small aperture test
Dudley Hanks
I've heard a lot about how the cropped sensor cameras are defraction limited
to around f/8 - f/11, so I thought I'd see what kind of an image my XSi puts
out at a small aperture.
I snapped on my 50mm f/1.8 lens and set it up to take a picture at f/22,
with a shutter speed of 1 sec.
How did it turn out?
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SmallWinterPortrait.jpg (quick
download)
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SelfPortraitWinter.jpg (full
size)
Take Care,
Dudley
David J Taylor
Difficult to say, Dudley. Yes, the image isn't "tack sharp" (a term I
loathe), so there could be some diffraction visible, but I'm also not
convinced that the subject didn't move within the 1 second exposure!
Cheers,
David
Dudley Hanks
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:t6aIm.1501$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Thanks, David, I'll try it again with an inanimate object, or a faster
shutter speed.
I suppose, if the test is to be useful, I should also take an equivalent pic
of the subject using a wider aperture so the two images can be compared.
Take Care,
Dudley
David J Taylor
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:DvaIm.50463$Db2.1880@edtnps83...
[]
> Thanks, David, I'll try it again with an inanimate object, or a faster
> shutter speed.
>
> I suppose, if the test is to be useful, I should also take an equivalent
> pic of the subject using a wider aperture so the two images can be
> compared.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Indeed, yes. Tripod and very careful focussing come to mind. While the
degradation due to diffraction at f/22 is noticeable with careful
inspection, you probably wouldn't notice with normal use - just sharpen a
little more. Diffraction on small sensor cameras is one reason why some
of them are limited to f/8 or f/11 as the smallest aperture.
Cheers,
David
Ofnuts
Some of them haven't even got diaphragm and the "diaphragm" is simulated
with a neutral filter.
--
Bertrand
Rich
With an APS-C sensor, you would lose about 1/2 your resolution
(provided the lens is good) going from f8 to f22.
Chris Malcolm
The diffraction limit of aperture is usually taken to be the last
aperture in a decreasing series of sharper apertures, i.e., stopping
down further makes the image softer because of diffraction. But that's
not a fixed aperture, it depends on such things as the exact sensor
pixel size (or crop factor) not just the nominal "1.5", on the
resolution of the lens, and whether you're looking at the centre of
the image or the edges or some compromise between the two. Why
should it depend on those? Because the point at which an extra stop's
worth of diffraction softening becomes larger than how much other
kinds of lens aberration are being improved by stopping down obviously
will depend on the size of those other errors. In other words better
lenses will have larger sharpest apertures.
I find for example on my Sony A350 that my general purpose zoom is
usually sharpest at f8, but at its soft extremes that becomes f11, and
my 50mm prime is sharpest at f5.6.
This can only be established for your camera and each of your lenses
by taking a comparative series of shots while varying the aperture. On
zooms it may change with focal length.
--
Chris Malcolm
Dudley Hanks
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7ldt5gF...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks, Chris, that's good info to have.
This is a pretty cheap lens, and I think its a bit soft to begin with.
I've always been a fan of mildly soft portraits, and this lens has worked
well for that purpose. But its also given me a few nice and sharp pics as
well.
It'll be interesting to see how it performs across its full range...
Take Care,
Dudley
Better Info
Your test won't work. Unless the widest aperture of your lens is the very
sharpest, that means that the lens is not of diffraction-limited quality,
the very best there is. If you lose detail at any time that you open up the
lens, then that means the lens is not diffraction-limited. If it's not
diffraction limited you can't tell when diffraction is what is causing the
softening. As in all DSLR glass, the softening you see is due to lenses not
being of diffraction-limited quality, poor lens manufacturing. Usually only
one stop is adequate because the defects are overridden by that particular
aperture stop. Anything above and below it is showing lens-figure defects,
not diffraction problems.
Chris Malcolm
> On 4 Nov 2009 17:49:36 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>The diffraction limit of aperture is usually taken to be the last
>>aperture in a decreasing series of sharper apertures, i.e., stopping
>>down further makes the image softer because of diffraction. But that's
>>not a fixed aperture, it depends on such things as the exact sensor
>>pixel size (or crop factor) not just the nominal "1.5", on the
>>resolution of the lens, and whether you're looking at the centre of
>>the image or the edges or some compromise between the two. Why
>>should it depend on those? Because the point at which an extra stop's
>>worth of diffraction softening becomes larger than how much other
>>kinds of lens aberration are being improved by stopping down obviously
>>will depend on the size of those other errors. In other words better
>>lenses will have larger sharpest apertures.
