Cult of Sharpness
Fr...@zappa.com
You know you want to.
If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
Are you in?
Dudley Hanks
<Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote in message
news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57...@4ax.com...
ah, just when I was thinking of starting a softness sect...
Take Care,
Dudley
Educated & Experinced Pro
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." -
Groucho Marx
Now, if perchance you decided to start a club that included people who
found photographic subjects and compositions that are so astounding and awe
inspiring, no matter the resolution, count me in.
Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and internet
trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
Rich
news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57...@4ax.com:
You can make a sharp lens soft, but you can't make a soft lens sharp.
Kevin McMurtrie
Fr...@Zappa.com wrote:
The 'Cult of Cheapness' is a powerful foe. Be careful of your words.
--
I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
Alan Browne
There isn't much wrong with the available sharp lenses.
Sharp (and fast) goes with price, esp as FL goes up.
Sharp lenses can be made to produce soft shots.
Soft lenses can be made softer still. But not sharper.
Chris Malcolm
> Are you in?
I'm not clear what you want to achieve. I thought that for any given
exchangeable lens camera it was possible to get a lens with at least
slightly higher resolution than its sensor -- if you were prepared to
pay for it.
But it sounds as though you want to stop them making soft lenses
altogether. If you can buy the sharp lenses you want, why would you
want to stop them making the much cheapr and not so sharp lenses that
most people are happy with?
--
Chris Malcolm
Atheist Chaplain
news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57...@4ax.com...
there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
with is "cheap" lenses
If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Fr...@zappa.com
><Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote in message
>news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57...@4ax.com...
>>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>
>> You know you want to.
>>
>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>
>> Are you in?
>
>there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
>with is "cheap" lenses
>If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
That thing was soft as shite.
John Sheehy
news:abt9f5pj4tasu851j...@4ax.com:
> Hardware worshippers are nothing but idiot crapshot artists and
> internet trolls. Consider yourself part of their club.
Wow. What about a club for people who imagine ridiculous dichotomies?
Bruce
Yet the review samples of that Smegma lens that were supplied to the
photo magazines were all sharp ... just like all the Smegma lens
review samples. No wonder the reviewers are so keen to keep them -
they could never find one as good in a camera store.
Atheist Chaplain
news:0gdcf5dq2efkdbg06...@4ax.com...
It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-)
Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp lens,
but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same :-)
<insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in
three...............two..................one...............>
Michael
> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote in message
> news:0gdcf5dq2efkdbg06...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:00:58 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mhs9f5ht04j7arv57...@4ax.com...
>>>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>>>
>>>> You know you want to.
>>>>
>>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>>>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>>>
>>>> Are you in?
>>>
>>> there already are sharp lenses out there, what your probably confusing them
>>> with is "cheap" lenses
>>> If you want sharp you have to part with some folding first :-)
>>
>>
>> I learned that the hard way with the f1.8 20mm Sigma (I call them Smegma)
>> That thing was soft as shite.
>
> It was a Sigma, what do you expect :-)
> Having said that I do believe that they do occasionally make a sharp
> lens, but its a lottery if you get one, and the odds are about the same
> :-)
> <insert rant by satisfied Sigma customer here in
> three...............two..................one...............>
Apparently the satisfied Sigma customer is currently reading another newsgroup.
--
Michael
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
> You know you want to.
Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
but you'll have sharp lenses.
That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
you, but not for most people.
F'up,
-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which
you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera
on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow
shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down),
triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash
mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the
flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains
of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain
flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens'
true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.
A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish
this task.
(Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff
out.)
Uh - you forgot something important - again
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
Ray Fischer
>>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>
>>> You know you want to.
>>
>>Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>>
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>>
>>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
>>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
>>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
>>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
>>but you'll have sharp lenses.
>>
>>That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>>
>>As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
>>ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
>>you, but not for most people.
>
>What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
Go away, idiot troll. Nobody's interested in your cult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
MC
Fr...@Zappa.com wrote:
Have you considered increasing the light and stopping down?
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
John D.
>Are you in?
I have 5 lenses for my Nikon D70, 2 Nikkors and 3 Sigmas, all of which
produce extremely sharp, beautiful images, when used correctly. What
makes you think that current lenses aren't sharp enough?
