Prev: New DSLR lenses from Nikon
Next: Hole punch cloud
From: me on 13 Feb 2010 16:33
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:04:39 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sure you did it to "prove a point"!

That's correct.

>Fess up, you just forgot to trim before you jumped on me. I admit I didn't
>think about it when I did so. You were being hypocritical.

No.,despite what you may wish that's the fact. If you can't deal with
it, so be it.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 17 Feb 2010 15:13
Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:02:15 +0000, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>>> No, they don't. Official URL-formatting supports line breaks.
>>
>> Would you kindly point me to the relevant RFC?

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

> Appendix C.

It allows ('may') whitespace, including line breaks, it doesn't
require support (no "'MUST' be ignored when the URL is extracted")
for these URL formats.
It only encourages proper whitespace handling IF the URL
is extracted and encourages <> around URLs if whitespace is
included, it doesn't even suggest extraction capabilities,
nor does it encourage to use the <> format in the general case,
it explicitely lists 3 limiters as common.

>>> If your reader can't handle them, your reader is the problem.

>> Interesting idea, that ... "if you/your gear can't handle it, it's
>> your/your gear's problem". What happened to 'be conservative in what
>> you send and liberal in what you receive'?

> Since when do you care?

Since about the time I groked interoperability ... a long time ago.

> Your messages may have a thin layer of supposed
> politeness, but the tone beneath that layer isn't exactly conservative.

You need to expand on that, as it stands you seem to (mis)apply
a technical norm to a social, or worse, political value of the
same name.

>> Would you like your camera or RAW converter to produce legal TIFF files
>> that happen to be unusable for photoshop or whatever you use these TIFFs
>> for?

> What exactly are "legal TIFF files"?

Those that follow the TIFF specification.

> I don't have any objection to the
> TIFF formats I know.

And I am sure your editor cannot handle all of them. TIFFs a
minefield, baseline TIFF is all that is guaranteed.

-Wolfgang
From: Paul Furman on 21 Feb 2010 23:17
me wrote:
>
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Ha, an array of cell phone camera sensors.
From: D.J. on 22 Feb 2010 02:09
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:17:17 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>me wrote:
> >
>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
>
>Ha, an array of cell phone camera sensors.

Ha! Focal-Plane-Shutter Distortions from a DSLR! It's always so obvious
when you see an image like this exactly what kind of bad camera design has
captured it.

<http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/0/8f56b27b-79ad-4022-a038-2cb624d0256a.Full.jpg>

I just love these examples. Gotta love those amazingly bad camera designs
from last century that turn any fast moving object into distorted rubber.
Even funnier, blind DSLR worshippers insist this never happens. I guess
they don't take many photographs then!

HA!

Thanks for the page link! This is another good one to show everyone the
misleading, inaccurate, and totally lame images created by any DSLR. Even a
cell-phone camera couldn't destroy an image this badly.



From: Eric Stevens on 22 Feb 2010 04:34
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:09:49 -0600, D.J. <nocontact(a)noaddress.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:17:17 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>wrote:
>
>>me wrote:
>> >
>>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a881370e5-a10f-46be-bab0-bf60fa08b425&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
>>
>>Ha, an array of cell phone camera sensors.
>
>Ha! Focal-Plane-Shutter Distortions from a DSLR! It's always so obvious
>when you see an image like this exactly what kind of bad camera design has
>captured it.
>
><http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/0/8f56b27b-79ad-4022-a038-2cb624d0256a.Full.jpg>
>
>I just love these examples. Gotta love those amazingly bad camera designs
>from last century that turn any fast moving object into distorted rubber.
>Even funnier, blind DSLR worshippers insist this never happens. I guess
>they don't take many photographs then!
>
>HA!
>
>Thanks for the page link! This is another good one to show everyone the
>misleading, inaccurate, and totally lame images created by any DSLR. Even a
>cell-phone camera couldn't destroy an image this badly.
>
>
Actually, you have got it all wrong. The problem you refer to does not
occur as a result of the use of a mirror system but as a result of the
use of a focal plane shutter. Mirrors don't force the use of focal
plane shutters but interchangeable lenses almost certainly do. Sure,
interchangeable lens cameras have been built without focal plane
shutters but are you really advocating one shutter per lens? Sure, you
can get away with that if your camera has a non-interchangeable lens
but then, in today's market, that forces you to put up with all the
optical problems of a super-zoom.

Don't bother responding. It will only be bullshit anyway.



Eric Stevens
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: New DSLR lenses from Nikon
Next: Hole punch cloud