CHDK & Canon SD1000
Pioneer42
Are there any issues I should know about before I try it? I am looking
for some tips on this process because I don't want to brick my camera.
Irwell
You can't hurt your SD1000 by using CHDK, go to the Wikipedia site
and study it all, I no longer have the SD1000, but I did load the CHDK
and it added many additional functions to the camera.
SneakyP
@newsfe17.iad:
> Has anyone here tried the CHDK project's firmware with a Canon SD1000?
> Are there any issues I should know about before I try it? I am looking
> for some tips on this process because I don't want to brick my camera.
AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera program.
The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and is not a
resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from the beginning,
just avoid loading that program card into your camera. Bricking involves
flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new program that may or
may not freeze your process up. As I understand it, you'd do well to avoid
that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls, where that terminology
applies too well. Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
with, do they??? I've been tinkering with CHDK and a Cannon SD1000 for a
year now and have had favorable results. One can take the raw data and
process it the way you want it to look, without having to worry about
overexposed or underexposed shots as much. I've never had a problem of
irreversible bricking on a camera.
--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.
Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)
DanP
To disable CHDK just set the write protect tag of your SD card to
write again.
DanP
ASAAR
> AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera program.
> The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and is not a
> resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from the beginning,
> just avoid loading that program card into your camera. Bricking involves
> flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new program that may or
> may not freeze your process up. As I understand it, you'd do well to avoid
> that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls, where that terminology
> applies too well. Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
> with, do they???
Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks. :)
Here's Canon's web site for digital camera firmware updates,
including a number of Powershots, such as the G1, G2, G3, G10, SD800
IS, SD430, IXUS 700, S50 and more.
bugbear
> Are there any issues I should know about before I try it?
Yeah - you'd better WANT all the control it offers.
It's like the manual control your Canon already
offers - but on Steroids.
but for pushing your Canon to it's outermost limit,
it's wonderful.
Here's a photo of the Sword of Orion, including
some nebulosity in M42, taken
with a Canon A630, a tripod, and CHDK.
Post processing was most definitely involved :-)
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/raw_sword1.png
BugBear
bugbear
> I've been tinkering with CHDK and a Cannon SD1000 for a
> year now and have had favorable results. One can take the raw data and
> process it the way you want it to look, without having to worry about
> overexposed or underexposed shots as much.
I don't think that's a strong advantage of CHDK,
since the Powershots only give 10 bit RAW
data. There's not a lot of spare DR to allow
for exposure error.
BugBear
Pioneer42
Just out of curiosity, what were your camera settings, and what type of
post-processing did you use? One of my main interests in CHDK is for
helping with astrophotography.
Pioneer42
> Pioneer42 <pion...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:tXinl.13339$i42.5951
> @newsfe17.iad:
>
>> Has anyone here tried the CHDK project's firmware with a Canon SD1000?
>> Are there any issues I should know about before I try it? I am looking
>> for some tips on this process because I don't want to brick my camera.
>
> AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera program.
> The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and is not a
> resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from the beginning,
> just avoid loading that program card into your camera. Bricking involves
> flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new program that may or
> may not freeze your process up. As I understand it, you'd do well to avoid
> that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls, where that terminology
> applies too well. Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
> with, do they??? I've been tinkering with CHDK and a Cannon SD1000 for a
> year now and have had favorable results. One can take the raw data and
> process it the way you want it to look, without having to worry about
> overexposed or underexposed shots as much. I've never had a problem of
> irreversible bricking on a camera.
>
Concerning the RAW data produced by CHDK, I haven't been able to find a
suitable program to edit them with. Paint Shop Pro Photo XII won't open
them, Windows Live Photo Gallery won't open them (even with Canon's WIC
codec installed), GIMP won't open, and I don't own Photoshop. The only
thing that will open them is Picasa. What format is the raw data stored
in, and what codecs/programs do I need to access them?
jimbok
<pion...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>Concerning the RAW data produced by CHDK, I haven't been able to find a
>suitable program to edit them with.
Most current versions of CHDK give you the option to save the RAW
files in DNG format (Adobe Digital Negative). DNG can be opened in
numerous programs including Irfanview and XnView.
