# The disappearance of darkness

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Me, May 7, 2013.

1. ### Chris MalcolmGuest

PeterN <> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <>,
>> Whisky-dave <> wrote:

>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> How much teaching experience do you have?

Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

> <snip>

>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option and
>>> a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer clicking
>>> buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's happening I
>>> just have to wait until I see an effect I like.

>>
>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>> the tools that are different.

> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
needed is already contained in the digital image.

> Similarly for fau infra-red.

Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
exist in the image.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm, May 15, 2013

2. ### Chris MalcolmGuest

PeterN <> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote:
>> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN >> <> wrote: >> >>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography. >>> >>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach. >>> How much teaching experience do you have? >> >> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn. >> >>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the >>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option >>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after >>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e >>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer >>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's >>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like. >>>> >>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just >>>> the tools that are different. >>> >>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization. >>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool. >> >> nothing faux about it. >> >> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the >> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally. >> > You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your > digitized image to the rays of the sun? That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled if it wasn't. > Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word. There are important differences between good large expensive dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any" dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously is. Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process. -- Chris Malcolm Chris Malcolm, May 15, 2013 1. ### Advertising 3. ### Whisky-daveGuest On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:49:10 AM UTC+1, Me wrote: > On 14/05/2013 2:40 p.m., nospam wrote: > > > In article <kms79s$h0l$>, Me <> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> One of the most intriguing "differences" that can't be heard (except by > > >> a few special folks) is achieved by use of "Shakti Stones": > > > >> > > >> Homeopathy for home audio - and car ECUs apparently. > > > > > > not only does that improve sound but it increases horsepower. amazing > > > what technology can do. > > > > > > just be sure your vinyl records are fully demagnetized before > > > listening. otherwise you won't obtain the full effect of shatki. > > > > > > <http://www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200702.htm> > > > Well, according to Furutech, the material added to vinyl to color it > > > black has magnetic properties, and demagnetizing LPs makes them > > > sound better. > > > > > Even better - they claim that the paint used to print CDs and the > > aluminium used in CDs itself is slightly magnetic, and that outfit > > recommends using the "demag" for CDs... > > > > Even well regarded companies like B&W IMO make some extremely bold > > claims about their technology, usually along the lines of acoustic / > > mechanical properties of some very expensive and hard to copy substance > > which is very close to unobtanium. They then go on to justify this based > > on things like linear accuracy of waveform / THD at high frequencies, > > when apparently the human auditory system can't even discern the > > difference between a sine wave and a square wave at about 8KHz or higher. I certainly can, it's pretty easy actually, just did it lunchtime. I do find it diffiult at 10KHz and above. I couldn't here anything relibly above 15KHz. > That said, a friend of mine has some B&W Nautilus Signature speakers, > > powered by Krell monoblocks and preamp, all inter-connected with very > > expensive cables. It does sound pretty good (and so it should as the > > system cost at least as much as a new Porsche 911). It also draws over > > 6KW when turned up a bit - he needed to have his house re-wired before > > installing the 300kg or so sound system. > > On an A:B comparison, I still couldn't tell the difference between > > normal CD and SACD. Sometimes that just down to the individual, I only just tell the diffnce between a 16KHz loop and a 24KHz (sampling rate) loop but a friend of mine can. Some can tell the differnces between foods and drinks, but not everyone has the best pallette or nose for it, some have to be trained. Most people can't tell the differnce between male and female chicks. Whisky-dave, May 15, 2013 4. ### PeterNGuest On 5/15/2013 7:42 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote: > PeterN <> wrote: >> On 5/11/2013 8:07 PM, nospam wrote: >>> In article <518e73cc$0$10805$-secrets.com>, PeterN
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
>>>> How much teaching experience do you have?
>>>
>>> digital gives instant feedback, making it much easier to learn.
>>>
>>>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
>>>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
>>>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
>>>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
>>>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
>>>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
>>>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
>>>>>
>>>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
>>>>> the tools that are different.
>>>>
>>>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
>>>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
>>>
>>>
>>> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
>>> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
>>>

>> You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
>> digitized image to the rays of the sun?

