«

On 10/23/2010 09:00 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:

> Rich appears to be rehashing some info Roger N. Clark has on his site. But, in Roger's case, he was using it to address the "myth" that P&S cams exhibit greater DOF at a given aperture.
>
> According to Roger, P&S cams tend to produce pics with greater DOF because their smaller sensors capture fewer photons at a given aperture. If the apeture is changed in order to equalize the photon count, then the DOF equalizes as well.
>
> However, Roger said nothing about differing sensors needing different apertures in order to produce properly exposed images, just to produce similar DOF effects.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

Dudley, there is something misconfigured in your newsreader or you are
not using the proper way to reply, because all your replies start a new
thread (your replies do not carry a "References:" line in their headers).
--
Bertrand

On 10/24/2010 03:10 PM, Allen wrote:
> On 10/24/2010 7:58 AM, Ofnuts wrote:
>
>>
>> Dudley, there is something misconfigured in your newsreader or you are
>> not using the proper way to reply, because all your replies start a new
>> thread (your replies do not carry a "References:" line in their headers).
> Ofnuts, are you using TBird 3.1.5 as your news reader. I absentmindedly
> let TBird download that version a couple of weeks ago and ever since
> sometimes messages will appear in as many as eight diferent threads, all
> with the same name.
> Allen

Nope. TB 3.0.8 on Ubuntu. and Dudley's posts are the only ones (and they
miss the necessary "Reference" header).
--
Bertrand

On 10/24/2010 09:28 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
> Ofnuts<> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 09:00 PM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> Rich appears to be rehashing some info Roger N. Clark has on his site. But, in Roger's case, he was using it to address the "myth" that P&S cams exhibit greater DOF at a given aperture.
>>>
>>> According to Roger, P&S cams tend to produce pics with greater DOF because their smaller sensors capture fewer photons at a given aperture. If the apeture is changed in order to equalize the photon count, then the DOF equalizes as well.
>>>
>>> However, Roger said nothing about differing sensors needing different apertures in order to produce properly exposed images, just to produce similar DOF effects.
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> Dudley, there is something misconfigured in your newsreader or you are
>> not using the proper way to reply, because all your replies start a new
>> thread (your replies do not carry a "References:" line in their headers).
>> --
>> Bertrand
>>
>
> I've made a couple of changes to my script. Hopefully, my messages should comply with minimal requirements for threading.
>
> Let me know if there is still a problem.
>

Seems to work... your latest posts (including this very one) don't start
new threads. Good job!

--
Bertrand

Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> I've made a couple of changes to my script. Hopefully, my messages should comply with minimal requirements for threading.
>
> Let me know if there is still a problem.

Just one thing, can you get your script to line wrap at around 70-76
characters? Not a big thing but makes it easier for people like me with
an 80 character display.

Cheers,

Ollie

On 10/25/10 PDT 9:05 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>> I've made a couple of changes to my script. Hopefully, my messages should comply with minimal requirements for threading.
>>
>> Let me know if there is still a problem.
>
> Just one thing, can you get your script to line wrap at around 70-76
> characters? Not a big thing but makes it easier for people like me with
> an 80 character display.

What is an 80 character display? An iPad? Might you use a different news
client, one that handles wrapping itself?

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
> On 10/25/10 PDT 9:05 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
>>
>> Just one thing, can you get your script to line wrap at around 70-76
>> characters? Not a big thing but makes it easier for people like me with
>> an 80 character display.
>
> What is an 80 character display? An iPad? Might you use a different news
> client, one that handles wrapping itself?

OT so I'll just say RFC 5322, section 2.1.1

Cheers,

Ollie

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> Ollie Clark <> wrote:
>>
>>Just one thing, can you get your script to line wrap at around
> 70-76
>>characters? Not a big thing but makes it easier for people like me with
>
>>an 80 character display.
>
> Done ... (hopefully) ...
>
> Let me know if it still gives you trouble. But, it should wrap
> somewhere around 70 characters, if all works the way I want it
> to.

Perfect.

Cheers,

Ollie

On 10/25/10 PDT 10:57 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> On 10/25/10 PDT 9:05 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> Just one thing, can you get your script to line wrap at around 70-76
>>> characters? Not a big thing but makes it easier for people like me with
>>> an 80 character display.
>>
>> What is an 80 character display? An iPad? Might you use a different news
>> client, one that handles wrapping itself?
>
> OT so I'll just say RFC 5322, section 2.1.1

That doesn't address the question of why you don't use a newsreader
that's capable of custom wrapping. Then you can have your window set to
whatever width you prefer.

RFCs, standards, etc. are all nice, but not always practical, and seldom
followed by many.


--

Cheers,


John

John McWilliams wrote:
> On 10/25/10 PDT 10:57 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
>>
>> OT so I'll just say RFC 5322, section 2.1.1
>
> That doesn't address the question of why you don't use a newsreader
> that's capable of custom wrapping. Then you can have your window set to
> whatever width you prefer.

Actually, the newsreader I use will wrap to whatever width I prefer. I
use 80 characters because most people (including you) wrap to between 68
and 76 characters so if I have the window any wider, I waste space.

> RFCs, standards, etc. are all nice, but not always practical, and seldom
> followed by many.

This particular part of this particular RFC is pretty well followed by
most news readers.

Cheers,

Ollie

On 10/26/10 PDT 12:51 PM, Ollie Clark wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> On 10/25/10 PDT 10:57 AM, Ollie Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> OT so I'll just say RFC 5322, section 2.1.1
>>
>> That doesn't address the question of why you don't use a newsreader
>> that's capable of custom wrapping. Then you can have your window set to
>> whatever width you prefer.
>
> Actually, the newsreader I use will wrap to whatever width I prefer. I
> use 80 characters because most people (including you) wrap to between 68
> and 76 characters so if I have the window any wider, I waste space.

But it would appear when you read you have no control over wrapping of
those whose news clients don't wrap for you- lest you wouldn't have
complained about Dudley's client.

It's nice when one can set one's client's window to whatever size one
prefers, at whatever font size one wishes, and the wrapping is done
nicely by said client. Then "wasted space" is no more.

--
john mcwilliams

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in
the country.
-- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.