If all you lenses are producing soft images, either there's something
wrong with your camera body or with the operator. ;-)
John
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
>>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
>>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
>>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
>>but you'll have sharp lenses.
> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
> Fire a flash
> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move
a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as
it burns to ashes from the intense light.
Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash,
either.
-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>
>Uh, "the Liar" is back, again!
>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>
>>>You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
>>>bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
>>>one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
>>>(i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
>>>but you'll have sharp lenses.
>
>> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
>> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
>> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
>
>What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
>all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor
tested it yourself.
What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
>
>> Fire a flash
>> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
>> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
>
>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
your bullshit" moron. It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
dielectric layers responding to the release of energy. Fuck are you ever
stupid. PROVED AGAIN!
ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and
feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.
Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit,
nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't
impart a pulse of motion when fired.
>
>Once you combine a couple million flashes, you could slightly move
>a very thin piece of paper with a synchronized mass flash ... as
>it burns to ashes from the intense light.
>
>
>Yo, slime, thanks for the proof you never held a firing flash,
>either.
>
>-Wolfgang
Moe! Larry! Curly! Bob! Eric! Savage! Rich! Wolfy! (etc. etc.) ........
Nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck nyuck (boink!) ... LOL
Kennedy McEwen
>I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
>>> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
>>> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
>>What difference does your opinion make when your facts are
>>all wrong --- again, as usual and expected by now?
> Showing that you've never even read the tests done on this problem, nor
> tested it yourself.
I read lots of tests about that --- sorry, your claims are
proven wrong. While noone doubts that there is mirror slap
and shutter slap, the effect is in most practically cases
undetectable. In the few cases where it is detectable, it's
trivial to circumvent --- much easier than pre-focussing with
P&S for action shots.
My own tests and extensive experience gives the same result.
> What's the matter? You don't own any camera to test?
Would you kindly borrow me yours, so I can see your
sledgehammer mirror slap? Oh, sorry, I remember, you don't have one ...
>>> Fire a flash
>>> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
>>> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash.
>>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
> No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
> your bullshit" moron.
Looking into a mirror can cause slime to write that stuff.
> It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
> dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have
tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules
(in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.
Whole new physics you are creating, slime.
> Fuck are you ever
> stupid. PROVED AGAIN!
Yep, slime, you are.
> ANYONE with a flash unit can fire it off with the test button on it and
> feel the jolt occurring from the capacitor discharging.
Having owned more flashes than you have pressed the test
button of any flash ... nope, you are wrong.
> Oh wait, that's right. You have probably never even touched a flash unit,
> nor any camera. You just proved that by refuting that flash units don't
> impart a pulse of motion when fired.
You just proved you never ever held a flash in your life.
Don't worry, a nonexisting flash will work well with your
imaginary camera, taking perfect shots.
-Wolfgang
Uh - you forgot something important - again
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com>, the "Can't Dazzle Them With Brilliance So
Baffle Them With Bullshit" moron attempted to type:
>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>
>Uh - the slime liar is back - again!
>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:42:48 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>Uh - you forgot something important - again <uyf...@address.info> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:51:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>
>
>>>Oh, yes, the photons provide *sooo* much pulse of motion!
>
>> No, you pathetic "can't dazzle them with brilliance so baffle them with
>> your bullshit" moron.
>
>> It's caused by the discharge in the capacitor and its
>> dielectric layers responding to the release of energy.
>
>Ah. the electrons rushing out of the capacitator must have
>tons of mass. And of course the random rotation of molecules
>(in all directions) causes a lot of translational energy.
>
No brilliance again, just more bullshit, as usual coming from your idiot's
trolling.
It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
from the discharging capacitor.
Don't you feel bad always having to go to such extremes to invent your wild
red-herring explanations just for the attention? While wasting the time of
people far more intelligent than you'll ever be. Others always having to
correct your incessant bullshit-troll's words. Or is this just your way of
getting even with smart people for them always proving to the world how
stupid and ignorant you have been all your life? (The latter being the more
correct and plausible reason.)
After this I think I'll let some other intelligent person reveal to the
world how you manage to always make a fool of yourself. It's so easy to do.
I'm sure one of them might take some pleasure from it. If there are any
intelligent people around here that is, pickings seem mighty slim.
Babysitting your ignorance becomes an endless unpaid task for anyone who
adopts the desperate Wolfy Cretin. But you are fun to bounce off of your
crib walls once in a while--to watch you wildly grasp for anything that you
possibly can in an attempt to retain your bliss of ignorance.