Another conversion option is to use a program such as "DNG4ps2" which
will convert Powershot RAW files to DNG.
http://code.google.com/p/dng4ps2/
A third option is to use a program such as RawTherapee, which can work
directly with Powershot RAW files.
All are freeware
--
jimbok
Justin C
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03 GMT, SneakyP wrote:
>
>> Cameras...they don't have flash memory to mess around
>> with, do they???
>
> Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
> download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
> starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
> theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
> future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks. :)
However, the source code of CHDK is available. There are *many* eyes
reading and reviewing it. Should anything virus-like were in there it
would be seen, removed, and the offending coder kick/banned from the
project. It's a project by photographers for their own benefit, it's not
going to "bake bricks".
The benefit of open source is that anyone can read the code and, where
they see enhancement potential, contribute and improve it. That your
average Joe (or Justin) doesn't understand what's in there isn't a
problem because there are enough code experts out there who want to make
this stuff work for their benefit too (contrary to popular belief code
geeks often have other hobbies!).
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
ASAAR
>> Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
>> download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
>> starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
>> theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
>> future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks. :)
>
> However, the source code of CHDK is available. There are *many* eyes
> reading and reviewing it. Should anything virus-like were in there it
> would be seen, removed, and the offending coder kick/banned from the
> project. It's a project by photographers for their own benefit, it's not
> going to "bake bricks".
You misunderstand. You're right that any mal-ware features added
would quickly be discovered, but that's by those that are interested
in downloading source, compiling and comparing with binaries. The
vast majority only download binaries, and many of these probably
don't restrict their downloads to safe, approved sites. I'm not
suggesting that any "virus-like" version of CHDK would be produced
by coders associated with the projects you're referring to.
Distributing source is an amazingly good concept, but it also
entails some minor risk. I downloaded CHDK several years ago for
one of my Powershots and liked the digital voltage display, but for
whatever reason stopped using it. I also don't recall where it was
downloaded from. It's almost certainly was a safe, virus-free
binary, but the point is that if it wasn't, nobody would know if it
wasn't safe if it was downloaded from some irresponsible website
that didn't also provide matching source code. If that was the
case, it could have been designed with a multi-year delay before
going rogue.
> The benefit of open source is that anyone can read the code and, where
> they see enhancement potential, contribute and improve it. That your
> average Joe (or Justin) doesn't understand what's in there isn't a
> problem because there are enough code experts out there who want to make
> this stuff work for their benefit too (contrary to popular belief code
> geeks often have other hobbies!).
One of those hobbies might have something to do with cameras, I
believe. :) Other geeks enjoy trolling newsgroups as anti-DSLR sock
puppets that push both CHDK and Photoline 32. Not referring to you,
btw. It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
something to consider, justin case. :) CHDK would probably be more
popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
longer the case.
Carl Ashley
> It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
>something to consider, justin case. :) CHDK would probably be more
>popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
>its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
>it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
>longer the case.
Unlike the resident know-nothing pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls in this
newsgroup, morons like you, the ONLY person to have documented the WHOLE
damn thing (wrote 95%+ of the Wiki, provided all the graphics and charts
for the documentation, all the testing methods, all the usage tutorials,
all the uBASIC tutorials, dozens of scripts, among others) and did it all
for free, taking hundreds of hours of his own personal time to do so, was
this so-called anti-DSLR fanatic that you try to defame with your
stupidity. Then some freak of an idiot just copied all of that hard work to
his lame PDF documentation and badly paraphrased everything in it and is
now getting credit for it. That cretin aught to be shot for spreading so
much misinformation about the project. People just like you, who should be
on some mail-bombing hit-list.
The person you are trying to defame stopped doing all of that for everyone
because of jackoffs just like you running around. Now you're all on your
own trying to figure it out. Be glad he left as much of his documentation
intact as he did or fool internet-trolls like you would be even more in the
dark and even more ignorant and stupid than you already are.
He knows perfectly well how to use every last bit of CHDK, but due to
cretins like you he isn't going to share one more damn thing about it.