>>
>>I find for example on my Sony A350 that my general purpose zoom is
>>usually sharpest at f8, but at its soft extremes that becomes f11, and
>>my 50mm prime is sharpest at f5.6.
>>
>>This can only be established for your camera and each of your lenses
>>by taking a comparative series of shots while varying the aperture. On
>>zooms it may change with focal length.
> Your test won't work. Unless the widest aperture of your lens is the very
> sharpest, that means that the lens is not of diffraction-limited quality,
> the very best there is. If you lose detail at any time that you open up the
> lens, then that means the lens is not diffraction-limited.
You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
widest aperture is sharpest.
> If it's not
> diffraction limited you can't tell when diffraction is what is causing the
> softening. As in all DSLR glass, the softening you see is due to lenses not
> being of diffraction-limited quality, poor lens manufacturing.
That's true when the aperture is wider than the diffraction limited
aperture, and false when it's smaller. The point you're missing is
that lens aberrations reduce as the lens stops down, because a higher
proportion of the image is coming from less refracted parts of the
lens, but as you stop down the proportion of diffraction increases,
because the diffraction proportion is related to the
area/circumference proportion of the aperture. So in any
non-diffraction-limited lens there will be an aperture where the
improving of lens defects by stopping down is overtaken by the
worsening of diffraction effects.
--
Chris Malcolm
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>
>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>widest aperture is sharpest.
Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
diffraction limited quality.
Paul Furman
> I've heard a lot about how the cropped sensor cameras are defraction limited
> to around f/8 - f/11, so I thought I'd see what kind of an image my XSi puts
> out at a small aperture.
>
> I snapped on my 50mm f/1.8 lens and set it up to take a picture at f/22,
> with a shutter speed of 1 sec.
>
> How did it turn out?
The only way to know is to do a test in series. It looks soft to me.
Sometimes that's OK though, sometimes DOF is more important. This photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4075980407
had DOF as a priority though I didn't exceed the diffraction limits and
the lens is near optimum wide open. The power lines in the upper left
are soft due to tilting the focus plane.
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SmallWinterPortrait.jpg (quick
> download)
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SelfPortraitWinter.jpg (full
> size)
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Bob Larter
The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Please, get back to us when you grow a clue. Bye!
Bryan
> I've heard a lot about how the cropped sensor cameras are defraction limited
> to around f/8 - f/11, so I thought I'd see what kind of an image my XSi puts
> out at a small aperture.
>
> I snapped on my 50mm f/1.8 lens and set it up to take a picture at f/22,
> with a shutter speed of 1 sec.
>
> How did it turn out?
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SelfPortraitWinter.jpg (full
> size)
I'll go farther than previous respondents: That photo, from a Canon
XSi at f/22, is obviously not diffraction limited.
The statements you'll hear of the diffraction limit assume everything
else it practically optimal: rock-steady subject, tripod mount,
perfect focus, and unless the claim is about a particular lens, they
mean a laudably sharp one.
Martin Brown
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:t6aIm.1501$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in message news:4U9Im.50459$Db2.29545@edtnps83...
>>> I've heard a lot about how the cropped sensor cameras are defraction
>>> limited to around f/8 - f/11, so I thought I'd see what kind of an image
>>> my XSi puts out at a small aperture.
>>>
>>> I snapped on my 50mm f/1.8 lens and set it up to take a picture at f/22,
>>> with a shutter speed of 1 sec.
>>>
>>> How did it turn out?
>>>
>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SmallWinterPortrait.jpg (quick
>>> download)
>>>
>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/SelfPortraitWinter.jpg (full
>>> size)
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>> Difficult to say, Dudley. Yes, the image isn't "tack sharp" (a term I
>> loathe), so there could be some diffraction visible, but I'm also not
>> convinced that the subject didn't move within the 1 second exposure!
>>
> shutter speed.
>
> I suppose, if the test is to be useful, I should also take an equivalent pic
> of the subject using a wider aperture so the two images can be compared.
If you are serious about being able to tell include a few ball bearings
on black velvet in the picture composition. Specular highlights are
about the easiest thing to see if an image is diffraction limited.
Or you could just use a pinhole over the lens and a verry long exposure.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Dudley Hanks
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Originally, I bought it for my Canon A2, but didn't use it a lot. I used it
a bit for blurred background shots of the kids, flowers, etc.
