Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What the future is going to bring

Reply
Thread Tools

What the future is going to bring

 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2010
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 06:12:41 -0700, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The problem is that ....


> phase focusing,


With their front and back focusing problems. What's better? Faster
inaccurate focusing so that none of your images are useful? Or slower
accurate focusing so that all of your images are useful? (What's better?
Someone with your pitiful IQ? Or someone with an IQ above 80?)

> larger systems,


Requiring heavy and expensive optics that cannot be figured to
diffraction-limited precision, extreme shallow DOF at useful wide-apertures
(any not affected by diffraction artifacts) so that none of your subject is
all in focus at the same time, ungainly weight that you have to haul around
for miles, requiring the use of tripods for any focal-length lenses over
200mm, requiring interchangeable lenses that cause dust crud and
condensation on your loudly slapping mirror shutter-curtains and sensor, on
ad-infinauseum...

>mirrored systems.


Causing painful delays in shutter-speeds, no high-speed flash sync, noisy
and image jarring mirror-slap so that none of your optics can resolve
details down to the pixel level, not being allowed into most public events
due to the noise that slapping mirror makes, crud and condensation on your
mirror which destroys your exposure metering and focusing accuracy, on
ad-infinauseum...

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
already have been mentioned...

Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
across it...

It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
straight image...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:15:04 -0700, Paul Furman <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> Plus, there is the huge benefit for macro work of a greatly
>> enhanced depth of field.

>
>This 'advantage' doesn't exist. A larger camera can always stop down &
>crank up the ISO for the same thumbnail sized results.
>


While destroying any image quality with diffraction artifacts or noise.

You're SUCH a ****ingly useless and ignorant idiot.

Keep trying to justify those ignorant choices and that extra expense of
yours. It's hilarious!

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Dover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
>already have been mentioned...
>
>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
>across it...
>
>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
>straight image...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"Ben Dover" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
>>already have been mentioned...
>>
>>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
>>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
>>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't
>>come
>>across it...
>>
>>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
>>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
>>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a
>>nice
>>straight image...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>

>
> What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
> you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
> mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
> preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
> at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
> the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
> only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
> camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.
>
>
>


Sorry, didn't catch the "for sighted photogs only" qualifier on the subject
of this thread...

And, I guess only sighted photogs can expect to use auto focus,
auto-exposure, etc ... Us blind guys have to do it the hard way just to
prove we can?

The whole human race's trek towards an easier existance is just for
able-bodied people? Anybody with a disability should be trying to go back
in time and chop their own wood to heat their homes, plant their own gardens
to grow their own food, milk their own cows to just prove they can handle
the daily drudgery of life?

What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?

I've told you before, and I'll tell you again, don't involve yourself in a
battle of wits when you're completely unarmed...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Dover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
>already have been mentioned...
>
>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
>across it...
>
>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
>straight image...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.

p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw that
brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
because they taste just like steak.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben Dover
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
>already have been mentioned...
>
>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't come
>across it...
>
>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a nice
>straight image...
>
>Take Care,
>Dudley
>


What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.

p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw that
brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
because they taste just like steak.

Ooops, I PS'ed to the wrong post.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"Ben Dover" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 03:30:46 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Haven't been following this thread since the beginning, so this might
>>already have been mentioned...
>>
>>Given that in-lense stabilization has been around for a while and seems to
>>work quite well, I'm wondering if we might see in-lens perspective
>>correction in the future. Or, maybe it's already in use but I haven't
>>come
>>across it...
>>
>>It seems that the ability to do tilt-and-shift could be tied in with the
>>lens stabilization mechanism (considerably beefed up, of course), and the
>>lens could compensate (within certain limited parameters) to provide a
>>nice
>>straight image...
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
>>

>
> What's the matter Dudley? Aren't your cameras automatic enough yet? Maybe
> you'd like to see one with robotic tripod legs and a built-in composition
> mode too where it only automatically trips the trigger when it detects a
> preset definition of a pleasing composition. Then you can just crank it up
> at the beginning of the day and send it outside, coming back at the end of
> the day with better images than anything you can produce now. Then your
> only claim for having any part in the photography process is owning the
> camera. Oh wait. That's the only claim that you can make now. Nevermind.
>
> p.s. For the record, when I asked locals what unusual odd green colored
> wading birds were (Green Herons in breeding plumage, which I never saw
> that
> brightly colored before) they told me they called them "Steak Birds",
> because they taste just like steak.
>
> Ooops, I PS'ed to the wrong post.
>


Like I said, "completely unarmed" ...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
ROFLMAO!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?


"Logical argument"?!?

LOL!

Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps there's
a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know! Maybe
when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!

ROFLMAO!

Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.

Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.

ROFLMAO!


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-13-2010

"ROFLMAO!" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:06:08 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>What's the matter? Can't beat me in a logical argument so you just try to
>>look like a smart ass and throw out semi-wise cracks?

>
> "Logical argument"?!?
>
> LOL!
>
> Does the wholly illogical oxymoronic phrase of "blind photographer" mean
> anything at all to you? How about "Quadriplegic ballet dancer"? Or maybe
> there's a job for a "tongueless and noseless taste-tester"? Perhaps
> there's
> a job you can find in designing a comb for bald people. Wait! I know!
> Maybe
> when you become deaf you can become a speech therapist too!
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> Logic? You don't even know the meaning of that word.
>
> Your blindness goes FAR beyond your eyesight.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>


http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ersonSmall.jpg

http://www.blind-apertures.ca/Latest...ower1Small.jpg

Photograph taken by photographer, me who has less than 10% normal vision
(definition of legal blindness), so I guess there is some meaning to the
term "blind photographer."

So, maybe I'm the one with real vision...

What intrigues me is why it annoys you so much ...

I mean, there's the attention thing, but that would mean that you're just a
petty, immature goof who has to insult a blind guy in order to get
attention, even though it means you prove to the whole world you're not all
that bright...

I've invited you to email me and discuss this in private, but you're a no
show, so that reinforces the attention angle...

I still like the Nazi thing, that you're just so ****ed that a disabled
person can do something you think he should be shot for, just so others
don't get any ideas and try to think they actually have a reason to live...

That explains a lot, but says even less about you than the stupid idiot who
likes attention theory...

Which is it? Nazi or idiot?

Take Care,
Dudley


 
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
OT: Windows XP: Going, going ... gone? OTHMAN MCSE 2 03-25-2008 04:45 PM
XP search going all lame on me..explorer going crazy when trying tosearch. fotoobscura Computer Support 8 01-12-2008 01:09 AM
Firefighters at the site of WTC7 "Move away the building is going to blow up, get back the building is going to blow up." Midex Python 24 05-07-2007 04:23 AM
floppy drive just keeps on going and going and ... Weylon Bulloch Computer Support 1 09-07-2003 07:17 AM
VPN going up but traffic going one way PLP Cisco 1 07-11-2003 08:28 AM



Advertisments