Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Zoom vs. Fixed-Focal-Length

Reply
Thread Tools

Zoom vs. Fixed-Focal-Length

 
 
Siddhartha Jain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Ken Tough wrote:
> Skip M <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >If you had a cabbie in New York, chances are he was just as much of

a native
> >as you are... <G>

>
> I resisted writing it, but he was a new yorker through and through.
> [At least in looks & accent..]


Whats a New Yorker supposed to look like?

>From the description, a guy with a turban, sounds like a Sikh of Indian

origin.

Cheers,

Siddhartha

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Tetractys <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I have met many native-born US citizens who do not
>know that New Mexico is one of the states. I have
>also met those who do not know that Hawaii is a
>state.


Ask the average person how many states there are. The number
of "52" answers you'll get is shocking. I've even argued it
with americans who were steadfast, and I just resisted listing
off all 50 and asking which ones I'd missed. (Apparently
Alaska and Hawaii are the confusion for some odd reason).

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Nostrobino <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>There are lots of other things in Shakespeare that are obscure to the
>average modern reader if he's not at least a little acquainted with the
>Elizabethan meanings of words, which have changed. I'm not sure this is
>properly called "evolution" of language. Compare with the structure of the
>human brain. We still have the earlier (sometimes called "reptilian") parts,
>and they still work. That's evolution. Similarly with Windows up to 98SE at
>least--the MS-DOS foundation was still there and it still worked, so it was
>fair to speak of the evolution of Windows.


No, it's not. The reverse-compatibility of the Win 3.0 series
(up to the '9x) could be considered to have hobbled it significantly.
It would be like having a bird with boney jaws that still work, instead
of a beak, meaning that it's unable to fly effectively. Evolution
terminates ineffective stuff, like humans losing their tails and
having residual stumps in the coccyx. Evolution doesn't mean 100%
'reverse compatibility' in any sense. It means optimisation through
creativity and change, and if that means losing sub-optimal function,
then so be it.

>When the original meaning of a word is thrown out and arbitrarily replaced
>with something entirely different, a new meaning which has no logical basis,
>I don't think it's fair to call that "evolution." And that is the case with
>"prime" being used to mean FFL.


It has evolved, since 'prime' had a meaning connected to lenses already.
Just look at the roots of most words in english, and you see twisted
but loosely connected paths in probably 85% of words.

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004

"Ken Tough" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Nostrobino <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>There are lots of other things in Shakespeare that are obscure to the
>>average modern reader if he's not at least a little acquainted with the
>>Elizabethan meanings of words, which have changed. I'm not sure this is
>>properly called "evolution" of language. Compare with the structure of the
>>human brain. We still have the earlier (sometimes called "reptilian")
>>parts,
>>and they still work. That's evolution. Similarly with Windows up to 98SE
>>at
>>least--the MS-DOS foundation was still there and it still worked, so it
>>was
>>fair to speak of the evolution of Windows.

>
> No, it's not. The reverse-compatibility of the Win 3.0 series
> (up to the '9x) could be considered to have hobbled it significantly.


That's not the point. It's still evolution, i.e. a newer generation building
on what has gone before.

Man evolved from earlier species that (if one goes back far enough) did not
walk upright. Some believe that because of its origins, man's physical
arrangement is still less than ideal for the upright condition. Evolution
does not mean "has to work perfectly in all respects."


> It would be like having a bird with boney jaws that still work, instead
> of a beak, meaning that it's unable to fly effectively. Evolution
> terminates ineffective stuff, like humans losing their tails and
> having residual stumps in the coccyx. Evolution doesn't mean 100%
> 'reverse compatibility' in any sense.


No one said it did. WinME is not 100% backward compatible (to DOS), but
still evolved from DOS.


> It means optimisation through
> creativity and change, and if that means losing sub-optimal function,
> then so be it.
>
>>When the original meaning of a word is thrown out and arbitrarily replaced
>>with something entirely different, a new meaning which has no logical
>>basis,
>>I don't think it's fair to call that "evolution." And that is the case
>>with
>>"prime" being used to mean FFL.

>
> It has evolved, since 'prime' had a meaning connected to lenses already.


It had (and STILL HAS) "a meaning connected to lenses already" that has
absolutely NOTHING to do with the idea of fixed focal length. There's no
evolution there. Evolution would consist of the original meaning seguing
into something a little different, which might segue again into something a
little more different, and so on. There is no such process here.

N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004

"Ken Tough" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[ . . . ]
>
> Ask the average person how many states there are. The number
> of "52" answers you'll get is shocking. I've even argued it
> with americans who were steadfast, and I just resisted listing
> off all 50 and asking which ones I'd missed. (Apparently
> Alaska and Hawaii are the confusion for some odd reason).


Now that is REALLY hard to believe.

Those must be the people who say "prime" when they mean fixed focal length.


N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tetractys
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Ken Tough wrote:

> Ask the average person how many states there are.
> The number of "52" answers you'll get is shocking.


Of course:

48 continental
+ Alaska
Hawaii
Guam
D.C.
Puerto Rico

That makes 52! It's easy!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Christopher Pollard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:48:05 GMT, "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Those must be the people who say "prime" when they mean fixed focal length.


What about those who say zoom when they mean telephoto?

Here in RP they say focus when they mean 'close up'. So, if I'm taking a picture
of my wife, she will usually say "don't focus it". . .

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nostrobino
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004

"Christopher Pollard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:48:05 GMT, "Nostrobino" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Those must be the people who say "prime" when they mean fixed focal
>>length.

>
> What about those who say zoom when they mean telephoto?
>
> Here in RP they say focus when they mean 'close up'. So, if I'm taking a
> picture
> of my wife, she will usually say "don't focus it". . .


Heh. Those are new ones on me, Chris.

Speaking of telephoto, though, how about "wide-angle telephoto"? At the risk
of creating even more terminology chaos--I once had a camera that had a
wide-angle telephoto lens. I really did.

It was an Olympus rangefinder model with a 42mm lens. That qualifies (just
barely) as a wide-angle. But also its overall physical length (front of lens
to film plane) was less than its focal length--which is actually the
original definition for "telephoto," though people now use the term to mean
any long lens, or the long end of most zooms.

N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Tough
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
Apparently Tetractys <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Ken Tough wrote:
>
>> Ask the average person how many states there are.
>> The number of "52" answers you'll get is shocking.

>
>Of course:
>
>48 continental
>+ Alaska
> Hawaii
> Guam
> D.C.
> Puerto Rico
>
>That makes 52! It's easy!


erm, I hate to quibble with your maths, but...

--
Ken Tough
 
Reply With Quote
 
Christopher Pollard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:08:48 -0500, "Tetractys" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>48 continental
>+ Alaska
> Hawaii
> Guam
> D.C.
> Puerto Rico


D.C.? where's that?

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
zoom In/zoom Out an Image dwurity@gmail.com Java 1 02-15-2005 01:55 PM
zoom In/zoom Out an Image dwurity@gmail.com Java 1 02-14-2005 03:16 PM
zoom In/zoom Out an Image dwurity@gmail.com Java 0 02-14-2005 11:43 AM
Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom Stefan Patric Digital Photography 0 08-23-2003 06:58 PM
Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom Ronny Svensson Digital Photography 0 08-23-2003 06:22 PM



Advertisments