However, with the crop factor of the XSi, it's now a great portrait lens,
and it still has a fairly respectable aperture when I add in my 2x
converter, giving me a (35mm equiv) f/3.5 160mm lens.
I'm finding myself falling back on it a lot these days.
Take Care,
Dudley
John Navas
wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
not IQ.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
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 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>
> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
> not IQ.
The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>
>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>> not IQ.
>
>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
aperture blades for bokeh, as well as even emulating catadioptric lens
systems no matter what camera took the image, and more.
Catch up, know-nothing snapshooter DSLR-Troll!
Chris Malcolm
But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
If you actually uderstood what you're talking about you'd realise that
that makes half your comments in this thread nonsense. You're arguing
two logically incompatible positions at the same time.
Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate
others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they
they were trying to teach you? :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Dudley Hanks
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af37455$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Any difference in number / quality of elements?
Take Care,
Dudley
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>>>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>>>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>>>widest aperture is sharpest.
>
>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
>> diffraction limited quality.
>
>But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
>limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals
diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured
accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure
error; do you fail to comprehend?
Time to go educate your useless troll-ass of a self.
>
>If you actually uderstood what you're talking about you'd realise that
>that makes half your comments in this thread nonsense. You're arguing
>two logically incompatible positions at the same time.
>
>Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate
>others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they
>they were trying to teach you? :-)
I'll leave you to your fuckingly pathetic trolls' ignorance, only for you
to wake up one day (or not) realizing just how amazingly stupid you were
with your words and reasoning on this day. Just another day of many
thousands where you have done exactly the same. Garbage in, garbage out.
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>
>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>> not IQ.
>>
>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>
>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Trolls is FUN!
Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than
one do this) that I've used to design my own bokeh effects by defining lens
aperture patterns. Then applied to the gaussian-blur depth-map masks that
they use. Perhaps he is upset that he had to go look up what a depth-map
mask is?
3 bladed (sided) irises, 4, 6, 7, 8-sided irises for star-filter bokeh
effects, 12, 19, etc., elliptical, whatever. Also design the diameter, edge
softness, and annulus width for catadioptric lens bokeh emulations, the
works. Nearly any bokeh that is created by any lens design can be emulated
with this software, as well as bokeh effects that can't even be created in
optical lens designs.
Heaven forbid that someone should share truly helpful and easily accessible
information with troll idiots like you running around ruining it for
everyone.
YOUR LOSS!
And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
see the trolls for what they truly are.
Ray Fischer
>On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Trolls is FUN! <ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>>>> not IQ.
>>>>
>>>>The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>>
>>>Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>>
>>Don't use words you don't understand, troll.
>
>Good thing I didn't share the names of the plugins (yes, plural, more than
Go away, idiot troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ofnuts
> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
<snip prespoterous claims>
>
> YOUR LOSS!
>
> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
> see the trolls for what they truly are.
I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
--
Bertrand
Martin Brown
Google is your friend.
One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the
results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
http://alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
Can't say I would recommend it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Outing Trolls is FUN!
wrote:
I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a
depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it, but ... why waste
my time doing that for useless trolls?
Why should I even prove you wrong? You love being right! Don't you?
Whether you believe I am telling the truth or not is of zero importance to
me. I enjoy using that software occasionally when needed. My favorite one
does a remarkable job of emulating any lens bokeh that you can think of or
have ever seen before. The only difference is that you have no knowledge of
its existence, until now. Oh well! Unimportant to me.
Should I tell you the names for the plugins so role-playing trolls can
learn to be better trolls? Just like the only contact they ever have with
cameras is from downloading free camera manuals. They'd then have some
advanced plugin information so they can pretend to be decent graphic
editors too. They're so fuckingly transparent to someone like me when they
pretend to be photographers in these news-groups. They just refuse to
understand that yet, or they'd go play their silly pretend-expert games
elsewhere.
Go forth and search! You have enough information in the previous post to
find what you seek.
Blame all the useless resident-trolls that you support (or are one
yourself) for not having the information just handed to you for free. Now
you have to do some work to go find the software. Be extremely grateful
that I was kind enough to tell you that software of that nature even
exists.
Have fun!
(Awaiting your next, or some other troll's, pathetic manipulation
attempt--to get some help that you don't even deserve, for free.)
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Never used that one. And from your description I probably won't even test
it.
Ofnuts
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>
> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a
> depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it, but ... why waste
> my time doing that for useless trolls?
