things might come back into fashion.
>> > Dave Cohen
>> My old Weston is nestled down between my K&E slide rule and my Dietzgen
>> drafting instruments--the start of a museum for my grandchildren.
>> Allen
> We still have a Gossen Luna Pro, and I use it when I use one of our
> old film cameras without a meter. Too good to retire it to the
> ancient artifacts shelf!
I still have a Gossen Luna Pro I used with a meterless Mamiya
645 SLR system for large group photos (now FS, at -
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-misc-photo.htm ) and a
couple of Weston Master IIIs and Masters (older than I am,
and all my Westons still work and are accurate). I can see using
these with a Nikon D80 and my many MF lenses that will not
meter with that body (the D200 is too big, heavy, and expensive
for my current needs/wants...).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:oMkii.232$bz7.20@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:871wfs9xhs.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>frederick <lost@sea.com> wrote:
>>>>[...]
>>>>The only thing close is that there actually are some
>>>>zoom lenses with a variable maximum aperture where the
>>>>diaphragm blades are mechanically closed slightly to
>>>>effect the aperture variation at one end of the zoom
>>>>range.
>>>>[...]
>>>There are also some constant-aperture zooms that "cam"
>>>the diaphragm to close the aperture at the short FL end
>>>to maintain constant aperture.
>> Actually I stated that wrong, and meant to say what
>> you are correctly describing.
> I don't understand what you guys are talking about but the Nikkor
> 105/2.8 VR Macro closes down to f/3.5 at closest focus.
> Paul Furman Photography
Zooms come in "constant aperture" and "variable aperture"
types. In the first, with zooming the rated maximum aperture
remains constant with zooming; in the second, the rated
maximum aperture changes (toward smaller) as the lens is
zoomed toward the long FL end. In both cases, the aperture
may be cammed to adjust the aperture away from its
"natural" aperture with zooming (this is rare, though, and FLD
pointed out in an older thread that the 18-70mm Nikkor was
one that did even though it remains a variable aperture lens
after camming - and I pointed out that the 36-72mm Nikkor
uses camming to maintain its constant f3.5 maximum aperture
with zooming). The lens "speed" rating (the maximum f-stop)
is measured with the lens focused *at infinity* and is the
number resulting from dividing the distance from the optical
center of the lens to the film/sensor surface (to get focal length),
by the diameter of the clear aperture of the lens as viewed
directly from the front. With closer focus (as for macro work),
the lens center to film/sensor lengthens, so its "speed' reduces.
It used to be easy to figure by how much by adding the new
length of the focusing mount, but most newer macro lenses
shorten the FL with closer focus to save space (a 100mm
lens at 1:1 would need 100mm more extension...) and also
to reduce speed loss (an f2.8 lens would become f5.6 at 1:1).
The 105mm Nikkor doesn't "close down" to cause this
aperture change with close focus - it is the result of simple
math (though complicated somewhat by the lens design...;-).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Olin K. McDaniel" <omcdaniel.abcd@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:4689b43e.45676638@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Although I'm not familiar with the Gossen meters, I have an old
> Norwood Director with all its attachments. Haven't checked it out in
> years though, so don't really know if it still works. I used to swear
> by it, especially for measuring Incident light. Reflected light just
> didn't seem too useful then, though.
>
> Olin McDaniel
I used to have fun with a friend when we shot with sheet film
view cameras. He would get out his Pentax spotmeter and
laboriously measure many tones in the subject and eventually
come to a conclusion on proper exposure. I would wave
around my Weston wide angle reflected type, sometimes
shielding the meter cell some from the sky light at some angles,
and would come quickly to a conclusion about what the
exposure should be. I would leave mine locked on the meter
dial and he would tell me his - then I would show him my
identical setting...;-). I never thought much of pure incident
metering, since those and pure (single-direction) reflected
light readings will both result in common errors (as will the
use of spot metering by those who don't know how to use
it, or, "Just where in the subject is a tone that truly represents
a proper medium tone that is appropriate for the whole
image?" ;-) And early "matrix" systems were kinda, "When
in doubt, overexpose - but don't reveal to the camera user
what the conclusion was based on!" ;-) Ideal, I think, would
be a meter that took simultaneous incident and wide angle
reflected readings, so that the possible errors from straight
on readings from both would be averaged. One was made
(the Norwood Director?).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:7iBji.556$uy7.364@newsfe12.lga...
