Re: Fuming mad, unscheduled replacement camera suggestions?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 30, 2012.

  1. In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


    >> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)


    > PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    > from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    > to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    > the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    > microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    > the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    > I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...


    > People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    > faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    > and predict subject movement.


    What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    accurate focus at the focus point.

    Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    shifts of colour.

    If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    distance given by phase?

    If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    focus target movement even better than phase.

    (If a team isn't already working on these questions, sounds like a
    good student project in machine vision :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 10, 2012
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    > In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >
    >>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)

    >
    >> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    >> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    >> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    >> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    >> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    >> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    >> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...

    >
    >> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >> and predict subject movement.

    >
    > What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    > is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    > accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    > manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    > which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    > red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    > chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    > focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    > sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    > accurate focus at the focus point.
    >
    > Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    > consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    > lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    > bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    > shifts of colour.


    You are overlooking another possibility -- your eyes and brain don't see
    the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.

    > If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    > on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    > lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    > method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    > distance given by phase?
    >
    > If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    > programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    > focus target movement even better than phase.


    I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 10, 2012
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:


    >> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >> and predict subject movement.


    > What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    > is out of focus.


    Nor having any idea how far to jump.

    > I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    > which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    > red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways.


    Lateral CA. A lens error.

    > Is this a defect present in only some lenses,


    Yes. Different amounts, too. Photozone.de tests for it.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 10, 2012
    #23
  4. In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm <> writes:


    >> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >>>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >>>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >>>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)

    >>
    >>> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    >>> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    >>> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    >>> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    >>> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    >>> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    >>> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...

    >>
    >>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >>> and predict subject movement.

    >>
    >> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    >> is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    >> accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    >> manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    >> which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    >> red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    >> chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    >> focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    >> sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    >> accurate focus at the focus point.
    >>
    >> Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    >> consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    >> lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    >> bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    >> shifts of colour.


    > You are overlooking another possibility -- your eyes and brain don't see
    > the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.


    Yes, that's what I meant -- software could see those more disguised
    subtle shifts of colour that I can't.

    >> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    >> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    >> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    >> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    >> distance given by phase?
    >>
    >> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    >> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    >> focus target movement even better than phase.


    > I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    > they would have been using it for the last 5 years.


    Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    it.

    Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    only spreadsheet going Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
    petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
    Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
    resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
    Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.

    So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
    removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
    their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
    unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
    expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
    impossible to do on any computer.

    Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
    Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
    "ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
    they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
    on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
    the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
    the managers who employ them.

    But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
    be simple and obvious :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 11, 2012
    #24
  5. Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    > In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    >
    >>> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>>> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >>>>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >>>>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >>>>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
    >>>
    >>>> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    >>>> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    >>>> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    >>>> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    >>>> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    >>>> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    >>>> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
    >>>
    >>>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >>>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >>>> and predict subject movement.
    >>>
    >>> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    >>> is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    >>> accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    >>> manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    >>> which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    >>> red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    >>> chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    >>> focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    >>> sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    >>> accurate focus at the focus point.
    >>>
    >>> Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    >>> consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    >>> lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    >>> bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    >>> shifts of colour.

    >
    >> You are overlooking another possibility -- your eyes and brain don't see
    >> the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.

    >
    > Yes, that's what I meant -- software could see those more disguised
    > subtle shifts of colour that I can't.


    Okay.

    >>> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    >>> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    >>> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    >>> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    >>> distance given by phase?
    >>>
    >>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    >>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    >>> focus target movement even better than phase.

    >
    >> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    >> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.

    >
    > Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    > believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    > impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    > design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    > then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    > it.


    Now, I never heard anybody suggest it was impossible. Well, it was
    impossible on on character-cell terminals that couldn't represent fonts
    and such; but that's a different level. On graphics systems, it was
    obviously possible, just difficult. (I've been developing software
    professionally since 1969.)

    > Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    > only spreadsheet going Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
    > petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
    > Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
    > resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
    > Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
    >
    > So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
    > removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
    > their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
    > unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
    > expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
    > impossible to do on any computer.
    >
    > Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
    > Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
    > "ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
    > they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
    > on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
    > the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
    > the managers who employ them.


    Again, silly people. Small minds.

    > But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
    > be simple and obvious :)


    Nope, implementing a WYSIWYG word processor is not simple.