Bob Larter
> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
> from the discharging capacitor.
What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
are the kind used in flashguns.
Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
in any direction.
Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
debunking your bullshit. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>> from the discharging capacitor.
>
>What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>are the kind used in flashguns.
> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
>in any direction.
> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>
>PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>debunking your bullshit. ;^)
Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
physical pulse of motion upon firing it. Meaning you're nothing but a
pretend-photographer troll because you have no direct contact with anything
photography related.
Unless you consider the times you've worn your trench-coat to the kiddies'
park and held that "flash" in your hands while firing it off--and still
didn't detect anything worth noting. Then that would be totally
understandable of why you believe what you believe.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>>> from the discharging capacitor.
>> What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>> about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>> I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>> quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>> are the kind used in flashguns.
>> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>> the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
>> in any direction.
>> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>> out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>>
>> PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>> debunking your bullshit. ;^)
>
> Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
> hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
> physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
*snort* You're imagining it, kid.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>>>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>>>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>>>> from the discharging capacitor.
>>> What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>>> about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>>> I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>>> quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>>> are the kind used in flashguns.
>>> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>>> the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
>>> in any direction.
>>> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>>> out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>>> debunking your bullshit. ;^)
>>
>> Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
>> hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
>> physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
>
>*snort* You're imagining it, kid.
*snort* Thanks for proving to all the world that you've never fired a
flash-unit in your lifetime. Everyone else reading this who has ever used a
flash unit during their lifetime now knows you do to be nothing but the
TOTAL troll and inexperienced fool that you are.
Thanks for playing! Bye!
Bob Larter
Thanks for proving to all the world that you know nothing about
electronics.
BTW; I own two flashguns that I use frequently, & have never seen this
imaginary effect.
> Thanks for playing! Bye!
>
>
>
> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
It's hilarious that you think you can trick people into posting to a
non-existent group, little troll. ;^)
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
Non-existent? The following information proves you to be nothing but a
lifetime troll and liar.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Bob Larter
Yep, non-existant. ;^)
Savageduck
> Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>>>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>>>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>>>> from the discharging capacitor.
>>> What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>>> about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>>> I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>>> quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>>> are the kind used in flashguns.
>>> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>>> the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the
>>> flashgun in any direction.
>>> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>>> out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>>> debunking your bullshit. ;^)
>>
>> Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
>> hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
>> physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
>
> *snort* You're imagining it, kid.
Silly as this might sound, I have just taken my SB-800 in my hand. I
looked away so I could activate the flash and only have the sense of
touch.
When I triggered the flash there was the usual audible click and I
could feel that "click" in my hand. No movement, or motion, just a
sensation of feeling that "click" through the body of the flash. It
could have been the sound wave being transmitted through the case into
my hand, but who knows??
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
The 'click' comes from thermal expansion of the xenon gas in the flash
tube when it ionises. It's not enough to move a DSLR body, nor is it
related in any way to "physical compression" or any other action by the
main capacitor - contrary to what our idiot P&S troll claims. He might
as well claim that nearby crickets chirping are enough to blur a DSLR
exposure - it'd make about as much sense.
Savageduck
Agreed the "click" would not have imparted any movement of any
consequences to a DSLR body.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Too Funny!
Just like you believe that the slapping "click" of the shutter and the
slapping "click" of the mirror doesn't either.
Trip that shutter with a ball-peen hammer while you're at it.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:16 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>>>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>>>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>>>> from the discharging capacitor.
>>> What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>>> about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>>> I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>>> quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>>> are the kind used in flashguns.
>>> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>>> the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
>>> in any direction.
>>> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>>> out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>>> debunking your bullshit. ;^)
>>
>> Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
>> hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
>> physical pulse of motion upon firing it.
>
>*snort* You're imagining it, kid.
If he's imagining it, then so too am I. I've always assumed it was due
to the release of the dielectric stress in the capacitor.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter
Tell us again about how the electrolytic capacitor in a flash is
'compressed' when the flash fires - it's hilarious. ;^)
(Damn, I should xposted this thread to one of the electronics newsgroups
- the folks there would've gotten a huge laugh out of it.)
