Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

 
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2008



> On Aug 29, 6:18 am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > "Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
> > > a spinning propeller"

> >
> > > Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

> >
> > Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...
> >
> > Except propellers have usually 3, and
> > quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing
> > blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or
> > even 240 against 60. Rather different, not?
> > Once again: your point?


I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the
beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not
his strong suite. I will make it simple for him

1) Propellers are turning in revolutions per minute (RPM) and
hummingbirds wings are in beats per second (Hz). There is
a factor of 60 between the two units. Typical numbers
are 2000 RPM for aircraft engines, helicopter blades
are 300 RPM and humming
birds 60 beats per second.

2) Hummingbirds have two wings.

3) Three or four blades will change the phase component
and harmonic content of the noise but not the frequency.

4) Airplanes are photographed at a distance, humming bird
can't be seen in a distance. Propellers move a few pixels/grains
on aircraft photos. Humming birds wings move in a significant
percentage of body size.


Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and
noons replaced it with adrenaline.

w..





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:32 AM:

>
> What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some
> detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a
> hummingbird's wings.
>
> He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec.


and that proves exactly WHAT?
Can you actually post TWICE on topic ANYWHERE?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Walter Banks wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:13 AM:


> I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the
> beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not
> his strong suite. I will make it simple for him


Apparently, you have forgotten about reality.
That's what happens to the twits running around
yelling lah-lah-lah with a killfile around their ears

> rest of totally out of context and unreal

"statements of fact" snipped, to improve the noise.


>
> Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and
> noons replaced it with adrenaline.


"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Still waiting for your "explanation" to that,
arsehole.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:20 AM:

>> OK. Got it? So, now:
>> how come Bret's shots have a bird with
>> a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
>> With exif info saying the flash fired?

>
> Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power.
> Dumbass.


You had the flash on auto, of course.
We know that, it's how you take most of your
shots anyway, relying on photoslop to fix the errors.
What do you think auto does to modulate the power, dickhead?
It CUTS the time, you moron!
That's why you get freeze action, which you then blur
the **** off in your fake shots.


> I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the
> flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light
> output.


You use auto flash which does exactly the same, moron.
But only an ignorant dickhead like you would pretend
it doesn't.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
On Aug 29, 10:09*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
> and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
> That's plenty of stopping ability"
>
> Still waiting for your "explanation" to that,
> arsehole.


I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of
1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says
that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them.

First you wrote this pearl of wisdom:
"Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash burst will freeze
solid any moving wings."

That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one.

Then you compounded your foolishness with this gem:
"If you used the default synch speed of your camera of around 1/200,
the wings would be nearly frozen solid."

My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one.

When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you
tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once.

Scott posted a link that said the same thing:
"To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as
short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)."

Gee, sounds like what I said!
And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? "

What it proves is that you are a clueless buffoon who obviously never
made it out of grade school.

Sucks to be you, Loony Noony!



 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:30 AM:

>
> I prefer hummingbird shots with mixed flash and ambient, the flash to
> freeze the wings and pop the feathers and put a gleam in the eye and the
> ambient to leave some movement in the wings. Rear sync, natch.


Thank you! At last, a single post with a smidgeon
of photo information. Instead of the usual idiotic
off-topic bullshit about theory of flight of the
bumblebee on steroids. Or whatever...

That's what folks do who don't use multiple flash
setups. It's hard as nuts to get a well placed
wing, as Jim showed in the originals. On top of that,
hummies will often beat the wings out of synch to control
the hovering. Pot luck shot at best.

This is where a dslr comes in handy: take a shot, check,
delete if no good, rinse and repeat. Perfect tool for the
job.

Of course to then go and deface a good shot
with photoslop-blurred wings is the tip of the
fake expert. But those are spotted a mile away.
Except by the idiot trolls and scammers.

> At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of
> 1/10,000s.


And that's why they recommend multiple flashes.
String a couple and you got twice the power
at same fast speed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:24 PM:

>
> I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of
> 1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says
> that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them.


Never said that. Once again: you're quoting the voices
in your head, dingbat.



> That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one.


the voices in your head? Yes, they laugh a lot. At you.

> My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one.


Stomach is all you have in place of a brain, moron.


> When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you
> tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once.


And you don't. Which has been proven time and time again.
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Just one more time to get it through your
sick, frozen brain:
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

How come the wings in your flash shots are
COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please?
Instead of more moronic out of context snips?


> Scott posted a link that said the same thing:
> "To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as
> short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)."


Actually, it's this:
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

"plenty" means PLENTY, dickhead.
Not the blurred wings in your flash shots.

But let's not allow truth interfere
with the voices in your head.


> Gee, sounds like what I said!


Gee, it does not sound like ANYTHING
you said!

> And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? "


Exactly and precisely. It's got nothing to do with
the simple fact you still have not explained
why your shots contradict the simple truth
you keep quoting.


What it proves is that you are a complete LIAR,
a buffoon midget with no brains whatsoever
and demonstrates your complete lack of any basic
principles, which shows in the FAKES you constantly
regurgitate.


 
Reply With Quote
 
jimkramer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
"jimkramer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:g96gkk$bi3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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

should have been obvious from the beginning.
-Jim


 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
On Aug 29, 10:46*pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> How come the wings in your flash shots are
> COMPLETELY blurred, moron? *Explanation, please?
> Instead of more moronic out of context snips?


Are you really this ****ing thick?

I'll type this as slowly as I can so maybe you can follow.
The wings in my hummer shots are blurred because I DID NOT use a flash
with a short duration like 1/15000, 1/10000 or even 1/6000 of a
second.

So why didn't I just manually set it to 1/128 power to get the
shortest flash duration?
Because at the distance I was shooting it would have given me a black
photo since the power output of the flash is reduced.

That's as simple as I can make it. If you need more help you might
wanna check Amazon for the latest copy of "Hummingbird Flash
Photography for Stupid ****ers."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:44 PM:

> On Aug 29, 10:46 pm, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> How come the wings in your flash shots are
>> COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please?
>> Instead of more moronic out of context snips?

>
> Are you really this ****ing thick?


I couldn't possibly match you.


> I'll type this as slowly as I can so maybe you can follow.
> The wings in my hummer shots are blurred because I DID NOT use a flash
> with a short duration like 1/15000, 1/10000 or even 1/6000 of a
> second.


The wings in your hummie shhots are COMPLETELY blurred
because you used photoslop to do so, moron.
Even if you had used a full blast flash - which you didn't - it
would still have been enough to make a good outline, although blurred.
What you got in your FAKEs is a COMPLETELY blurred wing,
which is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain with a flash, at ANY power.

Like I said: totally FAKE.
 
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
out of focus Hummingbirds dohc46 Digital Photography 8 05-17-2007 04:20 PM
OT:Friday Frustration CBIC MCSE 8 10-14-2005 07:37 PM
D70 loves baby hummingbirds (ISO 800 daylight) paul Digital Photography 0 03-07-2005 04:47 AM
Filter Frustration Mark Adams Firefox 7 03-01-2005 05:06 AM
Frustration getting MELL support Sandy Wood Microsoft Certification 0 07-14-2004 10:25 PM



Advertisments