«

In article <>, Tony Cooper
<> wrote:

> and then you ask all the CHiPs on board where they
> aim the Lidar gunsight.

i don't need to ask anyone where to aim it. the information is publicly
available. even the lidar guns themselves are too.

> Being an expert in everything is hard work.

maybe for you it is.

In article <2013011721401258821-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
> >> as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
> >> his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
> >> facing unit.
> >
> > if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
> > dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
> > only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
> > up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.
>
> ...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
> letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.

if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
oblivious, they're stupid.

> There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
> appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
> off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
> speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
> All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
> as he writes the ticket.

maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
they're already at the psl.

> The same goes for the cruiser you come up on and you have managed to
> slow to the speed limit, in what you believe was good time, only to
> find him slowing down to allow yo to pass him and to find he has lit
> you up to pull you over.

maybe if someone is not paying attention.

> > that doesn't matter. all of those cars have a distinctive profile.
> > those who pay attention will notice it. oblivious people won't.
>
> ...and you notice that "distinctive profile at night?

sometimes, however, night driving should not be as fast as on a clear
sunny day. it's easy to overdrive the headlights.

> Many drivers appear quite befuddled when the car in the lane next to
> them is using a PA to indicate that he should pull over.

then they're *very* oblivious. how can anyone not notice the car next
to them is a cop??

> > you do realize that knowing how to use traffic radar and lidar is not
> > secret, right?
>
> Knowing information available on the internet and actually working with
> VASCAR (no longer used in CHP vehicles, but use by some Cal SD's and
> PD's), radar and LiDAR is something a little different.

what makes you think i haven't used radar and lidar?

> Also different jurisdictions use different equipment.

of course. there's a variety of radar and lidar equipment, as well as
others, such as enradd which is used in pennsylvania due to
restrictions on radar use and a new system being developed that videos
traffic, determines which cars are speeding, ocr's the license plates
and issues tickets as needed, nicknamed vidar.

> For example both
> San Luis Obispo & Monterey County Sheriff's Departments do not use
> Radar, but most municipal PD's in both counties do.

what do they use? lidar? something else?

In article <>, Alfred
Molon <> wrote:

> Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"?

top tier cameras don't have tiltable lcds, such as the nikon d4 or
canon 1d.

> Or do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
> camera?

pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.

Peter Jason asked:
> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
>
> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
> and the like when the exposure is set for
> pinpoint.

Sort of. The Sony DSC-F707 has a built-in laser pointer that enables
it to auto-focus in the dark. The camera is obsolete in many ways, and
long out of production, but it was a great camera in its day. I hope
to see some of its ground-breaking features again, including the
laser.

The F707's laser isn't for "shooting from the hip". It rapidly draws a
pattern to provide lines with enough sharp contrast for the auto-
focus. I could never even see it from behind the camera, though my
subjects in front could see flashes of red when it kicked in. The
laser is too low power and too fast moving to damage anyone's eyes.

There is a bit of a design flaw: The F707's laser emits from behind
the filter ring. It worked fine through the multicoated UV filter that
I kept on mine for protection, but other filters can render it worse
than useless.

The F707 is great for "shooting from the hip" though not because of
the laser. Its lens-centric design with articulated body lends itself
to a wide variety of viewfinding styles.

Great camera.

--
--Bryan

In article <2013011723383511967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
> >>>> as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
> >>>> his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
> >>>> facing unit.
> >>>
> >>> if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
> >>> dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
> >>> only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
> >>> up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.
> >>
> >> ...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
> >> letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.
> >
> > if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
> > oblivious, they're stupid.
>
> Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.

then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

> >> There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
> >> appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
> >> off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
> >> speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
> >> All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
> >> as he writes the ticket.
> >
> > maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
> > cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
> > they're already at the psl.
>
> Good luck with that.

no need for luck.

> >> The same goes for the cruiser you come up on and you have managed to
> >> slow to the speed limit, in what you believe was good time, only to
> >> find him slowing down to allow yo to pass him and to find he has lit
> >> you up to pull you over.
> >
> > maybe if someone is not paying attention.
>
> ...and that doesn't happen?

of course it does. it happens all the time. most drivers don't pay that
much attention. that's why some of them end up in a wreck. i've even
seen idiots run red lights right in front of cops. it's mind boggling
how oblivious some drivers are.

> >>> that doesn't matter. all of those cars have a distinctive profile.
> >>> those who pay attention will notice it. oblivious people won't.
> >>
> >> ...and you notice that "distinctive profile at night?
> >
> > sometimes, however, night driving should not be as fast as on a clear
> > sunny day. it's easy to overdrive the headlights.
>
> ...and folks are not known to drive fast after Sundown?

some do, and they probably do stupid stuff during the daytime too.

> >> Many drivers appear quite befuddled when the car in the lane next to
> >> them is using a PA to indicate that he should pull over.
> >
> > then they're *very* oblivious. how can anyone not notice the car next
> > to them is a cop??
>
> It happens every day.

then they deserve a ticket.

> >>> you do realize that knowing how to use traffic radar and lidar is not
> >>> secret, right?
> >>
> >> Knowing information available on the internet and actually working with
> >> VASCAR (no longer used in CHP vehicles, but use by some Cal SD's and
> >> PD's), radar and LiDAR is something a little different.
> >
> > what makes you think i haven't used radar and lidar?
>
> So how was that drive along?
> I guess you got all the nuances of techniques, procedures, and
> individual officer's experience filed away for future reference.

who said anything about a drive along? a drive along is not the only
way someone can obtain and use radar/lidar equipment.