It's idiot paranoid trolls and freaks like you that ruin it for everyone.
Enjoy your ignorance and stupidity, it becomes you. It IS you.
David J Taylor
I do agree with your comments about open-source and the over-promoted
items of "geek" software.
Cheers,
David
ASAAR
>> It's these (this?) unstable CHDK fanatics that make caution
>> something to consider, justin case. :) CHDK would probably be more
>> popular if one tenth of the effort put into its coding was put into
>> its interface and documentation. From what I saw several years ago,
>> it's a geek's present to other geeks. It would be nice if that's no
>> longer the case.
>
> Unlike the resident know-nothing pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls in this
> newsgroup, morons like you, the ONLY person to have documented the WHOLE
> damn thing (wrote 95%+ of the Wiki, provided all the graphics and charts
> for the documentation, all the testing methods, all the usage tutorials,
> all the uBASIC tutorials, dozens of scripts, among others) and did it all
> for free, taking hundreds of hours of his own personal time to do so, was
> this so-called anti-DSLR fanatic that you try to defame with your
> stupidity. Then some freak of an idiot just copied all of that hard work to
> his lame PDF documentation and badly paraphrased everything in it and is
> now getting credit for it. That cretin aught to be shot for spreading so
> much misinformation about the project. People just like you, who should be
> on some mail-bombing hit-list.
"unstable CHDK fanatics". See above. Too bad about that "ONLY
person" you mentioned that evidently suffered from burnout. You
should ha . . . He should have sought help (in more ways than one).
Writing good documentation can be as difficult as writing good code,
and beta testing improves both products. It's certainly made more
difficult when megalomania intrudes.
Robert Coe
: On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:11:03 GMT, SneakyP wrote:
: > AFAIKT there isn't any flash memory that could crud up your camera
: > program. The program for CHDK preloads from the memory on the card and
: > is not a resident flash memory. To get back the camera you had from
: > the beginning, just avoid loading that program card into your camera.
: > Bricking involves flashing your memory on the unit into accepting a new
: > program that may or may not freeze your process up. As I understand it,
: > you'd do well to avoid that unfortunate situation in routers/firewalls,
: > where that terminology applies too well. Cameras...they don't have
: > flash memory to mess around with, do they???
:
: Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
: download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
: starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
: theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
: future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks. :)
The assumption implicit in that warning is that software running on an SD card
can hijack the camera's firmware upgrade procedure. I suppose that's possible
(almost anything is), but it would represent quite a grievous oversight on
Canon's part. Even if that flaw exists in some earlier Canons, one would
certainly hope that they'd have fixed it in more recent models.
Bob
Carl Ashley
>evidently suffered from burnout
You read that wrong, as usual, as how all pathetic trolls misread thing so
they can use everyone's posts for more attention-getting methods. Trolls
are so desperate.
Learn to read. It said nothing about "suffered from burnout". But it was
all about suffering from "burnouts", people just like you.
Isn't it nice to know that because of you and all the other trolls just
like you, that the only people capable of helping are no longer helping.
Your loss and the loss of everyone ... just because you were born.
Talk to all your relatives about birth-control, sterilization, and abortion
methods. Send them links on the "coat-hanger" method if nothing else.
Someone sorely needs to do something about their lack of abortion
information in your whole genetic line.
You are, unfortunately, "living" proof of that.
Robert Coe
This person appears to be insane. Is that what ASAAR meant by "burnout"?
Bob
ASAAR
> : Sure they do. If Canon needs to fix problems or add features, you
> : download a firmware update, and follow Canon's procedure which
> : starts by copying the firmware to a memory card. So it's
> : theoretically possible that some version of CHDK could wait for a
> : future date or some other trigger and start baking bricks. :)
>
> The assumption implicit in that warning is that software running on an SD card
> can hijack the camera's firmware upgrade procedure. I suppose that's possible
> (almost anything is), but it would represent quite a grievous oversight on
> Canon's part. Even if that flaw exists in some earlier Canons, one would
> certainly hope that they'd have fixed it in more recent models.
No, I don't think that software could easily hijack the upgrade.