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:468ea599$0$31236$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying
>> The America I love and respect lost. Sorry to hear your vision of
>> American involves treating others in a way we should never allow our
>> citizens to be treated. It also hints that even our citizens may be
>> striped of their rights if one man things so.
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
> I'm not going to say that I agree with all aspects of so-called "domestic
> spying" but a good yardstick of what is sensible is to see what the ACLU
> stands for and then go in the other direction.
What the ACLU, or, "American Civil Liberties Union, "stands for"
is the protection of our rights as citizens of the US as enumerated
in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity
(*or lack thereof*) of the particulars of the law cases they engage in.
It is sad that the right wing folks have succeeded in smearing such
an important institution in our society (one that works tirelessly to
maintain our benefits for all of our citizens) to the point that many
consider the ACLU the enemy. IT ISN'T!!! Don't be suckered by
the incessant propaganda from the right against the ACLU, lest this
propaganda becomes even more effective against the ACLU,
resulting in more of our basic American citizenship rights slipping
away. BTW, I consider the ACLU so important that on my tiny
income, I feel it necessary to contribute far more to it than to any
other organization. If we can stave off creeping totalitarianism now,
we may not need to fight a very difficult (in this technical age)
revolution later. Already, "Big Brother" has reared his ugly head
too high...
Or, another way of looking at this (for the moment...) is, would
you rather lose perhaps a few hundred people out of 300 million
to terrorist attacks (horrible and senseless as they may be) every
year or so, or would you rather lose many (or most) of your basic
rights (think about what that really means, and the consequences,
before you answer!). I prefer to keep my freedom, with a careful
and enforced set of laws in place to deal with terrorism that do
not go against laws that supercede them but are ignored...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:aXXji.390$Q66.135@newsfe12.lga...
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:f6oad1$2r9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:7iBji.556$uy7.364@newsfe12.lga...
>>> "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:468ea599$0$31236$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070706/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying
>>>> The America I love and respect lost. Sorry to hear your vision of
>>>> American involves treating others in a way we should never allow our
>>>> citizens to be treated. It also hints that even our citizens may be
>>>> striped of their rights if one man things so.
>>>> --
>>>> Joseph Meehan
>>> I'm not going to say that I agree with all aspects of so-called "domestic
>>> spying" but a good yardstick of what is sensible is to see what the ACLU
>>> stands for and then go in the other direction.
>> What the ACLU, or, "American Civil Liberties Union, "stands for"
>> is the protection of our rights as citizens of the US as enumerated
>> in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity
>> (*or lack thereof*) of the particulars of the law cases they engage in.
>> It is sad that the right wing folks have succeeded in smearing such
>> an important institution in our society (one that works tirelessly to
>> maintain our benefits for all of our citizens) to the point that many
>> consider the ACLU the enemy. IT ISN'T!!! Don't be suckered by
>> the incessant propaganda from the right against the ACLU, lest this
>> propaganda becomes even more effective against the ACLU,
>> resulting in more of our basic American citizenship rights slipping
>> away. BTW, I consider the ACLU so important that on my tiny
>> income, I feel it necessary to contribute far more to it than to any
>> other organization. If we can stave off creeping totalitarianism now,
>> we may not need to fight a very difficult (in this technical age)
>> revolution later. Already, "Big Brother" has reared his ugly head
>> too high...
> Rather, it's sad that the left wing folks have convinced people that the
> ACLU is something other than a far-left organization with an agenda. Don't
> be suckered by the incessant propoganda of the left in favor of the ACLU.