>
> That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
> that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
> the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
> if it wasn't.
>
>> Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

>
> There are important differences between good large expensive
> dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
> dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
> technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
> is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
> is.

You are right, in general, however in this case AFAIK the OED has a
similar definition.
I would not rely on any dictionary for technical applications, but might
use one as a starting point.

>
> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.
>

Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye, but
the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.

--
PeterN

PeterN, May 15, 2013
5. ### nospamGuest

In article <>,
Whisky-dave <> wrote:

> > if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is
> > probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not
> > audible.

>
> But tehre;s more ir it than that due to harmonics and even if yuo can;t hear
> 25KHz that if it exists in teh signal will alter the dynamics of teh speaker
> due to power disapation, this is one of the things that used to blow up
> tweeters as it doesn;t take much at high frequancy, hopefully those
> frequancies are filered out before amplification.

you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing.

> > plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
> > once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

>
> Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound.

not if you can't hear it, it won't.

> If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear.

for speaker cables, that's all that matters.

nospam, May 15, 2013
6. ### nospamGuest

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using
> >> a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay
> >> heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous.

> >
> >in other words, standard wire.

>
> 'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical.

what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its
mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality.

> >> What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out
> >> conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I
> >> think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by
> >> blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately
> >> the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal".
> >> In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable.

> >
> >woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless.

>
> Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to
> form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old
> days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds.

that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and
certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm.

> >> Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know.

> >
> >the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of
> >14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of
> >magnitude lower than that.

>
> Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which
> reactance is a factor.

note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's
negligible.

> >> Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the
> >> speaker.

> >
> >it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero.
> >
> >> Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to
> >> ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the
> >> impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to
> >> poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions.

> >
> >the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load.
> >
> >the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the
> >load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still
> >insignificant.
> >
> >> In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the
> >> unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable.

> >
> >definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear.

>
> Double blind, remember.

what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized,
such as same volume level?

nospam, May 15, 2013
7. ### nospamGuest

In article <>, Chris Malcolm
<> wrote:

> >> digital is *much* better for teaching photography.

>
> > Depends on what you are attempting to teach.
> > How much teaching experience do you have?

>
> Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry.

so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital
workflow.

> >>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the
> >>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option
> >>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after
> >>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e
> >>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer
> >>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's
> >>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like.
> >>
> >> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> >> the tools that are different.

>
> > Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.

>
> It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the
> effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the
> effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information
> needed is already contained in the digital image.

exactly correct.

> > Similarly for fau infra-red.

>
> Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
> software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
> exist in the image.

however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, and a whole lot
easier than with infrared film.

nospam, May 15, 2013
8. ### nospamGuest

In article <>, Chris Malcolm
<> wrote:

> >>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just
> >>>> the tools that are different.
> >>>
> >>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.
> >>> That's not to say it not a neat artistic effect tool.
> >>
> >> nothing faux about it.
> >>
> >> solarization can be done in software, identical to what was done in the
> >> darkroom. it can be modeled digitally.
> >>

> > You can imitate it, but not produce it digitally. Do you expose your
> > digitized image to the rays of the sun?

>
> That's how it was first done, and how the process got its name, but
> that's not how it came to be done in later years. No need at all for
> the light to be sunlight, and the process was more easily controlled
> if it wasn't.
>
> > Goi to any dictionary and look up the meaning of the word.

>
> There are important differences between good large expensive
> dictionaries and small cheap dictionaries. If you think "any"
> dictionary is good enough for looking up the meaning of a
> technological process word I suspect your experience of dictionaries
> is as limited as your experience of the solarisation process obviously
> is.
>
> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

correct.