>
> Why should I even prove you wrong? You love being right! Don't you?
No, I love to learn... even from my errors.
> Go forth and search! You have enough information in the previous post to
> find what you seek.
Obviously not, since someone thought the same, and found the "wrong" one
according to you.
> (Awaiting your next, or some other troll's, pathetic manipulation
> attempt--to get some help that you don't even deserve, for free.)
I'm not awaiting help, at least not from you obviously, since, being
part of the crowd of DSLR dummies/minions/trolls I don't need this software.
I am awaiting some proof of your claims. Einstein did make some that
where preposterous at the time, but he also gave ways to prove them. And
this means giving enough information so that the people in doubt can
check by themselves (I still have a P&S somewhere).
So either you prove me wrong, or you prove yourself a <insert derogatory
term here>
--
Bertrand
Chris Malcolm
> On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>>>>is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>>>>lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>>>>widest aperture is sharpest.
>>
>>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
>>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
>>> diffraction limited quality.
>>
>>But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
>>limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
> What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals
> diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured
> accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure
> error; do you fail to comprehend?
Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on
the subject. The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical
aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long
been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you
disagree with one of the following propositions:
1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture.
2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively.
Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or
whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the
relationship?
>>Is the amount of swearing and cursing you do when trying to educate
>>others a reflection of how your own teachers treated you when they
>>they were trying to teach you? :-)
> I'll leave you to your fuckingly pathetic trolls' ignorance, only for you
> to wake up one day (or not) realizing just how amazingly stupid you were
> with your words and reasoning on this day.
I'll take that as a yes :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>><snip prespoterous claims>
>>
>>>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>>
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
>>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
>>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
>>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
>>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
>>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
>>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
>>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
>>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>>
>>I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>
>I suppose I could upload two sample images,
If you actually had any. But you're just an asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Rich
wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
> > "David J Taylor"
> > messagenews:t6aIm.1501$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> "Dudley Hanks" <> wrote in messagenews:4U9Im.50459$Db2.29545@edtnps83...
Not much point in using a pinhole, any lens will show as diffraction
limited stopped down enough. I have a feeling most lenses stopped
down to f8 "act" diffraction limited centrally, but the edges of most
lenses are never diffraction limited and poor polish and surface
figures on most camera lenses mean you never reach true diffraction.
Martin Brown
> On 6 Nov 2009 02:51:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 5 Nov 2009 02:02:28 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> You've got it back to front. Since diffraction increases as the lens
>>>> is stopped because because of the change of proportion of lens area to
>>>> lens circumference, the test works for all cases EXCEPT when the
>>>> widest aperture is sharpest.
>>> Go educate your useless fuck of an ignorant moron troll self. Resolution
>>> increases with objective optics diameter. IF those optics are of
>>> diffraction limited quality.
Iff the lens is of diffraction limited quality. Most SLR lenses have to
compromise that to get the required flatness of field at the film plane.
>> But as you keep pointing out, DSLR lenses are not of diffraction
>> limited quality and we're discussing DSLR lenses here!
>
> What part of; that's exactly why you can't determine what aperture reveals
> diffraction being an imaging problem because your lenses are not figured
> accurately enough to cause observable diffraction, it's all optics figure
> error; do you fail to comprehend?
You are clueless. He is right. A pinhole camera will demostrate rather
convincingly that the size of the aperture will eventually become small
enough that no lens at all will give an image. And that as you make the
hole even smaller the image not only gets dimmer but also more blurred.
It is a classic trade off between geometric and wave optics
approximations to get a rough solution.
When you stop down a normal camera lens the initial effect is to use
only the centre of the lens so improve abberations and vignetting. This
almost always improves sharpness unless you have a rare long focal
length lens which is made to be diffraction limited at full aperture.
Eventually there comes a point where stopping down any further leads to
the diffraction limit due to the wave nature of light hurting the
sharpness of the image and going beyond that point makes image quality
worse.
For most SLR lenses the sweet spot for being diffraction limited is
somewhere between f5.6 and f11 depending on how well made they are.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>
>Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on
>the subject.
When a youth was giving himself airs in the Theater and saying, "I am wise,
for I have conversed with many wise men." Epictetus replied, "I too have
conversed with many rich men, yet I am not rich."
You were saying something? LOL!
I'm sure your colleagues, if you indeed ever had any, kept you around as
their little puppy dog that didn't piddle on the carpet too often. Or
conversely, got many laughs out of your incessant piddling habits. As I do
with how often you piddle your nonsense to usenet.
Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating
department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)".
If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your
truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my
guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
> The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical
>aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long
>been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you
>disagree with one of the following propositions:
>
>1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture.
Wrong. The central part of a lens or lenses may have the greatest figure
error. Especially in a complex compound lens where one element or group of
elements may have more imaging weight as aperture is increased or reduced.
However, for a given amount of effort, fabrication and figuring errors are
exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that
lens may have the greatest error.
Common Sense 101
>
>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane. The
amount of light in the image only reveals or hides the fixed amount of
diffraction created/caused by distance. You can display the diffraction of
light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required. This is why shorter
focal-length lenses have less diffraction problems. This also is why it's
so easy to create truly diffraction-limited optics for P&S cameras due to
the smaller focal-lengths required and smaller optics diameters required
(i.e. for a given effort, a smaller diameter optic is easier to figure
accurately).
Physics 101
Manufacturing 101
>
>3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively.
Wrong.
Grade-School Math 101
>
>Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or
>whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the
>relationship?
Three strikes, you're outta here TROLL.
Blatantly Obvious 101
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
All wrong. No sense educating you again too, read other reply.
Bob Larter
> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>> not IQ.
>> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>
> Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
> aperture blades for bokeh,
Um, no, it doesn't.
> as well as even emulating catadioptric lens
> systems no matter what camera took the image, and more.
Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to emulate the
doughnut-shaped bokeh you get with a cat lens?
Bob Larter
Me either. I prefer the real bokeh you get from good lenses.
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>
>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>>
>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
>>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
>>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
>>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
>>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
>>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
>>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
>>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
>>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>
> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a
> depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it,
Oh, I doubt that.
Bob Larter
> "Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4af37455$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed, not
>>> IQ.
>> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as
>> well.
EF50mm/F1.8II: 5 blades, 6 elements, 5 groups.
EF50mm/F1.4USM: 8 blades, 7 elements, 6 groups.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:50:52 +0100, Ofnuts <o.f.n...@la.poste.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>>>> On 06 Nov 2009 07:28:51 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>>
>>>> YOUR LOSS!
>>>>
>>>> And a huge loss for everyone. Caused by trolls like you. Now everyone has
>>>> to do the searching for that software based only on a vague description.
>>>> Good luck finding my most favorite and vastly configurable one as described
>>>> above, I've not seen it on the net for about two years. You useless trolls
>>>> taught me well. NEVER share the most important bits of information as long
>>>> as a news-group is being overrun and taken over by a pack of useless and
>>>> pathetic trolls. The trolls will only use that information to be better at
>>>> pretending to be photographers with the next newbies who can't immediately
>>>> see the trolls for what they truly are.
>>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>>
>> I suppose I could upload two sample images, one without and one with a
>> depth-map catadioptric-lens annulus bokeh applied to it,
>
>Oh, I doubt that.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:56:53 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:39:40 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote in <4af2c78c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>>
>>>>> The 50mm/F1.8II is a surprisingly good lens for the money. I've taken a
>>>>> lot of excellent shots with mine, so please don't sell it short!
>>>>> I've since 'upgraded' to a 50mm/F1.4, but it's not as much of an
>>>>> improvement as you might expect from the price difference.
>>>> What you get for the money with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 is speed,
>>>> not IQ.
>>> The f1.4 also has more aperture blades, so the bokeh is a bit nicer as well.
>>
>> Post-processing plugins with depth-map masks afford an infinite number of
>> aperture blades for bokeh,
>
>Um, no, it doesn't.
>
>> as well as even emulating catadioptric lens
>> systems no matter what camera took the image, and more.
>
>Why the hell would anyone in their right mind want to emulate the
>doughnut-shaped bokeh you get with a cat lens?
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
<eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>You can display the diffraction of
>light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required.
Some interesting images found while bored. Referred to as "Grimaldi's
Shadows" in days of yore. Circa 17th century. The resident-trolls posting
in these news-groups today are 300 to 400 years behind the learning curve.
They're not mental-throw-backs to just last century. I'm not at all
surprised.
Full double-edge razor blade:
<http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/images/diffractionfigure2.jpg>
Internal space in a double-edged razor blade:
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/PHYOPT/phopic/razcut.jpg>
Razor blade corner (oops, no aperture at all):
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/PHYOPT/phopic/razcor.jpg>
Also related to my previous posts:
While finding the above, I stumbled upon a fairly good example of optics
being given the Ronchi-test where the central portion has the worst figure.