Bob Larter
Nope. Electrolytic capacitors don't do that. The 'click' is from the
expansion of the xenon gas in the flash tube. The amount of expansion is
*tiny*, but you can hear it because it happens so fast.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter
*yawn*
Bob Larter
*yawn*
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter
*fart*
PS: Your clock or time zone is set wrong. You might want to fix that. ;^)
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter
Kid, your clock's still wrong. ;^)
Bob Larter
*cough*
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Too slimey!
> Trip that shutter with a ball-peen hammer while you're at it.
Yes, we know, if you do that with a P&S you get a perfect shot.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> If he's imagining it, then so too am I. I've always assumed it was due
> to the release of the dielectric stress in the capacitor.
Well, there are minuscle effects. Photon pressure. Heating the
air suddenly, slightly and irregularly (i.e. just at the business
end) --- which can produce an audible effect, which is then
easily imagined to be felt. The sudden blast of light, which
is recorded by your eyes and is also easily imagined as felt.
You do feel your finger suddenly overcoming the resistance of
the test button, too.
Think of seeing a completely silent major explosion (e.g. from/in
space). Feels strange, you *expect* sound, and will easily
accept any sound as one coming from the explosion. Same reason
many spaceships in films do have completely unrealistic driving
sounds, lasers make "zing" as they pass by spaceships and so on.
If you want to test it, put your flash on a very sensitive scale
(try different orientations) and release it without touching.
An optical slave trigger or wireless trigger would be ideal
for that.
BTW, how come P&S don't suffer from flash shake if DSLRs do?
-Wolfgang
Outing Trolls is FUN!
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>The sudden blast of light, which
>is recorded by your eyes and is also easily imagined as felt.
>
LOL! Caught another pretend-photographer troll. It's NOT imagined. But you
would know this if you owned or had ever used any flash-unit or camera.
ROFLMAO!
Bob Larter
Shit! - Don't confuse the poor little fellow with questions like that!
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> If he's imagining it, then so too am I. I've always assumed it was due
>>> to the release of the dielectric stress in the capacitor.
>>
>> Well, there are minuscle effects. Photon pressure. Heating the
>> air suddenly, slightly and irregularly (i.e. just at the business
>> end) --- which can produce an audible effect, which is then
>> easily imagined to be felt. The sudden blast of light, which
>> is recorded by your eyes and is also easily imagined as felt.
>>
>> You do feel your finger suddenly overcoming the resistance of
>> the test button, too.
>>
>> Think of seeing a completely silent major explosion (e.g. from/in
>> space). Feels strange, you *expect* sound, and will easily
>> accept any sound as one coming from the explosion. Same reason
>> many spaceships in films do have completely unrealistic driving
>> sounds, lasers make "zing" as they pass by spaceships and so on.
>>
>> If you want to test it, put your flash on a very sensitive scale
>> (try different orientations) and release it without touching.
>> An optical slave trigger or wireless trigger would be ideal
>> for that.
>>
>>
>> BTW, how come P&S don't suffer from flash shake if DSLRs do?
>
>Shit! - Don't confuse the poor little fellow with questions like that!
Bob Larter
*burp*
Chris Malcolm
>>Uh - you forgot something important - again wrote:
>>> It is due to the high physical compression of the dielectric layers in the
>>> capacitor being suddenly released. Producing a pulse of motion expanding
>>> from the discharging capacitor.
>>
>>What a complete load of bullshit. For starters; I've spent a total of
>>about 20 years in the electronics industry (both design & service), &
>>I've never heard of any such effect, & I'm very familiar with weird
>>quirks in capacitors - particularly high voltage electrolytics, which
>>are the kind used in flashguns.
>> Secondly: if such an effect existed, it'd affect only the diameter of
>>the can - it wouldn't be directional, thus it wouldn't move the flashgun
>>in any direction.
>> Thirdly: If such an effect existed, it'd eventually tear the capacitor
>>out of the PCB or snap the leads off the cap - that doesn't happen.
>>
>>PS: Nice try at screwing up the followups to prevent anyone from
>>debunking your bullshit. ;^)
> Fourthly: this only proves that you've never held a decent flash in your
> hand while firing it off. Anyone who has done that can easily detect the
> physical pulse of motion upon firing it. Meaning you're nothing but a
> pretend-photographer troll because you have no direct contact with anything
> photography related.