nospam, May 15, 2013

In article <51939627$0$10767$-secrets.com>, PeterN <> wrote: > > Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same > > resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process. > > Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye, not almost. they *are* indistinguishable because they are exactly the same. > but > the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process. no it wasn't. it was about teaching concepts. the steps to get there may be different, but that doesn't make any difference. nospam, May 15, 2013 10. ### PeterNGuest On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <>, Eric Stevens > <> wrote: > >>>> It was a long time ago and my memory is coming back to me. I am using >>>> a low-oxygen cable but not the fancy stuff that the audiophiles pay >>>> heaps for. I can't the conductor cross section but it is generous. >>> >>> in other words, standard wire. >> >> 'Good' standard wire. The bulk of the advantage is mechanical. > > what matters is the electrical characteristics of the wire, not its > mechanical characteristics, which has *no* effect on sound quality. > >>>> What I was testing against was a fancy cable where the in and out >>>> conductors each employed three sets of wires which were interwoven. I >>>> think that this may have been the conductor which achieved fame by >>>> blowing up a Naim amplifier as soon as it was connected. Fortunately >>>> the Quad 606 is "Unconditionally stable with any load and any signal". >>>> In any case, I could hear the difference and dumped the fancy cable. >>> >>> woven wire looks nice. electrically it's meaningless. >> >> Not this lot. Three cores in, three cores out, the whole interwoven to >> form a six ply tube. As I said, the reactance was such that in the old >> days Naim amplifiers could not tolerate them even for milliseconds. > > that's done for looks. you don't need twisted pairs for audio and > certainly not triplets. it's still a tiny fraction of an ohm. > >>>> Cable impedance does play an important part as I am sure you know. >>> >>> the impedance of wire is for all intents, zero. as noted before, 25' of >>> 14ga wire is 0.063 ohms and any reactive component is many orders of >>> magnitude lower than that. >> >> Note that I did not say 'resistance'. I said 'impedance' of which >> reactance is a factor. > > note that i said reactive component. also note that i said that it's > negligible. > >>>> Only with zero impedance does the amplifier have 100% control of the >>>> speaker. >>> >>> it's close enough to zero that it can be considered zero. >>> >>>> Quad puts it as "For optimum performance it is necessary to >>>> ensure that the impedance of the cable is small relative to the >>>> impedance of the load". This makes sense as the amplifier is able to >>>> poke out more than 10 amps under the right conditions. >>> >>> the impedance of the wire *is* small relative to the load. >>> >>> the wire is 0.063 ohms and the load is nominally 8 ohms. even if the >>> load drops to 1-2 ohms at certain frequencies, the wire is still >>> insignificant. >>> >>>> In fact what I think I may have been hearing was the effect of the >>>> unusually high reactance of the quite long interwoven cable. >>> >>> definitely not. what you were hearing was what you wanted to hear. >> >> Double blind, remember. > > what assurances do you have that all other variables were normalized, > such as same volume level? > And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable observations -- PeterN PeterN, May 15, 2013 11. ### PeterNGuest On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <>, Chris Malcolm > <> wrote: > >>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography. >> >>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach. >>> How much teaching experience do you have? >> >> Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry. > > so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital > workflow. Who the hell are you to decide what's important. Learning how to cook is not important in Japan, because they eat raw fish. In the US cooking is not important because in addition to eating raw fish, we eat steak tartar and pre-cooked TV dinners. \\end sarcastic tag > >>>>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the >>>>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option >>>>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after >>>>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography, i.e >>>>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer >>>>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understand what's >>>>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like. >>>> >>>> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just >>>> the tools that are different. >> >>> Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization. >> >> It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the >> effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the >> effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information >> needed is already contained in the digital image. > > exactly correct. > >>> Similarly for fau infra-red. >> >> Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using >> software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not >> exist in the image. > > however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, and a whole lot > easier than with infrared film. > -- PeterN PeterN, May 15, 2013 12. ### Whisky-daveGuest On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:20:51 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote: > In article <>, > > Whisky-dave <> wrote: > > > > > > if the distortion is within the audio range (20-20k), then it is > > > > probably audible. if the distortion is outside that range, it's not > > > > audible. > > > > > > But tehre;s more ir it than that due to harmonics and even if yuo can;t hear > > > 25KHz that if it exists in teh signal will alter the dynamics of teh speaker > > > due to power disapation, this is one of the things that used to blow up > > > tweeters as it doesn;t take much at high frequancy, hopefully those > > > frequancies are filered out before amplification. > > > > you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing. No shit sherlock so why do they suppress drills and other motors if yuo can;'t heqar the frequancies the emit, and why do most apmpliers block DC if you can't hear it ? If a speaker or output device is putting out a frequancy above yuor hearing ability it doesn't mean it's not doing anything it is using power and disapating that power > > > plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they > > > > once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end. > > > > > > Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound. > > > > not if you can't hear it, it won't. It will, those freuencies DO have an effect on the circuits. > > If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear. > > > > for speaker cables, that's all that matters. Try puttign a few voilts DC on those speaker cables see if you cvan still hear anything. Whisky-dave, May 15, 2013 13. ### Whisky-daveGuest On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:20:55 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote: > In article <>, Chris Malcolm > > <> wrote: > > > > > >> digital is *much* better for teaching photography. > > > > > > > Depends on what you are attempting to teach. > > > > How much teaching experience do you have? > > > > > > Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry. > > > > so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital > > workflow. > > > > > >>> When I fist tried solarization I spoend quite a bit of time, getting the > > > >>> timings right in the darkroom,, sure it's much easier clickiong an option > > > >>> and a slider or two, I can produce 1000s rather than the couple I did after > > > >>> hours in the darkroom, but I think I learnt more about photography,i.e > > > >>> drawing with light than I did fropm clickoing buttons, now I prefer > > > >>> clicking buttons because it's easier and I don;t need to understandwhat's > > > >>> happening I just have to wait until I see an effect I like. > > > >> > > > >> you can still learn about solarization or any other effect. it's just > > > >> the tools that are different. > > > > > > > Digital does not produce solarization. It produces faux solarization.. > > > > > > It's possible and not difficult to produce an accurate model of the > > > effects of solarisation on the image, and therefore to reproduce the > > > effects exactly by software on a digital image. All the information > > > needed is already contained in the digital image. > > > > exactly correct. > > > > > > Similarly for fau infra-red. > > > > > > Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using > > > software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not > > > exist in the image. > > > > however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital, you can't shoot with digital, digital is what comes out of the sensors andprocessed. Lok it up in teh dictionary digital is NOT a device. and a whole lot > > easier than with infrared film. How do yuo work that one out. I shot IR with my canon A1 film camera I brought a roill of film put it in my camera took the photos adn handed teh film over to the processor and I collected it a week or so later. Now if I were to use my canon G10 or my friends 7D or 550D how would I go about shooting IR ? I was told I had to send my camera in to have it altered. Whisky-dave, May 15, 2013 14. ### PeterNGuest On 5/15/2013 10:20 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <51939627$0$10767$-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>> Software operating on a digital image can produce EXACTLY the same
>>> resulting image as the original optical/chemical solarisation process.