<http://www.retrotechnology.com/glass/06mar13_9r.jpg>
Stopping down the aperture will cause softening due to figure errors, not
diffraction.
(For those green to Ronchi-test patterns, here's a quick overview:
<http://schmidling.com/etron.gif> TDE=turned down edge)
Chris Malcolm
>>Not at all. I've worked alongside colleagues who've written books on
>>the subject.
> When a youth was giving himself airs in the Theater and saying, "I am wise,
> for I have conversed with many wise men." Epictetus replied, "I too have
> conversed with many rich men, yet I am not rich."
> You were saying something? LOL!
> I'm sure your colleagues, if you indeed ever had any, kept you around as
> their little puppy dog that didn't piddle on the carpet too often. Or
> conversely, got many laughs out of your incessant piddling habits. As I do
> with how often you piddle your nonsense to usenet.
> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating
> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)".
> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your
> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my
> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover
my academic affilation and status.
>>The mathematics of the relationship between lens optical
>>aberrations and diffraction is simple, uncontroversial, and has long
>>been well known. Your position can only logically be maintained if you
>>disagree with one of the following propositions:
>>
>>1. Lens optical errors vary inversely with aperture.
> Wrong. The central part of a lens or lenses may have the greatest figure
> error. Especially in a complex compound lens where one element or group of
> elements may have more imaging weight as aperture is increased or reduced.
> However, for a given amount of effort, fabrication and figuring errors are
> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that
> lens may have the greatest error.
Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with
a smokescreen of rare exceptions. Let's take one of the largest and
simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually
applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no
contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of
diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given
image distance increases with aperture?
Your responses in this thread suggest that you do have access to some
reasonably authoritative source of information on the topic, but that
you don't really understand what it means.
> The
> amount of light in the image only reveals or hides the fixed amount of
> diffraction created/caused by distance. You can display the diffraction of
> light with a single knife-edge, no aperture required. This is why shorter
> focal-length lenses have less diffraction problems. This also is why it's
> so easy to create truly diffraction-limited optics for P&S cameras due to
> the smaller focal-lengths required and smaller optics diameters required
> (i.e. for a given effort, a smaller diameter optic is easier to figure
> accurately).
That's exactly what I thought. You don't really understand this at
all. What you say is perfectly true, but if you really understood what
you've written you'd realise that it has nothing to do with the change
in the relative amount of diffraction in an image formed by a
non-diffraction-limited lens at varying apertures.
>>3. Lens errors combine at worst multiplicatively.
> Wrong.
> Grade-School Math 101
You appear to have as little understanding of Maths 101 as Physics 101
or Optics 101. It's a bit pointless citing such elementary sources to
someone whose education has gone well past that point. If you want to
disagree, then rather than vaguely waving your hand at an unspecified
first year undergrafuate textbook, why not try to actually find the
relavant page and quote it?
I am of course generously assuming that you once did such courses and
can still remember what's in the textbooks :-)
>>Can you enlighten us as to which of those you disagree with, or
>>whether you're using a different mathematical foundation for the
>>relationship?
> Three strikes, you're outta here TROLL.
> Blatantly Obvious 101
That's one course I have no doubt you attended :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating
>> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)".
>> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your
>> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my
>> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover
>my academic affilation and status.
>
Why on earth do you think anyone would be interested enough in you to do
something as hugely pointless a waste of time as that? Your words here
speak for themselves. You're an idiot. A semi-educated idiot. The world is
crawling with them. Some of the most stupid people I have ever met in life
even had PhD and Dr prefacing their names.
>> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that
>> lens may have the greatest error.
>
>Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with
>a smokescreen of rare exceptions.
No smokescreen at all. Poor lens figuring is DIRECTLY RELATED to why you
CANNOT MEASURE the amount of diffraction, especially when stopped down. If
you cannot obtain the sharpest image at full aperture, then that means YOUR
OPTICS ARE NOT DIFFRACTION-LIMITED. Therefore, stopping down that lens is
NO GUARANTEE that the softness you are observing is in any way related to
diffraction. Are you this pathetically stupid that you can't grasp
something so simple?
> Let's take one of the largest and
>simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
>
>Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually
>applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
>
Ahhh.... the bleats of a pure troll. Red-herring CA bullshit smokescreens
that have has nothing to do with the diffraction problems being discussed.