I don't know Canon's procedure because unlike other companies it
didn't show it online and it's included with the download which
requires a serial number. All of the other upgrade procedures I've
used for cameras from other manufacturers have you copy the upgrade
binary file to a freshly formatted memory card, or run a
manufacturer's executable while the camera is linked to the computer
via USB. Even a malevolent binary on an SD card would be harmless
unless the user intentionally started the camera in a non-obvious
manner, so unless that user was the one that placed the binary on
the card, it would remain dormant and harmless. I assume that
Canon's procedure is reasonably secure, much more so than if the
user runs any of MS's versions of Outlook. :)
Carl Ashley
Awww ... boo-hooo ... What's the matter? Didn't you get all the
documentation that you wanted for free? You have nobody to blame but the
idiot trolls, ones just like ASSAR ... and yourself.
Mark Thomas
>
> Awww ... boo-hooo ... What's the matter? Didn't you get all the
> documentation that you wanted for free? You have nobody to blame but the
> idiot trolls, ones just like ASSAR ... and yourself.
This childish troll is "Keoeeit", found on other forums and in the past
as X-Man, Baumbadier, 'the anti-dslr-troll', and as both keoeeit and
Dave Ingols on dpreview. It is *easy* to verify this.
He also posts under a myriad of names, Carl Ashley being the latest, as
he is too gutless to be identified and thinks people will believe he has
support, the only support being from his sockpuppets..
He is an embarrassment to the CHDK development community, who would now
like to disown him for the damage he does to the promotion of what is
actually quite a good product. But because of it's association with
Keoeeit, it will never be a successful as it could have been.
Carl Ashley
wrote:
>Carl Ashley wrote:
>>
>> Awww ... boo-hooo ... What's the matter? Didn't you get all the
>> documentation that you wanted for free? You have nobody to blame but the
>> idiot trolls, ones just like ASSAR ... and yourself.
>
>This childish troll is "Keoeeit", found on other forums and in the past
>as X-Man, Baumbadier, 'the anti-dslr-troll', and as both keoeeit and
>Dave Ingols on dpreview. It is *easy* to verify this.
>
>He also posts under a myriad of names, Carl Ashley being the latest, as
>he is too gutless to be identified and thinks people will believe he has
>support, the only support being from his sockpuppets..
Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.
1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so
they keep asking why.
2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they
are and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They
live on the net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I
laugh when they try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see
how this works and also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls
having quickly outted themselves.
3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be
leaders fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.
4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and
wisdom that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is
of no real use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally
insecure.
5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions.
The moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one
day to the next it's time to change names.
6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring
the wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking
idiot. You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal
life. They're for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.
7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be
here trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls
like yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the
entertainment quotient of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and
jump around helps offset the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their
day they waste trying to hunt down everyone's names, sort them out, and
make their meaningless screen-name lists that only reveals their emotional
and psychiatric problems.
8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with
something as amazingly stupid as you.
9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art
of deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's
all they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being.
With luck they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on
their "What to do today..." list.
10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others
but amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win
win, all around.
11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each
day. Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little
nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest of men."
12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.
Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format
suggested to conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it
on its vertical axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the
resulting print-out to your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat
whenever you feel the need to ask again.
Carl Ashley
wrote:
>Carl Ashley wrote:
That's funny. I wonder why acseven, the owner of the CHDK forum, and all
the coders wish that he'd come back to continue to help debug, offer
suggestions, find new features, invent new scripts, and write all the
documentation for what they are doing. And why is it that all his accounts
on the CHDK forum are still intact, still listed as a "hero member" no
less. They just wish that you, the closet-case, net-living,
pretend-photographer, fag-stalker would have never shown up there to cause
him delete all his 1200+ posts of valuable information. Then he just walked
away to teach delusional asswipes like you a lesson.
You sure taught them all a lesson, didn't you. You single-handedly managed
to destroy the greatest amount of information available to the CHDK
community.
:-)
You don't get it do you. The world would be an infinitely better place if
things like you never existed. Someone should try to make that happen.