Clue: the pulse of electricity comes from the capacitor, but the noise
and the motion doesn't, as anyone who stayed awake in Physics 101
would know :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Clue: the pulse of electricity comes from the capacitor, but the noise
> and the motion doesn't, as anyone who stayed awake in Physics 101
> would know :-)
But the NiMH batteries shrink during discharge, now all the slime
has to claim is that the power comes straight out of the batteries
and the capacitor is just there for the cosmic rays or something.
-Wolfgang
Eric Stevens
wrote:
See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
"A charged capacitor's plates attract each other. The dielectric
provides a reaction force keeping the plates apart. It thus feels
a mechanical compressive stress."
When the capacitor is discharged there is no longer attraction between
the plates, no reaction force is required and the dielectric is no
longer under compression. The sudden release of the compression force
enables the capacitor to expand which sudden expansion is a source of
a shock pulse.
Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
> See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
Which can cause a significant jolt in a physical capacitor of flashgun
capacity, but not in an electrolytic.
--
Chris Malcolm
Peter Irwin
>
> See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
>
> "A charged capacitor's plates attract each other. The dielectric
> provides a reaction force keeping the plates apart. It thus feels
> a mechanical compressive stress."
If the electrolytic capacitor were making the click, then electrolytic
capacitors would be much more microphonic than they appear to be
in practice. My vote goes to the xenon tube. I had an old Dumont CRO
with a xenon thyratron sweep generator, and you could hear the
tube ticking away at the sweep frequency.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
ColinD
surface of the foil, so I don't think that would compress/expand
sufficiently to cause physical movement, but the foil itself might jump
due to the magnetic flux when the heavy current is discharged through
the flash tube.
Colin D.
Alan Browne
When firing pack lights, there is a "popping" noise at the light, not
the pack. The capacitors are in the pack.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Nobody but the pretend-photographer DSLR-Trolls are mentioning the noise,
using their typical red-herring bullshit tactics. The issue of concern is
the sharp burst of motion created when the flash discharges. This is why it
would have to be fired apart from the camera so its burst of motion does
not also add to camera-shake, as the DSLR's slapping mirror and slapping
shutter already do. A hot-shoe mounted flash when added to the motion from
shutter-slap and mirror-slap, there's no way that you can use the full
resolution of ANY lens on ANY DSLR at ANY shutter-speed without taking
special measures to reduce or remove all three sources of image-blurring
camera-shake.
Don't any of you useless trolls know how to stay on topic?
Of course not. Stick a few more red-herrings up your asses so you can yet
again distract yourselves from the FACTS about your DSLR pieces of shit
that you waste your time and money on.
Bob Larter
> Peter Irwin wrote:
>> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>> See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar98/889679790.Eg.r.html
>>>
>>> "A charged capacitor's plates attract each other. The dielectric
>>> provides a reaction force keeping the plates apart. It thus feels
>>> a mechanical compressive stress."
>>
>> If the electrolytic capacitor were making the click, then electrolytic
>> capacitors would be much more microphonic than they appear to be
>> in practice. My vote goes to the xenon tube. I had an old Dumont CRO
>> with a xenon thyratron sweep generator, and you could hear the
>> tube ticking away at the sweep frequency.
>> Peter.
> The dielectric in an electrolytic capacitor is aluminium oxide on the
> surface of the foil, so I don't think that would compress/expand
> sufficiently to cause physical movement,
Correct.
> but the foil itself might jump
> due to the magnetic flux when the heavy current is discharged through
> the flash tube.
No, electrolytics are designed (all the turns of foil are shorted
together at each electrode) to minimise the amount of inductance. If
this was not the case, switchmode power supplies (for example) wouldn't
work.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I think you will find the plates in an electrolytic are separated by
paper saturated with the electrolyte. The paper is subject to the
electrostatic force of the plates within which it is contained.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter
Well, obviously, but that doesn't mean that any part of it actually
moves in any way.
Bob Larter
I promise you that if electrolytic capacitors were in the habit of
changing shape as their charge varied, (suddenly or otherwise), most
electronic devices wouldn't work for very long. Now, if you're talking
about air-spaced variable capacitors, as used to be used in valve
radios, that's a different story.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
So - what does the paper do when subject to the compression caused by
the electrostatic attraction of the aluminium plates on either side of
it?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Why?
>Now, if you're talking
>about air-spaced variable capacitors, as used to be used in valve
>radios, that's a different story.