>>
>> Yes the results may be almost indistinguishable to the naked eye,

>
> not almost.
>
> they *are* indistinguishable because they are exactly the same.
>
>> but
>> the process is not the same. The context of the discussion, was process.

>
> no it wasn't. it was about teaching concepts.
>
> the steps to get there may be different, but that doesn't make any
> difference.
>

opinion on teaching methodology.
--
PeterN

PeterN, May 15, 2013

In article <5193a9b9$0$10783$-secrets.com>, PeterN <> wrote: > >>>> digital is *much* better for teaching photography. > >> > >>> Depends on what you are attempting to teach. > >>> How much teaching experience do you have? > >> > >> Digital is certainly not good for teaching darkroom chemistry. > > > > so what? that's not important anymore. what's important is digital > > workflow. > > Who the hell are you to decide what's important. i didn't decide. the world decided. the future is digital. film is going away and without film, there is no need for processing. kodak is bankrupt. kodachome is no more. camera stores are closing because the bulk of their income was processing film and that's gone. meanwhile, more and more people are learning digital workflows. > Learning how to cook is not important in Japan, because they eat raw > fish. In the US cooking is not important because in addition to eating > raw fish, we eat steak tartar and pre-cooked TV dinners. \\end sarcastic tag you make my point for me and you probably don't even realize it. nospam, May 15, 2013 16. ### nospamGuest In article <5193a6fc$0$10819$-secrets.com>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable
> observations

not only is it verifiable but i told you how to verify all of it. stop
lying.

nospam, May 15, 2013
17. ### nospamGuest

In article <>,
Whisky-dave <> wrote:

> > you can't hear what's outside the range of human hearing.

