CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking.....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pete D, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Pete D

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas, Nov 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    Sorry, don't understand what you are talking about, don't you like my shot?

    Thanks for looking.
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    Can you blow your cats nose? ;-)
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #4
  5. Pete D

    Mark Thomas Guest

    I blew *on* my cat's nose when I was about 4 and I still have the scar
    to show for it. No picture but I learned something useful.
     
    Mark Thomas, Nov 16, 2008
    #5
  6. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    One of my cats this he is a bit of a dog, you can roll him over and rub his
    tummy without getting your hand shredded, same cat in the photo actually.
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #6
  7. Pete D

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ray Fischer, Nov 16, 2008
    #7
  8. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    Because I said so and you MUST take it on faith that it is SO. If you do not
    I will abuse you and swear at you and be a general arse and there will be
    nothing you can do about it. Nah just kidding, the original EXIF said it
    was.
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #8
  9. Pete D

    Nervous Nick Guest

    IFYPFY.
     
    Nervous Nick, Nov 16, 2008
    #9
  10. You're a pretty bad troll. There is no metadata on that photo. Trolls better
    than you would have attached some fake EXIF info. Not that it would have
    mattered.

    I have some burst bracket sequence of shots with CHDK, done when testing for
    highest possible shutter speeds using that scanning laser method. Some shots
    have up to 1/3,000,000 of a second in the EXIF. But unlike you, and like all
    others that know how to use CHDK, knowing what it can do and cannot do, I know
    that the fastest speed from my camera is 1/40,000. Getting 1/3,000,000 recorded
    in any MakerNotes data doesn't concern me in the least. That automatically means
    1/40,000. The physical limit of the camera.

    Anyone that has enough intellect to run CHDK has enough intellect to know why
    1/1,000,000 of a second is just a MakerNotes artifact and does not reflect what
    their camera can truly do.

    This is why I know that so many of you DSLR-trolls have never even ran CHDK.
    Judging by your posts here you're lucky if you can even find your keyboards let
    alone know how to run, use, and take advantage of the hundreds of new features
    and immeasurable new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
    photography.


    I think I just figured out something. One simple little program takes the whole
    world of photography to a new level, making things available that were once
    thought impossible, giving back that much to the world of photography and all
    photographers. You're jealous and envious because you've never been able to
    contribute a thing but being a relentless pretend-photographer troll in a
    newsgroup. I get it now. It's all starting to make sense, why you despise CHDK
    so much. 300k of programming does more than your whole existence on this planet
    ever has. Makes perfect sense now.

    Troll away. It reveals so much about your virtual-life.
     
    calvin-torgen, Nov 16, 2008
    #10
  11. Pete D

    Ray Fischer Guest

    1) I see no EXIF data.
    2) EXIF data could be faked.
    3) The camera might be recording incorrect EXIF data.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 16, 2008
    #11
  12. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    How dare you my good man, all I have done is this about the poor people that
    bandwidth challenged, troll indeed.
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #12
  13. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    When you push the envelope like I do even CHDK cannot write fast enough as I
    was taking shots at 2,000 fps.
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #13
  14. Pete D

    Pete D Guest

    Yes! I think the shadows give it away...... with CHDK though anything is
    probable! Actually I simply pointed my P&S's bum towards what I needed
    lit....... just kidding, it was flash!
     
    Pete D, Nov 16, 2008
    #14
  15. Pete D

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I'd be truly astonished if you could record a significant number of
    photos at that rate. 1GB/sec? That's faster than a high-end PC.
    I'm pretty sure that only very specialized cameras can handle that
    data rate.

    I still see nothing that would indicate that your exposure was
    anywhere near 1 microsecond. It's looks like a photo that could be
    done with almost any camera and a flash.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 16, 2008
    #15
  16. Pete D

    Steve Guest

    I think you're missing his tongue being firmly planted in his cheek.
    But yes, a flash like my SB600 has a duration of only 1/25000 sec on
    it's lowest power setting, which should be just fine for getting water
    droplet shots like that. And an SB800 goes down to 1/41600 sec.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Nov 16, 2008
    #16
  17. Pete D

    GerryThomas Guest

    Now do it out in bright sunlight with that setup. Won't happen. But you already
    knew this didn't you. Or not. If you had known this simple fact, you wouldn't
    have brought it up. Knowing full well that the usefulness of your DSLR+flash
    could be so easily discounted and disproved with such a simple real-world
    example.

    Go buy a camera, learn how to use it. Then those of us who know more than you
    ever will don't have to waste countless hours trying to correct your
    pretend-photographer troll's ignorance and misinformation.
     
    GerryThomas, Nov 16, 2008
    #17
  18. Pete D

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Maybe so. It's often hard to tell the difference between the crazies,
    the clueless, and the comics.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 16, 2008
    #18
  19. Pete D

    Steve Guest

    Hey dummy, the picture we're talking about was done with a flash. But
    obviously you're too stupid to notice that.
     
    Steve, Nov 17, 2008
    #19
  20. Pete D

    Eric Stevens Guest

    And make sure you get the pattern of shadows from the water droplets
    radiating out from a point near the lens. You will be so close to the
    sun that I will be laughing while you fry. :)

    Its a flash.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.