Eric Stevens
Bob Larter
Bugger all. Do you have any idea how thin the paper is? Cut open an
electrolytic capacitor some time & unroll it, & you'll see what I mean.
Bob Larter
Mainly because the electro's would snap off their leads from metal
fatigue, or would destroy the solder joints on the PCB. See my comments
to the P&S troll, up in the quoted part of this post.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
Bugger yourself. (No doubt you do.)
Do you have any idea that the closer the capacitors plates are to one
another the stronger the attractive force is between those plates? When you
take into account the high-voltages present in flash-capacitors the reason
for the sharp pulse of radiating energy becomes easy for any high-school
physics students to comprehend this much. Compressing something as porous
as paper is simple at those high attractive forces in play. I myself have
designed capacitors that store charges of some 2mEV. At those high voltages
the attractive force will even compress 1/32" thick dielectrics made of
rigid plastics.
Fuck, you know so little about electronics and physics its just laughable.
It's amazing how long you think you've managed to get away with pretending
to be an expert on anything. No wonder they created that news-group to keep
track of your trolling records. Nobody can educate you so it's just better
to educate everyone else what an uneducated and ignorant troll of a loser
you really are, so they won't get suckered into endlessly trying to reduce
the depths of your incessant ignorance.
Btw: Did you ever find out how to use an inexpensive IR thermometer as a
laser watt-meter yet? No? Too bad. That's another example where you showed
the vast depths of your electronics and physics ignorance while you tried
to be an expert on the subject. Go back to grade-school you fucked-up
ignorant troll.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
Bugger yourself. (No doubt you do.)
Do you have any idea that the closer the capacitors plates are to one
another the stronger the attractive force is between those plates? When you
take into account the high-voltages present in flash-capacitors the reason
for the sharp pulse of radiating energy becomes easy for any high-school
physics students to comprehend this much. Compressing something as porous
as paper is simple at those high attractive forces in play. I myself have
designed capacitors that store charges of some 2MeV. At those high voltages
Bob Larter
Yeah, *sure* you have. Idiot.
Bob Larter
*snicker* I can tell that I've *really* made you wet yourself when you
reply to me twice. ;^)
whisky-dave
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:64irs6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
I thought the capacitor was there to hold enough charge because batteries
can't
discharge the power required to make a bright enough flash.
I thought the sound was from the rapid expansion of the gas in the tube.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
� "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> ������ ��� ������
news:itrqs6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
> Too Funny! <t...@outingidiots.org> wrote:
>
> Too slimey!
>
>> Trip that shutter with a ball-peen hammer while you're at it.
>
> Yes, we know, if you do that with a P&S you get a perfect shot.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwrxK6ogxhc
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Bob Williams
> <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fr...@Zappa.com <Fr...@Zappa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to join the 'Cult of Sharpness' - anyone else in?
>>> You know you want to.
>> Nope --- I buy my lenses well informed.
>>
>>> If there are enough of us we can force lens makers to make sharper lenses.
>>> If not, they will continue to make 'defective', (i.e., soft) lenses.
>> You want all sharp lenses? No problem, but forget contrast,
>> bokeh etc. and add CA, CL and the myriad of other lens problems
>> one can get. Then you won't be happy, you'll have defective
>> (i.e. won't deliver a pleasing or even usable image) lenses,
>> but you'll have sharp lenses.
>>
>> That's why I don't subscribe to such an aim.
>>
>> As for cults, that's something for vulnerable sheep and
>> ego-tripping, often abusive leaders --- maybe just right for
>> you, but not for most people.
>>
>> F'up,
>> -Wolfgang
>
> What difference does buying the sharpest lenses make if you are going to
> put them on a camera where the mirror slap and shutter slap shake the
> camera so much that you can never make use of their full resolving power.
>
> On reconsideration, I take that back. There is only one situation in which
> you can use any D/SLR lens' full resolving power. If you mount the camera
> on a sturdy tripod in a pitch-black room, lock up the mirror, use a slow
> shutter-speed (about 30 seconds to wait for all vibrations to dampen down),
> triggered on hand-free time-delay or with a cable-release. Fire a flash
> mounted off-camera because the firing of the strobe imparts its own pulse
> of motion, detectable by anyone who has held a firing flash. Trigger the
> flash pulse 30 seconds after the first curtain opens, while both curtains
> of the shutter are still open, to create the exposure. Using a 2nd curtain
> flash-sync setting if you have one. Only then can you detect or use a lens'
> true resolving power with your D/SLR camera.
