«

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:00d436a3-7d78-44e9-9ce2-...
On Aug 28, 9:08 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Or in photo terms, around 1/60 second.
> If you used the default synch speed of your camera
> of around 1/200, the wings would be nearly frozen solid.
> So how come the hummie bodies show evidence of flash
> light reflection but the wings are blurred?

You are an idiot.

If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will
make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second. At a shutter speed
of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total
cycle of motion. In other words they'll move a couple of inches in
the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is
going to freeze the motion? Better yet, provide us ANY examples of
that happening without the use of high-speed flash.


The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
well. -Jim

On Aug 28, 11:11*am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net>
wrote:
>
> The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
> just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
> You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
> should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
> well. -Jim

So I should ignore the idiot? Gotcha.
Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant
lies stand.

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:6dd8eec9-826d-4501-8200-...
On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer" <Newsread...@NOFSPAMjlkramer.net>
wrote:
>
> The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
> just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
> You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
> should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
> well. -Jim

So I should ignore the idiot? Gotcha.
Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant
lies stand.



The only one paying him any attention is you. Again, the logical course of
action...
-Jim

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:00 AM:

>
> You are an idiot.

You took the words off my mouth.
Thanks for admitting it.


>
> If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will
> make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second.

And that somehow is 1/15000 of a second?

> At a shutter speed
> of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total
> cycle of motion.

And that proves they move at 1/15000second how?

> In other words they'll move a couple of inches in
> the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is
> going to freeze the motion?

By firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second
exposure duration, dickhead?

> Better yet, provide us ANY examples of
> that happening without the use of high-speed flash.

of WHAT happening, dickhead?

jimkramer wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:11 AM:


>
> The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
> just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
> You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
> should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
> well. -Jim
>
>

"Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
to freeze it totally. "

the words of YOUR idiot. not mine.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:31 AM:


> Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant
> lies stand.
>

"Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
to freeze it totally. "

nothing like letting your lies stand on their own.

On Aug 29, 5:55*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> *So tell us again how 1/200 is
> > going to freeze the motion?
>
> By firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second
> exposure duration, dickhead?

We have learned at least two things so far in this thread.
You are mathematically challenged and you can't keep up.

Let me try to school your dumb ass once more.
Eric Miller explains it much better on his website:
http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellane...s/howto_1.html

Eric writes:
"Let me explain the math. The wings on a ruby throated hummingbird
beat at approximately 50-60 beats per second. With a wingspan that
varies between birds from 3-4 inches or so, that means that the
wingtips travel from front to back about 6-8 inches, more or less.
This means that the wings travel between 300 and 500 inches per
second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of
about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch
distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a
constant speed. Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow
down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the
idea. In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster
shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the
wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too."

Hope that helps.

>
> *> Better yet, provide us ANY examples of that happening without the use of high-speed flash.
>
> of WHAT happening, dickhead?

Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT
USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead.
By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration
much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second.

On Aug 28, 3:08*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 10:45 AM:
>
> >> So tell me something: how do you get blurred wings
> >> with two flashes? *Do you slow down lightspeed as
> >> well? Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash
> >> burst will freeze solid any moving wings.
>
> > Not unless you have a VERY high-speed flash unit.
> > Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
> > to freeze it totally.
>
> Just to prove what sort of a liar you are:http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MarkLevin.shtml
>
> If you take a flash to a spinning airplane propeller,
> you'll freeze the action right there. Even 1/1000 will do it.
> Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
> a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz.
> That's why they are called "humming": the noise
> from their wings is a low pitch "hum".

You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

Scott

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:


> You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
Exactly what was your point?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:13 AM:

> We have learned at least two things so far in this thread.

You don't have a clue what the short exposure of
a flash does to a wing beat and you are a complete liar.
Yes, we know that.

> Eric Miller explains it much better on his website:
> http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellane...s/howto_1.html

<yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, this is gonna be fun!>

> Eric writes:
> second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of
> about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch
> distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a
> constant speed.


I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur"
or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke
blur like in your shots? One wonders...


> Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow
> down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the
> idea.

Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
on the body.


> In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster
> shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the
> wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too."


Fantastic! Thanks for proving my point.
So, when you use a short flash burst, you get wings
that look blurred? Like: in YOUR obviously FAKE
shots?



> Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT
> USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead.

Cripes, Bret: are you making a special effort
to show yourself as a complete idiot?

Get this very simply, dickhead:
you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird
and at the same time blurred wings, like you do
in your fakes!

Got it, you blithering moron? What you just
provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours
is complete proof of what *I* said since the start.

Of course: being the complete idiotic arse you really
are, instead of READING my original post you charged along
in some confused understanding of yours.

> By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration
> much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second.

Yes, like what you get when a flash cuts out:
as short as 1/15000. Plenty short to "freeze"
ANY bird's wings.

So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?

Got it now, diddums?

Hey, knock yourself out: it's only your reputation
completely in tatters yet again, you stupid moron!