    It's also not entirely clear it's that useful.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 12, 2012
    #25
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2012 7:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    >>> Chris Malcolm<> writes:

    >>
    >>>> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg<> wrote:
    >>>>> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >>>>>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >>>>>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >>>>>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
    >>>>
    >>>>> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    >>>>> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    >>>>> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    >>>>> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    >>>>> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    >>>>> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    >>>>> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
    >>>>
    >>>>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >>>>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >>>>> and predict subject movement.
    >>>>
    >>>> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    >>>> is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    >>>> accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    >>>> manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    >>>> which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    >>>> red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    >>>> chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    >>>> focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    >>>> sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    >>>> accurate focus at the focus point.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    >>>> consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    >>>> lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    >>>> bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    >>>> shifts of colour.

    >>
    >>> You are overlooking another possibility -- your eyes and brain don't see
    >>> the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.

    >>
    >> Yes, that's what I meant -- software could see those more disguised
    >> subtle shifts of colour that I can't.
    >>
    >>>> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    >>>> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    >>>> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    >>>> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    >>>> distance given by phase?
    >>>>
    >>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    >>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    >>>> focus target movement even better than phase.

    >>
    >>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    >>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.

    >>
    >> Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    >> believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    >> impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    >> design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    >> then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    >> it.

    >
    > This was more a question of improved computing power and better
    > monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
    >>
    >> Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    >> only spreadsheet going ...

    >
    > I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
    > Apple II hit the market.
    >


    Me too. I was running Supercalc on a CP/M machine, before I bought my
    AppleII.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2012
    #26
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2012 6:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:05:18 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/11/2012 7:58 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    >>>>> Chris Malcolm<> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg<> wrote:
    >>>>>>> David Dyer-Bennet<> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
    >>>>>>>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
    >>>>>>>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
    >>>>>>>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
    >>>>>>> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
    >>>>>>> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
    >>>>>>> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
    >>>>>>> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
    >>>>>>> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
    >>>>>>> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
    >>>>>>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
    >>>>>>> and predict subject movement.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
    >>>>>> is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
    >>>>>> accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
    >>>>>> manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
    >>>>>> which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
    >>>>>> red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
    >>>>>> chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
    >>>>>> focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
    >>>>>> sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
    >>>>>> accurate focus at the focus point.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
    >>>>>> consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
    >>>>>> lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
    >>>>>> bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
    >>>>>> shifts of colour.
    >>>>
    >>>>> You are overlooking another possibility -- your eyes and brain don't see
    >>>>> the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, that's what I meant -- software could see those more disguised
    >>>> subtle shifts of colour that I can't.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
    >>>>>> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
    >>>>>> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
    >>>>>> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
    >>>>>> distance given by phase?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    >>>>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    >>>>>> focus target movement even better than phase.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    >>>>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    >>>> believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    >>>> impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    >>>> design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    >>>> then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    >>>> it.
    >>>
    >>> This was more a question of improved computing power and better
    >>> monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
    >>>>
    >>>> Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    >>>> only spreadsheet going ...
    >>>
    >>> I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
    >>> Apple II hit the market.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Me too. I was running Supercalc on a CP/M machine, before I bought my
    >> AppleII.

    >
    > I was running whatever I was running before SuperCalc also. I can't
    > recall its name but it had an interface quite different from Visicalc
    > and the like. As I recall it, it was constructed line by line with a
    > script. I do remember that it worked very well and I used it for
    > detailed budgeting.
    >


    I used it for financial projections and tax analysis. My CP/M machine
    was used by my secretary and I had little access to it. Also, that
    machine could not be used with anything by the daisy wheel printer it
    came with. It was a Lanier word processor that cost a little over 14K. I
    wanted my financial projections to be done on a dot matrix printer, so
    they looked computer generated. At that time there as a strong
    perception of accuracy of any financial documents that were computer
    prepared. In less than three months my Apple II and Epson dot matrix
    were paid for through additional billings that were generated.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2012
    #27
  8. Re: Resolved.... Re: Fuming mad, unscheduled replacement

    bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:

    > A-1 throughout! Unfortunately upon unpacking I saw a deal-breaker I had
    > missed completely so I sent it back (no strap hooks either). It seems
    > like a good camera, far ahead of the Nikon p&s lot, and would have fit
    > my needs but it had an intergral lens cover very similar to that on my
    > first p&s (can't recall the make) which jammed with sand and junk in my
    > pocket.