>
> No shit sherlock so why do they suppress drills and other motors if yuo
> can;'t heqar the frequancies the emit, and why do most apmpliers block DC if
> you can't hear it ?

blocking dc is needed to avoid burning out components.

> If a speaker or output device is putting out a frequancy above yuor hearing
> ability it doesn't mean it's not doing anything it is using power and
> disapating that power

so what? you can't hear it, and the difference in power for high
frequencies is negligible anyway.

this is about wasting money on overpriced cables and other garbage that
makes absolutely no difference in sound.

> > > > plus, as people age, they can't hear high frequencies as well as they
> > > > once could, which means even 20k is pushing it for the high end.

> >
> > > Yes but it can still matter to the overall sound.

> >
> > not if you can't hear it, it won't.

>
> It will, those freuencies DO have an effect on the circuits.

this isn't about circuit design, it's about whether you can hear a
difference with various hyped cables, components and other crap.

increasing the frequency response out to 30khz or 40khz is pointless.
you can't hear it.

> > > If you're only interest is in what the human ear can hear.

> >
> > for speaker cables, that's all that matters.

>
> Try puttign a few voilts DC on those speaker cables see if you cvan still hear anything.

submerge the speakers in water. then what?

nospam, May 15, 2013
18. ### nospamGuest

In article <>,
Whisky-dave <> wrote:

> > > > Similarly for fau infra-red.

> >
> > > Whereas it's not possible to mimic the effects of infra-red by using
> > > software on a digital image because the infra-red information does not
> > > exist in the image.

> >
> > however, it is possible to shoot infrared with digital,

>
> you can't shoot with digital,

people shoot with digital every day, and shoot way the hell more than
they ever did with film.

> digital is what comes out of the sensors and
> processed. Lok it up in teh dictionary digital is NOT a device.

a digital sensor is a device. a digital camera is a device. not that it
matters.

> and a whole lot
> >
> > easier than with infrared film.

>
> How do yuo work that one out.
> I shot IR with my canon A1 film camera I brought a roill of film put it in my
> camera took the photos adn handed teh film over to the processor and I
> collected it a week or so later. Now if I were to use my canon G10 or my
> friends 7D or 550D how would I go about shooting IR ?

put an infrared filter on the lens and shoot. the results are instant.
no need for special film with special handling.

and be careful which canon slr you use. some of them had infrared film
advance that counted sprocket holes. other cameras are not opaque to
infrared light.

> I was told I had to send my camera in to have it altered.

that helps but is not required.

digital cameras are optimized for normal photography, but there's
nothing about them that precludes infrared photography.

if you don't have it modified, the exposures will be long because of
the infrared cut filter in front of the sensor. if you remove the ir
cut filter, exposures will be in a more normal range. that just makes
it easier.

for some cameras, the difference is not much, such as on the canon g1,
which didn't have a very strong infrared cut filter.

there are also digital cameras designed just for infrared (and
ultraviolet too), such as the fuji uvir.

<http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/8/9/fujifilms3prouvir>

on sigma slrs, the 'dust filter' can be removed which is also the
infrared cut filter, so the camera can be switched from normal to
infrared and back at any time. unfortunately, you have to deal with it
being a sigma slr and all its pitfalls. it's also not that hard to
break the filter, so plan on getting a spare.

nospam, May 15, 2013
19. ### PeterNGuest

On 5/15/2013 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5193a6fc$0$10819\$-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> And this from the individual who alleges facts based upon unverifiable
>> observations

>
> not only is it verifiable but i told you how to verify all of it. stop
> lying.
>

\So you know how to verify your observations, that were made at an
indeterminate time! Yup! I guess I missed that posting.

--
PeterN

PeterN, May 15, 2013
20. ### Wolfgang WeisselbergGuest

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-13 12:26:51 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-08 21:15:54 -0700, PeterN <> said:

>>>> BTW by most standards, the word "most" has a very well understood and
>>>> BASIC meaning.

>>> Yup! More than "some" less than "all".

>> Much more fun is "almost all" and mathematicians.

> That could be translated as "all, except for that guy".

In fact it's translated to have only a finite number of
counter examples (while infinitely ones follow the rule).

Every single human is still a very finite number.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 15, 2013