> It will be a wlecome day when they are no longer an influence.
I think that you and those with similar views are not very wise.
Unfortunately, those who ignore the lessons of history are
doomed to experience a repetition of its horrors. Without
constant vigilance, our rights *will* slip away (due more to
reasons of "emergency" or "convenience", or to just plain
indifference, rather than to a sudden coup...). Currently, the
ACLU is the only organization that actively and forcefully
opposes this process, and as such, deserves our support and
deepest respect, whether or not we agree with all it does,
or regret its occasional mistakes. Overall, it is our best hope
for resisting the tide of those who would claim power for
themselves alone. If the propaganda of the right against the
ACLU is ultimately successful, we will be in very great
trouble. I suggest that you would profit from learning more
about what the ACLU is *really* about.
>> Or, another way of looking at this (for the moment...) is, would
>> you rather lose perhaps a few hundred people out of 300 million
>> to terrorist attacks (horrible and senseless as they may be) every
>> year or so, or would you rather lose many (or most) of your basic
>> rights (think about what that really means, and the consequences,
>> before you answer!). I prefer to keep my freedom, with a careful
>> and enforced set of laws in place to deal with terrorism that do
>> not go against laws that supercede them but are ignored...
> I would rather not lose a few hundred but instead lose the ACLU.
Don't be foolish...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:Z_6dnTPL08LW_gvbnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "BoomBoom" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MI7ki.91532$s57.69916@newsfe07.phx...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> I'm not going to say that I agree with all aspects of so-called
>>>> "domestic spying" but a good yardstick of what is sensible is to see
>>>> what the ACLU stands for and then go in the other direction.
>>> What the ACLU, or, "American Civil Liberties Union, "stands for"
>>> is the protection of our rights as citizens of the US as enumerated
>>> in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, regardless of the popularity
>>> (*or lack thereof*) of the particulars of the law cases they engage in.
[...]
>> The ACLU protects our rights as US citizens?
[inaccurate rant excised...]
>> Go sell crazy somewhere else, I'm not buying.
> I'm with you, brother.
>
> Where are all these crazies coming from anyway? Are we hosting a Leftist
> Looneys convention or something?
>
> Neil
Nope. Just the "Sensible Centrist Group", which is trying to counter the
politically rightest nonsense posted in this thread... 8^)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"BoomBoom" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ZEqki.478948$g24.189058@newsfe12.phx...
> Ray Fischer wrote:
[...]
>> Ah, so you're a fascist who only believes in freedom for YOUR views.
>> No wonder you hate the ACLU.
> Exactly what I stated the ACLU was guilty of; fascists who defend
> only those views they find acceptable, and attack those they find
> unacceptable.
[...]
Um, see above the posts about the ACLU defending the
Klan and Rush Lumbaugh - the ACLU is about defending
principles, not about individuals or particular points of
view that their members may (or may not) like...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message news:1392du9he25qd4d@corp.supernews.com...
> Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>> I suppose it's your business if you would rather destroy this country
>>> than take a miniscule risk of being killed for it -- but you don't
>>> deserve to call yourself American.
>> I hjave to admit this is the first time I've ever seen the victims of
>> 9-11 being described as having died for their country.
> They died in an attack on the country. The only way to prevent that from
> ever happening again is to completely destroy this country and everything
> it stands for.
>
> The people who cower in fear thinking of Arab terrorists are our enemies.
> They are willing to dismantle the foundation of the country, and give up
> everything it means, in a largely futile attempt to escape their imagined
> bogeyman. They listen to the lies from our so-called leaders and gladly
> give up anything they are asked to give up, so filled with irrational
> fear they are. The easiest way to control a population is to make them
> afraid of some imagined outside threat, and those who cannot learn from
> history are dooming the rest of us to repeat it. Oceana has always been
> at war with Europa.