    Lesson: Don't put cameras to the sand and junk in your
    pocket. You ought to have learned that by now. Use a real
    camera bag you don't use as sand carrier.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 24, 2012
    #28
  9. In rec.photo.digital Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > wrote:
    >>In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >>> Chris Malcolm <> writes:


    >>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    >>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    >>>> focus target movement even better than phase.

    >>
    >>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    >>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.

    >>
    >>Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    >>believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    >>impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    >>design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    >>then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    >>it.


    > This was more a question of improved computing power and better
    > monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
    >>
    >>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    >>only spreadsheet going ...


    > I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
    > Apple II hit the market.


    Yes, I'd forgotten those. But the point is they were big heavy and
    expensive compared to the Apple II. You couldn't buy one out of petty
    cash just as a spreadsheet tool, which you could with the
    Apple. That's what the Esso accountants in London started doing. To
    buy a Cromenko they'd have had to go through the computer systems
    dept, but the Apple was within their petty cash limits.

    >> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
    >>petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
    >>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
    >>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
    >>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
    >>
    >>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
    >>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
    >>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
    >>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
    >>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
    >>impossible to do on any computer.
    >>
    >>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
    >>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
    >>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
    >>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
    >>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
    >>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
    >>the managers who employ them.
    >>
    >>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
    >>be simple and obvious :)


    > Regards,


    > Eric Stevens


    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 25, 2012
    #29
  10. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > In rec.photo.digital Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > > On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <>
    > > wrote:
    > >>In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > >>> Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    >
    > >>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
    > >>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
    > >>>> focus target movement even better than phase.
    > >>
    > >>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
    > >>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
    > >>
    > >>Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
    > >>believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
    > >>impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
    > >>design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
    > >>then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
    > >>it.

    >
    > > This was more a question of improved computing power and better
    > > monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
    > >>
    > >>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
    > >>only spreadsheet going ...

    >
    > > I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
    > > Apple II hit the market.

    >
    > Yes, I'd forgotten those. But the point is they were big heavy and
    > expensive compared to the Apple II. You couldn't buy one out of petty
    > cash just as a spreadsheet tool, which you could with the
    > Apple. That's what the Esso accountants in London started doing. To
    > buy a Cromenko they'd have had to go through the computer systems
    > dept, but the Apple was within their petty cash limits.


    I'm curious as to what spreadsheet ran on a Cromemco in 1977. Visicalc
    is generally regarded as the first spreadsheet and it didn't ship until
    1979.

    <snip>
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 27, 2012
    #30
  11. Re: Resolved.... Re: Fuming mad, unscheduled replacement

    bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
    > On 06/24/2012 12:40 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> Lesson: Don't put cameras to the sand and junk in your
    >> pocket. You ought to have learned that by now. Use a real
    >> camera bag you don't use as sand carrier.


    > much easier not to buy poorly engineered stuff ..not that the d3200
    > would be a stranger to that either (first impressions like).


    I'm afraid only underwater and completely sand tight cameras
    would be OK for your misusage.


    > As for the lens cover I would devise a flip up type with a soft rubber
    > seal instead of overprojecting edges that can catch in something. I'd
    > have it spring loaded & soleniod released like a flash hood. When
    > finger-pressed closed against the rubber seal it would be latched so it
    > cannot be opened without electrical unlatching and nothing could drift
    > past the seal while peaople play volleyball around it on the beach.
    > 'Nuff, let'em chew on this for a year.


    "flip up", huh? Yeah, that's a good idea if you want to block
    the flash and to have it break off easily, too.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 29, 2012
    #31
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dave Cobb
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    414
    bagal
    May 29, 2004
  2. Peter Mason

    NEW It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World DVD!

    Peter Mason, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,012
    DarkMatter
    Oct 31, 2003
  3. Michael Rogers

    I's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World new DVD?

    Michael Rogers, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    564
    Hitman of Las Vegas
    Jan 11, 2004
  4. Robb
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    710
    philo
    Mar 11, 2007
  5. richard

    two movie scenes from "it's a mad mad world"

    richard, Nov 20, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    888
    Evan Platt
    Nov 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page