Mark Thomas
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:21:45 +1000, Mark Thomas <mark.t...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Carl Ashley wrote:
>>> Awww ... boo-hooo ... What's the matter? Didn't you get all the
>>> documentation that you wanted for free? You have nobody to blame but the
>>> idiot trolls, ones just like ASSAR ... and yourself.
>> This childish troll is "Keoeeit", found on other forums and in the past
>> as X-Man, Baumbadier, 'the anti-dslr-troll', and as both keoeeit and
>> Dave Ingols on dpreview. It is *easy* to verify this.
>>
>> He also posts under a myriad of names, Carl Ashley being the latest, as
>> he is too gutless to be identified and thinks people will believe he has
>> support, the only support being from his sockpuppets..
>>
>> He is an embarrassment to the CHDK development community, who would now
>> like to disown him for the damage he does to the promotion of what is
>> actually quite a good product. But because of it's association with
>> Keoeeit, it will never be a successful as it could have been.
>
> That's funny. I wonder why acseven, the owner of the CHDK forum, and all
> the coders wish that he'd come back to continue to help
Don't worry "Carl". No-one else would *ever* be smart enough to guess
that the other troll:
- who talks just like you
- hates dslr users
- loves Photoline
- 'helped develop' CHDK
- lives in Minnesota
- posts from cpinternet
- talks in a superior and recognisable tone
might also be ..you.
That's Keoeeit, X-Man, Baumbadier, DJJohnson, the anti-dslr / chdk /
photoline troll, Vern, Aslan, Dave Ingols, Casiobear, Solidude (and many
more) for anyone wishing to investigate further. *That* person happily
admits to the behavior on occasion:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/7b2ff557caafe5bd
*That* person has been doing this for many years under a multitude of
names, and many others have outed him, resulting in the inevitable
tantrums, eg:
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2969234&postcount=16
http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.graphics.apps.paint-shop-pro/browse_frm/thread/42f71d80ec2026bb
The reason he gets so upset is that he is, of course, a superior being
to the rest of us:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060227110147/http://www.gayoutdoors.org/forums2000/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=419
(O:
It's also interesting that *once upon a time*, Keoeeit understood at
least some of the problems with compacts compared to DSLRs.
http://www.eotacforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=24769&p=300369#p300369
> They just wish that you, the closet-case
Closet cases don't generally post as openly as I do using their real
name, supporting links, and easy to verify information...
> net-living,
Compared to Keoeeit's efforts to deceive and sockpuppet, I bow to the
master of hypocrisy. But that isn't *you* of course.
> pretend-photographer
I'm not the one who pulled all their photos and posts from any forums he
could - anyone wanting to see any old photo of mine has but to ask.
> fag-stalker
Hereabouts, that is a derogatory term. 'Fag', I mean. I have no debate
with sexual preferences, but anyone who uses that term *would* appear to
have issues. And yes, I am happy to *pursue* the sockpuppeting
pretenders who mislead and misinform, and OUT them.
> would have never shown up there to cause
> him delete all his 1200+ posts of valuable information.
Fascinating. I have never been anywhere near the CHDK forums. Be
specific, who do you think I posted as, "Carl"? However, I HAVE seen
Keoeeit's tantrums at *many* forums, where as soon as anyone corrects
his misinformation or starts any sort of debate, he goes into exactly
the sort of lunatic tirade seen here repeatedly.
His habit of removing all his posts from those forums where he can, 'to
teach everyone a valuable lesson', has been about as successful as his
attempts to remove all traces of his work (removed because, of course,
no-one is worthy to see it). What's left on the net suggests that may
not exactly be true (search on "keoeeit gallery"), but others can (and
have) judge/d...
> Then he just walked
> away to teach delusional asswipes like you a lesson.
Yeah, that sure taught 'em a lesson!!!
> You single-handedly managed
> to destroy the greatest amount of information available to the CHDK
> community.
Well, if you want to believe:
a. it was the 'greatest amount of information' (cough choke snortle)
b. it was my taunts (given I've never posted to any chkdk forum)
c. and that some moronic wanker 'proves a point' by pulling all his old
posts
then you're welcome to your opinion. Given the posts are not there any
more, an equally valid assumption is that his information was worthless
egotistical crap, and he decided to hide them so there was no evidence
and he could later tell everyone how valuable they were.