>
> Osama bin Laden is a joke. I'm not afraid of him; he is powerless against
> this country. Sure, he stands a miniscule, statistically insignificant
> chance of killing me (or any particular person); a larger chance should he
> specifically target me. But he can't do *anything* to the country. The
> people who can do that are the real threat, and they are right here.
>
> But if I am so afraid of what he can do to me that I'm willing to give up
> the basic values of my country, that I am willing to destroy what great men
> created, that I am willing to dismantle the very foundation of liberty, all
> in an attempt to merely secure my own personal safety -- then, no, I would
> not deserve to call myself American. As long as we are free, people will
> be able to kill a few of us if they want to. Real Americans understand
> that. The rest can kiss my ass.
>
> Now, a bunch of idiots who can't think beyond their secondhand opinions will
> label me a "liberal" (despite the fact that you can have my guns when you
> pry them, etc) and then use the incorrect label as an excuse to ignore
> anything I've said. How I do hate stupid people.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Well put, thanks!
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rebecca Ore" <macogoense@gmail.com> wrote in message news:macogoense-DD5E24.19484008072007@news.verizon.net...
> In article <4691704c$0$14079$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > The ACLU
>> >isn't about freedom, it's about unabashed liberalism.
>> Ah, so you're a fascist who only believes in freedom for YOUR views.
>> No wonder you hate the ACLU.
> The irony here is that the ACLU defended the Klan against the Lumbee
> Indians who were doing horseback charges against Klan rallies in Robeson
> County, NC, in the early 1960s. Not that it wasn't hilarious to see the
> Klan go running to the ACLU.
Or Rush Limbaugh use their services when he got into trouble...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:5aidnVJJHvhIqw_bnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Joe" <retriever@black.lab> wrote in message
> news:7n7493lkjkeusp9r9drgk17bumpdsfingt@4ax.com...]
>> What strikes me most is that the extremes of either political parties
>> (democrats and republicans) or view points (extreme liberals and
>> extreme conservatives) view each other as the enemy.
>>
>> The rest of the world views both groups as Americans.
>>
>> The enemy's of the United States do not distinguish political parties.
>>
>> I certainly hope that in the event of real crisis, not philosophical
>> differences on how to run the nation, we still have the ability to
>> join together for the common good.
>>
>> Regrettably, I don't believe we do.
> I'm afraid you're right there.
>
> I'm old enough to remember every president back to FDR, who was essentially
> the permanent president throughout my childhood. And I cannot remember any
> time when we were as politically divided and polarized as we are now. It
> seems to me that this extreme polarization started during the Clinton years,
> though the reasons for it I suspect are very complex.
>
> Neil
I think this political polarization did start during the Clinton years.
I think Clinton's obvious acceptance of, regard for, and true affection
for ALL the people of our country set off a hatred in many in the
South who could not deal with a president who truly treated Blacks
as equals. This was never overt, but I think it underlay what came
afterward as the conservative movement became stronger in reaction.
It became OK to hate, and blustery radio talk hosts with their
"clack" studio audiences and mealy-mouthed ministers preached
their hate, couched in deceptive terms that skirted the true issues
but indirectly attracted those of similar hateful views. Soon it became
a contest between "us" and "them-thar lib-bralz" (BTW, the meaning
for the base word of "liberal" is "free" - hardly something to hate...;-),
with the new conservatives willing to do almost anything to bring
down Clinton. Remember the year lost during that stupid impeachment
that cost us the attention of our president while world events led us
to 9/11, which was based on one statement about a minor issue in
a deposition? Remember how those southern "'Bublican" senators
pronounced the imminent fall of our judicial system if the impeachment
was not successful (and the nothing we heard further about it, and the
absence of any effect it had afterward, when the impeachment failed)?
Gosh, I just can't help feeling that the impeachment of a president
should be about "high crimes" that relate to job performance or
maybe criminal activity as president and not about a lie to protect the
feelings of a wife. And, do I think Bush, etc. should be impeached
for the real and serious crimes they have committed while in office?