>
> A unique shooting situation but the only one way where you can accomplish
> this task.
>
> (Wondering when they're ever going to get smart enough to figure this stuff
> out.)
>
That's EXACTLY how I used to test lenses on SLR cameras about 40 years
ago. I used low speed film, special development and a special lens
resolution target to measure the lines/inch resolution.
And yes, Tripod stability, mirror bounce, shutter slap etc., do make a
difference. The differences are generally small BUT they can mean
getting very sharp images without having to buy a top of the line, much
more expensive lens.
Of course, the hassle of going thru all these gyrations makes the
process impractical except for special subjects and special situations.
Bob Williams
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
2mEV to 2MeV typo correction. Pay attention. The world does not revolve
around you.
Uh - you forgot something important - again
wrote:
Thanks for confirming it. Now look at the list of replies from all the
pretend-photographer trolls that don't know a thing about cameras and
photography. Pretty funny, isn't it? Then they wonder why they've *ALL*
earned the title of "DSLR-Trolls".
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I also know that there are multiple layers of paper and that paper has
about the same elastic modulus as wood: i.e. its not very stiff.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
It's possible to calculate the amplitude of the movement, and its very
small, about comparable with a tweeter speaker at the high frequency
end of its range.
Eric Stevens
Uh - you forgot something important - again
wrote:
You can't do that, then the red-herring DSLR-Troll Bob Larter (a.k.a.
Lionel Lauer, real home troll-group: alt.kook.lionel-lauer) would have to
use the example of how all stereo speakers and anything near them always
regularly shake themselves to death the first time you use them. This is
probably why all high-speed machinery, jets, and even cars always
self-destruct on first use due to all the vibrations imparted to their
electronics. Even all the ultrasonic motors for focusing and zooming in all
newer camera lenses destroy the lenses' electronics soldering-joints on
first use. That's a proven FACT! In a self-deluding and highly ignorant
troll's mind of course.
(Can this Bob Larter troll get any more lame with his invented excuses to
back up his ignorant and delusional claims?)
btw: the amount of pulse motion in my higher-power strobes, upon which I
employ my own design of stacked fresnel-lenses for focusing their light on
distant wildlife subjects even further (shots 200-500 ft. away and more in
total darkness) has far more motion imparted into my hand than some
tweeter's range of motion. A mid-range speaker with a nicely audible thump
imparted into it would be a closer analogy for the motion detected. Much of
the difference in our perceptions could be due to their age and newer
capacitor manufacturing technology today. If I turn down their power, then
it is slight. At lowest power almost imperceptible. At full power the pulse
of motion felt in my hand is far greater.
(original follow-up newsgroups now restored after the trolls culled them
from the list so nobody would notice them being proved wrong in the other
groups that they troll)
Bob Larter
It is.
Fr...@zappa.com
Thank you to all who participated.
Bob Larter
Which are attached on a flexible mount, & wired up with flexible copper
braid for exactly this reason.
> and anything near them always
> regularly shake themselves to death the first time you use them. This is
> probably why all high-speed machinery, jets, and even cars always
> self-destruct on first use due to all the vibrations imparted to their
> electronics.
In fact, solder joints on heavy components often do fail due to
vibration. It's common practice to glue or bolt such parts to the PCB or
chassis to help prevent such failures.
> Even all the ultrasonic motors for focusing and zooming in all
> newer camera lenses destroy the lenses' electronics soldering-joints on
> first use.
They are connected by ultra-flexible wires for this exact reason.
Flash capacitors are simply soldered direct to the PCB, just like any
other non-vibrating component.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter
Aw, the P&S troll can't answer any of my points! That would be because
he has no idea what he's talking about on this topic.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> But the NiMH batteries shrink during discharge,
Clarification: while the NiMHs are being discharged (i.e. used
to power something), not necessarily when the flash flashes.
>> now all the slime
>> has to claim is that the power comes straight out of the batteries
>> and the capacitor is just there for the cosmic rays or something.
> I thought the capacitor was there to hold enough charge because batteries
> can't
> discharge the power required to make a bright enough flash.
Obviously, but the slime doesn't need to make sense, does it?
-Wolfgang