On Friday, January 18, 2013 6:55:08 AM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <>, Robert Coe
>
> says...
>
> > Real pros aren't too vain to be seen using a lesser camera when the occasion
>
> > warrants.
>
>
>
> Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"?

It could be seen as a gimmick or the main feature of that camera.
Pros tend to go for solid relible products rather than the lastest thing unless of course ut';s very useful.


>
> do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
>
> camera?
>
> --
>
>
>
> Alfred Molon
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
>
> http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

If you use a red laser pointer, or any other color, won't you get a colored
spot in your image?

Also, it would be very distracting to the audience.

Gordo

"Usenet Account" wrote in message
news:kd5il5$6a5$...

On 15/01/2013 8:48 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
>
> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
> and the like when the exposure is set for
> pinpoint.
>
> Peter
>

Perhaps if you learn to use a camera? There have been well known street
photographers that have done documentary work with 35mm film SLR that
"shot from the hip"

--
This space intentionally left blank.

Alfred Molon <> writes:

> In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> > Lots of DSLRs or interchangeable lens cameras with tiltable LCD screens
>> > around. Why wouldn't a pro use them?
>>
>> You won't find that sort of feature above the consumer-level produts; in
>> the Nikon line (the one I know) it's not on the D700, D800, or D4 (or
>> older models at that level).
>
> Actually lots of DLSRs and interchangeable lens cameras, good enough for
> a "pro", have a tiltable LCD screen.

There's an interesting terminology problem here. We're both right.
Quite a few people use cameras that the market and the manufacturers do
NOT market as "professional" to earn money (which seems like what
"professional" ought to be based on).

I was using the market category term.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

nospam <> writes:

> In article <>, Eric Stevens
> <> wrote:
>
>> >> > > Lots of DSLRs or interchangeable lens cameras with tiltable LCD
>> >> > > screens around. Why wouldn't a pro use them?
>> >> >
>> >> > You won't find that sort of feature above the consumer-level produts; in
>> >> > the Nikon line (the one I know) it's not on the D700, D800, or D4 (or
>> >> > older models at that level).
>> >>
>> >> Actually lots of DLSRs and interchangeable lens cameras, good enough for
>> >> a "pro", have a tiltable LCD screen.
>> >
>> >those cameras may be good enough in some situations, but pros don't
>> >generally use those cameras outside of a backup, and if they do, they
>> >don't use the tiltable lcd anyway.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>> I've several times seen 'a pro' (several in fact) using a Canon DSLR
>> with a tiltable screen to enable them to see what they are doing when
>> setting their cameras up for peculiar shots from a tripod. I've
>> envied the flexibility that such a screen gave to their work.
>
> several out of millions of pros does not mean it's common. it's the
> exception, not the rule.

Which is strange (the use part). Because in the film era, swappable
viewfinders, right-angle attachments, and the like, were hallmarks of
the top-of-the-line professional cameras (the Nikon F series for example
had swappable viewfinders, up through the F6 anyway). (The F100 is not
part of the F series by the usual terms; it's more a follow-on to the
N90).

Generally, pros are more likely to take the extra trouble to shoot from
unusual angles when they see a possible benefit there, and this makes
viewfinder flexibility important to them. (Dyer-Bennet's Dictum: the
best position to take a photo from is frequently the one that makes your
knees hurt.)
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2013-01-17 09:36:40 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> said:
>
>> "Steve B" <> writes:
>>
>>> "Peter Jason" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
>>>>
>>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
>>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
>>>> pinpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Bad, bad, bad.
>>> Endangers eyesight.
>>
>> Class 1 lasers are safe "under all conditions of normal use" including
>> using optics to concentrate the power.
>
> "Normal use" does not include aiming, at humans.

Yes it does. That's completely and utterly normal for laser pointers
for example.

>> Some laser pointers are Class 2
>> or 2m,
>
> Most laser pointers are Class IIa or 2D.

Some are, but that's still safe for use around humans so long as they're
in visible frequencies (which laser pointers always are), because they
won't damage the eyes fast enough that it can happen before you blink,
and you WILL blink.

>> and are safe if they're visible light (not infrared) because they
>> won't damage your eye faster than you can blink (and aren't any threat
>> to anything less sensitive than your retina).
>
> Tell that to the FAA and the reports of "flash blinding" cockpit
> intrusion incidents pilots have experienced on final approach.

Dunno what those sources are, do we? The laser safety standards are
very formally laid out, you know.

> Few folks are going to intentionally look at even a "weak" laser
> source. Unintentional or accidental direct exposure to a laser source
> mounted on a camera, where the subject is unaware of the potential
> danger is the problem.

Not a problem with properly chosen lasers. (And people look into Lasic
machines deliberately all the time; just to be pedantic .)

>> Lots of fear about lasers around, but what you can easily get are hard
>> to hurt yourself with.
>
> Stupidity of individuals using laser pointers as toys, and beyond the
> recommendations of the manufacturers is the problem, not proper safe
> use. Using them within safe guidelines is a far better idea.

And safe guidelines say that up through class II you don't have to worry
about damaging a human (for visible frequencies) in casual use.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info