YES! But, do I think they should be at this point? No, for the same
reason Clinton should not have been - the distraction would have
a much greater destructive effect than any benefit. BTW, unlike
those who illogically hated Clinton, I don't hate Bush/Cheney/
Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/etc. - I just think they used their positions
very badly, did many stupid (and sometimes self-serving) things,
and left the country and its relations with the rest of the world in a
very much poorer state than they found it. Too bad for us....
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:XPmdnRsQ4uyzjgnbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
[...]
> What has been most obvious about Clinton is, to paraphrase your adulating
> comment, his "obvious acceptance of, regard for, and true affection for"
> himself.
???????????????????????????? This is ridiculous. Look at the history
of Clinton's many positive accomplishments instead of writing out of your
own hatred and frustration with the inability of his detractors to tarnish
his image with much more than diddly little generally-unproven tidbits...
> His mean-spirited nature and vindictiveness toward anyone he
> regards as a possible threat to his political ambition is well known, and
> perhaps best demonstrated by his use of the IRS to intimidate such people by
> auditing.
Hmmmmm - remember Richard Nixon? Now there was a president
who really did some illegal things while in office, and who perfected the
technique for using the IRS to intimidate people he didn't like, which he
used often. Remember the "Dirty Tricks" of "Tricky Dick"? Clinton
had nothing on him when it came to the degree of political nastiness!
[...]
> "true affection for ALL the people of our country" my ass. Clinton is a
> genuine, certifiable sociopath, and like all sociopaths has no "true
> affection" for anyone but himself.
> Neil
Ah, well - seems someone here can't understand the terms... Do you
have any evidence for anything you said? There is plenty, though, for
demonstrating that Clinton has worked for the common good for
both people in the US and among other countries. So, why do *you*
detest such a (generally...) very good man so much??? I think as a
US president, he performed unusually well (given the limitations of
20-20 future-sight and the preoccupations and distractions resulting
from that stupid impeachment). He actually kept us out of useless
and draining wars, and his financial leadership resulted in a large
surplus for the first time in a very long time, with a real hope for paying
off the national debt. He was good at quieting conflicts in "hot spots"
around the world with his superb diplomatic abilities. We felt secure.
But, well, gosh - then along came "W", in a still questionable election,
and here we are, much worse for wear in just about every respect...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Joe" <retriever@black.lab> wrote in message news:jkt4939j0706pfuo3h26giqvfrjquoph0e@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:45:39 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:5aidnVJJHvhIqw_bnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Joe" <retriever@black.lab> wrote in message news:7n7493lkjkeusp9r9drgk17bumpdsfingt@4ax.com...]
>>>> What strikes me most is that the extremes of either political parties
>>>> (democrats and republicans) or view points (extreme liberals and
>>>> extreme conservatives) view each other as the enemy.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the world views both groups as Americans.
>>>>
>>>> The enemy's of the United States do not distinguish political parties.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly hope that in the event of real crisis, not philosophical
>>>> differences on how to run the nation, we still have the ability to
>>>> join together for the common good.
>>>>
>>>> Regrettably, I don't believe we do.
>>> I'm afraid you're right there.
>>>
>>> I'm old enough to remember every president back to FDR, who
>>> was essentially the permanent president throughout my childhood.
>>> And I cannot remember any time when we were as politically
>>> divided and polarized as we are now. It seems to me that this extreme
>>> polarization started during the Clinton years, though the reasons for it I suspect are very complex.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>I think this political polarization did start during the Clinton years.
>>I think Clinton's obvious acceptance of, regard for, and true affection
>>for ALL the people of our country set off a hatred in many in the
>>South who could not deal with a president who truly treated Blacks
>>as equals. This was never overt, but I think it underlay what came
>>afterward as the conservative movement became stronger in reaction.