>>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
>
>> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
>
>Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no
>contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of
>diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given
>image distance increases with aperture?
This will be the last time I tell you this. If the optics are not of
diffraction-limited quality, then your optics CANNOT create diffraction
artifacts to even measure it or detect it.
You only asked that I disagree with three of your points. ALL THREE were
wrong.
I suggest you pay for some courses on these areas of study instead of
trying to manipulate someone far more intelligent than you into educating
you for free.
Go away useless troll. I'm done with you.
Ray Fischer
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating
>> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)".
>> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your
>> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my
>> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover
>my academic affilation and status.
Don't argue with it. It doesn't care about the truth. It will keep
lying and keep arguing as long as you keep responding to what it
writes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Pushing a broom and emptying waste-baskets in a publisher's collating
>> department could also be construed as "working alongside .... (authors)".
>> If I was forced to assume your trolls' comment above was conveying your
>> truth, from the vast amount of misinformation you spew that would be my
>> guess of how you came to believe what you believe.
>
>Your research skills are pathetic. It's ridiculously easy to discover
>my academic affilation and status.
>
Why on earth do you think anyone would be interested enough in you to do
something as hugely pointless a waste of time as that? Your words here
speak for themselves. You're an idiot. A semi-educated idiot. The world is
crawling with them. Some of the most stupid people I have ever met in life
even had PhD and Dr prefacing their names.
>> exponentially proportional to size. There is no law on which area of that
>> lens may have the greatest error.
>
>Let's get down to specifics and try to avoid confusing the issue with
>a smokescreen of rare exceptions.
No smokescreen at all. Poor lens figuring is DIRECTLY RELATED to why you
CANNOT MEASURE the amount of diffraction, especially when stopped down. If
you cannot obtain the sharpest image at full aperture, then that means YOUR
OPTICS ARE NOT DIFFRACTION-LIMITED. Therefore, stopping down that lens is
NO GUARANTEE that the softness you are observing is in any way related to
diffraction. Are you this pathetically stupid that you can't grasp
something so simple?
> Let's take one of the largest and
>simplest kinds of lens aberration -- chromatic aberration.
>
>Do you really seriously claim that what you wrote above usually
>applies to chromatic aberration in DSLR camera lenses?
>
Ahhh.... the bleats of a pure troll. Red-herring CA bullshit smokescreens
that have has nothing to do with the diffraction problems being discussed.
>>>2. Lens diffraction errors vary with aperture.
>
>> Wrong. It varies with distance of aperture edge to imaging plane.
>
>Of course it does! But do you not realise that there is no
>contradiction between that fact and the fact that the proportion of
>diffraction error in an image formed by a given camera lens at a given
>image distance increases with aperture?
This will be the last time I tell you this. If the optics are not of
diffraction-limited quality, then your optics CANNOT create diffraction
artifacts to even measure it or detect it.
You only asked that I disagree with ONE of your points and prove it. ALL
Fr...@zappa.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
Look at this and shut up.
Educationg Trolls Is An Endless Task
>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>
>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>
>Look at this and shut up.
One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear
of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
Lens figures between any two lenses of the same model number can differ
wildly. This is why pros will take home 4 or more lenses of the same model
number to pick out one that might be better. (For the same reason that pros
that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the
same camera model.) The surest and simplest way for the novice to find out
if their lens is NOT of diffraction-limited quality is if the details
become softer at widest apertures. If that is true, then all tests for
diffraction problems at any f-stop become pointless. Diffraction artifacts
only reveal themselves with diffraction-limited quality optics. That is why
they call it that. The image resolution is now only limited by the physics
of light and diffraction itself because the lens figures are that precise.
Ray Fischer
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.
>
>One minor problem,
A big problem is that you're an asshole troll who ignores facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tony cooper
Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
skis.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
hands of a pro.
Those who think it's the camera that makes or breaks a photo is nothing but
a hardware worshipping snapshooter or pretend-photographer troll. They have
proved themselves no sort of photographer by claiming just so.
Fr...@zappa.com
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, Fr...@Zappa.com wrote:
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.
>
>One minor problem, that won't help at all with individual lenses. Ever hear
>of "The Lemon Law" concerning cars?
Here's a thought: buy a lens based on the ISO12233 chart and if it does not measure up, send it back.
You pay good money for something, now get off your ass and get what you paid for.
Fr...@zappa.com
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:21:45 -0800, Fr...@Zappa.com wrote:
>
>>I found a site w/ ISO 12233 photos. You can see how various lenses perform.