Gee, you seem to know a lot about this CHDK person called Keoeeit, and
are prepared to speak volumes on his behalf. It's all a fascinating and
completely unexplainable phenomenon... Strange how you've never
appeared before.
> You don't get it do you. The world would be an infinitely better place if
> things like you never existed. Someone should try to make that happen.
Words of wisdom.
Getting back on topic, "Carl", tell us more about CHDK. And then
Photoline. And how do DSLR's compare with compacts? What do you
currently shoot, and can we see examples?
(O:
Thanks for playing.
Carl Ashley
wrote:
Thanks for posting all that proof that you are nothing but a delusional and
desperate internet fag-stalker, hell-bent on trying to get attention from
some gay guy that will never have anything to do with you. LOL!
Go get a man in real life, you need a good fisting. That'll cure you.
John McWilliams
> Thanks for posting all that proof that you are nothing but a delusional and
> desperate internet fag-stalker, hell-bent on trying to get attention from
> some gay guy that will never have anything to do with you. LOL!
>
> Go get a man in real life, you need a good fisting. That'll cure you.
Pot, Kettle....
-hh
Simple and to the point, although the little trollboy won't grok it.
Nor this:
Good grief, the parade of idiocy from this lame troll never ends.
1. Because it drives the lame troll up the wall as he's too amazingly
stupid to figure out why he's being mocked, at least parody is
slightly more entertaining to the rest of us who have to tolerate his
lame cries for attention.
2. Resident posters reveal themselves ...gosh, by posting! The lame
troll then knows who to beg for attention from. Of course, when his
Mommy lets them, lame troll tries to find 'friends' on the net,
despite the troll having no real social skills. The troll tries to
laugh it off when they receive advice, since they don't want to admit
that they're a loser with no life.
3. A troll always claims that he has his allies. Of course, claims of
friends, followers, 'mindless' or otherwise, is merely delusions of
grandeur. The troll is invariably alone, with no one to come to his
aid, except the occasional army of self-created sockpuppets...gosh,
how "clever!".
4. How many times has the lame troll tried to hide their name? Since
employers now screen perspective employees, take a guess. Afterall,
being able to eat is overrated. And the ego of trying to claim to be
clever enough to 'hide' is reserved for the terminally insecure that
someone might actually find out who one is, which threatens the
minimum wage job down at McBurger's.
5. Lame trolls claim: 'I don't need any reason to back-up my claims
when I'm cleverly nymshifting all the time.' Its that simple. Of
course, an unsubstantiated claim from someone with a negative
credibility is always safely ignored.
6. What good is a real name online, besides credibility? Some real
posters have actually been invited to dinner, and even if one brought
wine instead of beer, it can still be a real friendship. Mister lame
troll doesn't have 'idiots' in his personal life, nor does he have
'friends', either...losers are invariably alone.
7. The lame troll tries to claim that he gets some degree of
entertainment for himself, evidence of psychiatric problems. What's
really happening is that he's falling apart in real life and his
posting is merely an attempt at escapism. Despite all of his
egotistical bravado, the schmuck is a loser...and he knows it. By
creating a windmill to tilt, he has tried to give himself a reason to
exist...but note the word 'tried'.
8. The lame troll claims to "not so insecure that I need your
recognition nor the recognition of anyone"...yet he continues to
insecurely act up in an attempt to gain attention. Similarly, he
tries to pull himself up by pulling others ('stupid", etc) down. Both
are psychiatric signs of extreme insecurity and a lack of self
esteem.
9. Trolls like to think that they are 'crafty' and have perfected the
art of deception, but its actually self-deception, and being a useless
pretender. It's amazing the degree to which they will debase
themselves just to get any attention. While it is tempting to say
that they could end their misery by committing suicide, the reality is
that since the lame troll is also a coward, he isn't brave enough to
bring himself to that.
10. The lamest of the lame trolls are "one hit wonders". Naturally,
they'll invent excuses that try to claim otherwise, but Occam's Razor
applies: the lame troll simply lacks the intelligence to actually be
creative and multi-dimensional.