>>It became OK to hate, and blustery radio talk hosts with their
>>"clack" studio audiences and mealy-mouthed ministers preached
>>their hate, couched in deceptive terms that skirted the true issues
>>but indirectly attracted those of similar hateful views. Soon it became
>>a contest between "us" and "them-thar lib-bralz" (BTW, the meaning
>>for the base word of "liberal" is "free" - hardly something to hate...;-),
>>with the new conservatives willing to do almost anything to bring
>>down Clinton. Remember the year lost during that stupid impeachment
>>that cost us the attention of our president while world events led us
>>to 9/11, which was based on one statement about a minor issue in
>>a deposition? Remember how those southern "'Bublican" senators
>>pronounced the imminent fall of our judicial system if the impeachment
>>was not successful (and the nothing we heard further about it, and the
>>absence of any effect it had afterward, when the impeachment failed)?
>>Gosh, I just can't help feeling that the impeachment of a president
>>should be about "high crimes" that relate to job performance or
>>maybe criminal activity as president and not about a lie to protect the
>>feelings of a wife. And, do I think Bush, etc. should be impeached
>>for the real and serious crimes they have committed while in office?
>>YES! But, do I think they should be at this point? No, for the same
>>reason Clinton should not have been - the distraction would have
>>a much greater destructive effect than any benefit. BTW, unlike
>>those who illogically hated Clinton, I don't hate Bush/Cheney/
>>Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/etc. - I just think they used their positions
>>very badly, did many stupid (and sometimes self-serving) things,
>>and left the country and its relations with the rest of the world in a
>>very much poorer state than they found it. Too bad for us....
> Your attempt to paint conservatives and thereby republicans as racist
> is most telling about your own bigotry.
I was covering the underlying racest reason for the raw hatred of
Clinton (which was carefully kept hidden by those who harbored it
[and who now attempt to substitute gays, Hispanics, Arabs, etc.],
but I think it was painfully apparent...), which became "unfashionable"
with passing time with Blacks, though not completely missing by any
means (witness the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricane).
> The Republican Party appointed a black to the Supreme Court. The
> highest court in the land.
Ah, yes - what a slap in the face to Blacks that uninspired appointment
was as a replacement for his predecessor, who had led the arguements
before the court on ending school segregation! Gosh, maybe Hitler
would have made a fine replacement on the court for Frankfurter...! ;-)
> The face of the nation under a Republican Administration to the rest
> of the world in the form of the Secretary of State has been black for
> two terms. During President George W. Bush's first administration it
> was Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his second administration it
> was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
And in the 50's it was Ralph Bunch at the UN - but that affected
little how Blacks were treated in the US. BTW, I regard Rice
as White, with a really good tan...;-) Not quite the same for Colin
Powell, though. And I admired his expression of disgust with having
given a speech at the UN before the Iraq war which contained
untrue "facts" given him by the Bush administration. This speech
may have convinced some to support the war, unfortunately.
> The race card is a straw man argument that is not provable in
> application or reality.
As I said, it was kept hidden, but it could/can still easily be seen by
those who look.
> I expect racial divisiveness lives in your own heart and neither
> political party.
I think it clearly lay more in the Republican/conservative party than
the Democratic/liberal party in the last few decades. Guess where
most of the resistance came from for Black civil rights advances, and
from where most of the help came from. The same continues with
gay rights (ALL of the 10 "'Bublican" presidential candidates oppose
recognizing gay civil unions, but ALL of the 10 Democratic candidates
support it - kinda tells yuh sumpin, huh, about who really supports
basic civil rights?).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No One" <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message news:7bqmm4-dto.ln1@gandalf.greycorner.com...
> Just look at their [regarding Clinton and the "left", presumably...]
> other tenants of faith: socialism, global warming,
> evolutionism. It doesn't matter that both history and science prove
> these postulates wrong for it is a question of faith to them. They have
> the faith in these ideals and now they wish to force their religion on
> the rest of the non-believers.
If this were not such a bad joke (or if it was truly intended to be
sarcasm...), it could be funny instead of stupid. I can't name a
single Democrat who truly believes in Socialism, can you (really?!)?
