Re: The stupid, STUPID 4/3rds versus FF lens B.S.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ofnuts, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. Ofnuts

    Ofnuts Guest

    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
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 24, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ofnuts

    Ofnuts Guest

    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
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 24, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ofnuts

    Ofnuts Guest

    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
     
    Ofnuts, Oct 24, 2010
    #3
  4. Ofnuts

    Ollie Clark Guest

    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
     
    Ollie Clark, Oct 25, 2010
    #4
  5. 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, Oct 25, 2010
    #5
  6. Ofnuts

    Ollie Clark Guest

    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
     
    Ollie Clark, Oct 25, 2010
    #6
  7. Ofnuts

    Ollie Clark Guest

    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
     
    Ollie Clark, Oct 26, 2010
    #7
  8. [OT] Wrap, was: The stupid, ST.....

    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, Oct 26, 2010
    #8
  9. Ofnuts

    Ollie Clark Guest

    Re: [OT] Wrap, was: The stupid, ST.....

    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
     
    Ollie Clark, Oct 26, 2010
    #9
  10. Re: [OT] Wrap, was: The stupid, ST.....

    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.
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 26, 2010
    #10
  11. Ofnuts

    Ollie Clark Guest

    Re: [OT] Wrap, was: The stupid, ST.....

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > 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.


    I have no control over posts where the client has (correctly) wrapped
    for me, hence setting my width to 80 chars. For Dudley's previous
    posts, I had to either increase the size of the window or press W
    to line wrap the long lines. Not a big deal but seeing as Dudley
    was writing his own news reader I thought I'd ask him to correctly
    set his line lengths.

    > 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.


    I'm not sure if I'd want my client to reformat posts with proper
    line lengths to longer line lengths TBH. I can already set the text
    size and font.

    IAC, Dudley has put line wrapping in, you use line wrapping, almost
    everyone else uses line wrapping. You can continue to use your
    prefered client. I can continue to use mine. Dudley's script is more
    RFC compliant. Everyone should be happy.

    Cheers,

    Ollie
     
    Ollie Clark, Oct 27, 2010
    #11
    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. kpg

    stupid stupid stupid

    kpg, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    875
    T-Bone
    Nov 26, 2004
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    820
  3. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    886
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
  4. Rich

    4/3rds fixed 3x zoom lens camera coming

    Rich, Jun 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    296
    Bowser
    Jun 30, 2010
  5. RichA

    The stupid, STUPID 4/3rds versus FF lens B.S.

    RichA, Oct 21, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    355
    Robert Coe
    Oct 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page