11. Louis Ferron (1942-2005): "When beauty fails, stupidity makes
its entrance".
Edward T
wrote:
So the emotionally desperate Mark Thomas fag-stalker is the same as those
that he's been stalking for years? You are as insane as the other
virtual-photographer trolls in this newsgroup. You've just proved it.
Jason
What a wonderful example of projection. Even the first paragraph makes it
clear that your post is self-referential to you being nothing but a useless
troll. Or you were referring to the fag-stalking Mark Thomas troll. At
times it's difficult to tell. Both are equally valid examples.
Mark Thomas
(abuse snipped)
Hi, Keoeeit.
Like I said, he posts from cpinternet and just keeps changing his name.
This is to compensate for the fact that he gets ZERO support.
Mark Thomas
arnold_atwater
wrote:
>Jason wrote:
This is supposed to change the PROVEN FACT that you are nothing but an
emotionally desperate, low-life, fag-stalking, pretend-photographer,
newsgroup troll, how?
It doesn't disprove it and it never will disprove it. Every post that you
make just confirms that HARD COLD FACT even more.
What a moron.
ASAAR
> What a wonderful example of projection. Even the first paragraph makes
> it clear that your post is self-referential to you being nothing but a useless
> troll. Or you were referring to the fag-stalking Mark Thomas troll. At
> times it's difficult to tell. Both are equally valid examples.
Speaking of projection - what happened to yours? Once the king of
long winded trolls, one that rarely posted less than 300 line
multi-point replies, you've become effete, only able to eke out a
weak 4 line response to -hh's mighty 11 point missive. The
chattering, nattering nabob of negativism is now but an enervated
sock puppet shell, showing how far the motley have fallen.
Atheist Chaplain
news:3cc6q4d1hsv95a1am...@4ax.com...
you must really hate it when he can so quickly point out who the real troll
here is, and that would be you.
Might I suggest you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, it seems to me that
they were thinking of you when they wrote it, but then you probably won't
see it as such, thus completely validating it :-)
--
[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
bugbear
> bugbear wrote:
>> Pioneer42 wrote:
>>> Are there any issues I should know about before I try it?
>>
>> Yeah - you'd better WANT all the control it offers.
>>
>> It's like the manual control your Canon already
>> offers - but on Steroids.
>>
>> but for pushing your Canon to it's outermost limit,
>> it's wonderful.
>>
>> Here's a photo of the Sword of Orion, including
>> some nebulosity in M42, taken
>> with a Canon A630, a tripod, and CHDK.
>>
>> Post processing was most definitely involved :-)
>>
>> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/bugbear33/photo_tech/raw_sword1.png
>>
>>
>> BugBear
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, what were your camera settings, and what type of
> post-processing did you use? One of my main interests in CHDK is for
> helping with astrophotography.
Be careful; some Canon compacts (including mine, an A630) alter the physical
length of the lens (which moves the front element) during
focusing. This makes them a poor choice for digiscoping.
The Canon A590 is widely used for digiscoping, and has a different
lens mechanism.
Anyway, here's the details of what I did:
BugBear
bugbear
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:25:17 -0600, Pioneer42
> <pion...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Concerning the RAW data produced by CHDK, I haven't been able to find a
>> suitable program to edit them with.
>
> Most current versions of CHDK give you the option to save the RAW
> files in DNG format (Adobe Digital Negative). DNG can be opened in
> numerous programs including Irfanview and XnView.
>
> Another conversion option is to use a program such as "DNG4ps2" which
> will convert Powershot RAW files to DNG.
>
> http://code.google.com/p/dng4ps2/
>
> A third option is to use a program such as RawTherapee, which can work
> directly with Powershot RAW files.
>
> http://www.rawtherapee.com/
>
> All are freeware
>
Add: dcraw, ufraw
BugBear
Pioneer42
Thanks, I can now use the GIMP with ufraw to open DNG files saved by
CHDK. I can also now open DNG files with Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2,
but I have to convert them to an uncompressed DNG first.