If you (and enough others) don't believe we should take global
warming seriously and that we should do something about it soon,
I hope you (and and the rest of us) don't get caught up in the rapid
and destructive climate changes that are highly predictable and
likely. As for evolution, not believing the incredible amount of
evidence supporting it is nuts - and I think the three 'Bublican
presidential candidates who said in the CNN debates that they
didn't believe that evolution was true are just that (nuts). Golly
gee whiz - this ***IS*** the 21st century - it's time to get past
believing in unsupported mythologies and into the era of science!!!
As in, the sun *never* revolved around the earth, regardless of
how strongly religion pushed that idiotic belief! Science is not
religion - and if you don't know what the difference is, well,
gosh, what *can* one say that is meaningful......?!
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No One" <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message news:dvg6n4-kgv.ln1@gandalf.greycorner.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "No One" <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message news:7bqmm4-dto.ln1@gandalf.greycorner.com...
>>>Just look at their [regarding Clinton and the "left", presumably...] other
>>>tenants of faith: socialism, global warming, evolutionism. It doesn't matter
>>>that both history and science prove these postulates wrong for it is a
>>>question of faith to them. They have the faith in these ideals and now
>>>they wish to force their religion on the rest of the non-believers.
>> If this were not such a bad joke (or if it was truly intended to be
>> sarcasm...), it could be funny instead of stupid. I can't name a
>> single Democrat who truly believes in Socialism, can you (really?!)?
>> If you (and enough others) don't believe we should take global
>> warming seriously and that we should do something about it soon,
>> I hope you (and and the rest of us) don't get caught up in the rapid
>> and destructive climate changes that are highly predictable and
>> likely. As for evolution, not believing the incredible amount of
>> evidence supporting it is nuts - and I think the three 'Bublican
>> presidential candidates who said in the CNN debates that they
>> didn't believe that evolution was true are just that (nuts). Golly
>> gee whiz - this ***IS*** the 21st century - it's time to get past
>> believing in unsupported mythologies and into the era of science!!!
>> As in, the sun *never* revolved around the earth, regardless of
>> how strongly religion pushed that idiotic belief! Science is not
>> religion - and if you don't know what the difference is, well,
>> gosh, what *can* one say that is meaningful......?!
>> --DR
> No, I was not being sarcastic. Study science and you will see that
> these are tenants of faith, not science. CO2 as a warming gas was
> dismissed in the 1950's. Evolution as a theory of origins has been
> disproved by physics, chemistry, genetics and mathematics. By
> definition, science must hold to the scientific method, yet none of
> these tenants are. It is all a matter of belief. As for evolutionism,
> the same could be said for creationism. The science will only get you
> so far. To believe in either theory takes faith, not science. Science
> existed long before Charles' plagiarized theory. It will exist long
> after it is finally abandoned.
I reiterate my comments, above. And, does the term "crackpot"
sound familiar to you...? ;-) While I admire the courage of those
who hold beliefs counter to those that are generally held and that
are well supported by evidence (those unusual ideas *can*, though
*rarely*, be eventually proven correct), asking for 3 out of 3 of
your wacky, not well supported beliefs to be correct is asking for
too much, even by the simple rules of chance. And, most of your
statements are simply incorrect, even though you may have found
some obscure sources that support them..
As an aside, we had a rather well known scientist and theoretician
here who came up with some "unusual" ideas that most rejected,
but some eventually became accepted with testing. The difference
is, though, that he was originating ideas that could be tested, not
rejecting concepts that *had* been tested (whether or not you
believe the results, or read only narrow nonsense that supports
your odd views...).
It is a long term process, trying to shift people from holding firm
beliefs regardless of the presence of real evidence (or of even
contrary evidence) or not, to something like having people seek
the best possible information regarding concepts *before* they
commit themselves to supporting or opposing them. Or, I do
hope we *eventually* get most people to think, and to get them
out of the medieval mind-set of accepting as truth whatever
happens to come along that is written, no matter how fanciful.