>>
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com
>>
>>Look at this and shut up.
Lemon Laws are really for early Hyundai and a lot of GM cars. Not toyota. Get it?
tony cooper
<ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>
>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>skis.
>
>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>hands of a pro.
Probably true. However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
Savageduck
I think we have somebody close at hand who would be able to stop that
charging lion with a pointed stick, and capture the "tack sharp, frozen
in mid-stride" image of the event at the same time.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:200911071653298930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Take Care,
Dudley
Oy! The Snapshooting Idiots!
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:42:45 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN!
><ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:28:56 -0500, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:36:18 -0600, Educationg Trolls Is An Endless
>>>Task <eti...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For the same reason that pros that shoot with P&S cameras will do the same, not only for the lens, but
>>>>for the sensor installed, no two being alike in noise performance for the same camera model.
>>>
>>>A pro using a P&S. That's like Hermann Maier using barrel staves as
>>>skis.
>>
>>Award winning photos can be taken with a shoe-box pinhole camera in the
>>hands of a pro.
>
>Probably true.
Not probably. It *IS* true.
> However a pro - a person who makes a living taking
>photographs - would not depend on a camera that *might* be capable of
>taking a good photograph. A .22 rifle *might* stop the charge of a
>charging lion, but the serious hunter would want to be better armed.
Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher
that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points
it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some
hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount
for their collection.
Are you snapshooting DSLR-Trolls this seriously inept, insecure, desperate,
and stupid to come up with such inane analogies? But of course you are, you
prove it with every post you make.
tony cooper
The fucker could *talk* the lion to death.
tony cooper
<ot...@myprivateurl.net> wrote:
>Yes, arm them with a $798,000 heat-seeking automatic scud-missile launcher
>that can be fired at 30 MPS (missiles per second) by any fool that points
>it in the general direction of any Serengeti plain. That should take some
>hunting skill to kill that lion. Maybe it'll leave part of a paw to mount
>for their collection.
>
What's the sale price on a bullshit-seeking automatic spam-writer
launcher?
Holy FUCK! What Idiots!
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You forget, all of civilization is founded on people skilled enough to kill
those lions with a pointed stick.
Holy fuck, are you ever talentless, insecure, and desperate idiot
DSLR-Trolls.
Savageduck
<hf...@somethinggoeshere.com> said:
This thread has taken on a Monty Pythonesque quality.
I can see a pride of lions faced by "He who shall bear many names"
impaling themselves on pointed sticks to avoid image capture by
shoe-box pinhole camera.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
what's in a name
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Then they'll stay there long enough for a pinhole camera exposure, won't
they. You didn't think this through very well, did you. Just like your
camera purchases.
Savageduck
Certainly you would have them quite stationary for your purpose, but
they would have avoided the shame of knowing they were the subject of
your image capture.
Which camera purchase?
The D70, the D300, the E-900, the G11, or maybe I need to go back to
1968 for the Yashica Electro 35, or '64 for the Spotmatic, or 1976 for
the K1000.
...and I know you wouldn't even have selected the G11, or E-900 for
whatever reason you will be sure to let us know.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Dudley Hanks
"Oy! The Snapshooting Idiots!" <ot...@myprivateurl.net> wrote in message
news:cv6cf5haprgsm0fk7...@4ax.com...
Somebody with a wee bit of common sense would have opted for something a bit
more appropriate...
Take Care,
Dudley
Bob Larter
LOL. Too true.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Furman
> Ofnuts wrote:
>> _____ wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> <snip prespoterous claims>
>>
>> I don't believe this stuff exists. Prove me wrong!
>
> Google is your friend.
>
> One such plugin is even unimaginatively called "Bokeh". I don't like the
> results but then I have never been into lenses smeared in vaseline etc. eg.
>
> http://alienskin.com/bokeh/index.aspx
>
> Can't say I would recommend it.
Not sure exactly how that software works but to do it manually when
there are overlaps, you need to mask out the foreground & clone in some
fake background or you get a halo with the blur. It's impractical for
some kinds of scenes with a lot of overlap.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Teraposa Lunodas
part of the crowd of DSLR dummies/minions/trolls I don't need this
software.
I am awaiting some proof of your claims. Einstein did make some that
where preposterous at the time, but he also gave ways to prove them.
And
this means giving enough information so that the people in doubt can
check by themselves (I still have a P&S somewhere).