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message news:oafk935qp47648rmhcvj45fbtma5eu807r@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:18:46 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>If this were not such a bad joke (or if it was truly intended to be
>>sarcasm...), it could be funny instead of stupid. I can't name a
>>single Democrat who truly believes in Socialism, can you (really?!)?
[......]
> What do you think Single Payer Health Insurance is?
> Who was it (who is now running for President as a Democrat) who pushed
> that real hard?
Favoring exploring some aspects in common with an "ism"
when much else has failed in a particular segment does not
make one an "ist"...;-) Or, only those who cannot differentiate
subtleties make the mistake of painting one who favors part
of a whole with the name of the whole. I suspect that the "C"
candidate does not favor nationalization of the power companies,
manufacturing, oil and coal production, etc., and I trust
therefore that you cannot "really" believe that Clinton "truly"
is a Socialist, now can you??? If so, then I hope you do not
become offended if I then label most Conservatives as racist
know-nothing Fascists, who resist all changes that tend to
help people...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message news:oa9n93pd2iv101ic7nsjpah2fsejp9q800@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:15:00 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>Favoring exploring some aspects in common with an "ism"
>>when much else has failed in a particular segment does not
>>make one an "ist"...;-) Or, only those who cannot differentiate
>>subtleties make the mistake of painting one who favors part
>>of a whole with the name of the whole. I suspect that the "C"
>>candidate does not favor nationalization of the power companies,
>>manufacturing, oil and coal production, etc., and I trust
>>therefore that you cannot "really" believe that Clinton "truly"
>>is a Socialist, now can you??? If so, then I hope you do not
>>become offended if I then label most Conservatives as racist
>>know-nothing Fascists, who resist all changes that tend to
>>help people...;-)
> The fact that Hillary has indicated her socialist tendencies (did you
> read her book, "It takes a Village"?) very well, yes, I think she's a
> socialist.
Oh, come on, let's not be absurd (except maybe in jest ;-).
> And note, I am labeling Hillary, not most liberals, so your comment
> about your labeling most conservatives as racist know-nothing Fascists
> is inappropriate.
Not really, since it was made in jest to make a point. Funny
how humorless the ideologues on the right tend to be, isn't it? ;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message news:ekop9397u7qfllg88tv6228itddp3j57nh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:43:24 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>Funny
>>how humorless the ideologues on the right tend to be, isn't it? ;-)
> I find it amazing how often peopel are caught in a gaffe, they claim
> 'twas all in humor.
You do know what a ";-)" indicates, don't you.....? ;-)
(Though the truth can often be revealed in a joke...;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:f7j0n3$5m6$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> You do know what a ";-)" indicates, don't you.....? ;-)
>> (Though the truth can often be revealed in a joke...;-)
> Some people use ;-) as less a "jest" indicator than as an escape plant
> in case they are accused of being abusive. Not that I have anyone
> specific in mind.
>
> ;-)
8^)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
New menu, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/menu.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message news:gttt83tlu6g84nbt1jbuu6afulq03a4i1g@gordol.org...
> It is alleged that Jürgen Exner claimed:
>> Thomas wrote:
>> > "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message
>> >> Wire tapping without a warrant is illegal. If the Attorney General
>> >> won't bring charges, what recourse do Americans have to force the
>> >> President of the United States to obey the law?
>> > Tell stupid people to shut the hell up and worry more about Arab
>> > terrorists.
>> I suggest reading the novel "The R Document" by Irving Wallace. The
>> predictions the author made back in 1976(!!!) are just stunning when
>> compared to recent developments.
> Or "1984", written in 1948 by George Orwell.
> --
> Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Or, the movie, "Brazil" - all looks kinda familiar in a perverse way...;-(
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
Go to: More Posts - Eight
Go to: More Posts Index
Go to: Articles Index
Go to: David Ruether Photography