From: DanP on 25 Jul 2010 17:12
On Jul 25, 7:38 pm, Schneider <schnei...(a)none.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:20:03 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 25, 10:02 am, Schneider <schnei...(a)none.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:35:16 +0100, Martin Brown
> >> <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >On 23/07/2010 22:25, Peter wrote:
> >> >> "me" <m...(a)mine.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:fluj465l2ti01muthbuq2b7clon73n3kkh(a)4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:50 -0400, "Peter"
> >> >>> <peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> Interesting effect. I would have liked to see the silhouette sharp. The
> >> >>>> blurry outline ruins it for me.
> >> >Try a bit of judicious unsharp masking radius 4, strength 40 in PSPro..
> >> >There seems to be some residual chromatic aberration on the horizontals.
> >> >>> How would you propose to have both the moon and the silhouette both be
> >> >>> sharp in a single shot with 1000mm f.l.?
> >> >Actually you can just about do it with the depth of field available with
> >> >a 1000mm lens at f10 focussed at 3500m provided the horizon is no closer
> >> >to you than 2000m. I suspect the OP focussed on the moon and so nearly
> >> >half the available depth of field is wasted on beyond infinity.
> >> >An online calculator is at:http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
> >> >> The same way you take a picture of a hummingbird, with its wings frozen,
> >> >> with a 28mm f5.6 lens, without strobe.
> >> >A flash gun will also freeze its wings...
> >> And, as always, destroy the ambiance of a perfectly good shot. Ah, the
> >> crippled crutch of the DSLR-TROLL .... image destroying FLASH.
> >> Did you miss this hand-held shot taken at 1/10,000 second using available
> >> light alone?
> >> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg>
> >I have told you before, having plastic in a wildlife shot ruins it.
> And I have told you before, it's not my photo (reposted with permission).
> But a good example how the 1/10,000 to 1/40,000 second shutter speeds on
> P&S cameras can capture images that no DSLR in the world will ever capture
> properly. If this was shot with a DSLR its wings would be deformed like the
> helicopter blades in this focal-plane shutter captured image.
That shot was taken with an old film camera with a horizontal shutter.
You can not find a picture taken with a DSLR haaving such a bad
distorsion (only tip of the blade will be bent)
P&S cameras cannot do it better, flash will be useless and without
flash having a ridiculous fast exposure will produce a black image.
From: DanP on 26 Jul 2010 04:46
On Jul 25, 10:18 pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org>
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:39:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Can be done with 1/200 shttp://www.flickr.com/photos/csummers/1027755241/meta/
> Quoted from the image page:
> "Female Broad-Tailed Hummingbird in Flight - IMG_1106_2
> Taken with high speed strobe. The background is the sky (there is no
> backdrop). The high speed strobe goes at about 1/8000 of a second while the
> shutter has to sync at 1/200 of a second."
> No flash, eh?
Did I say that? Read again:
"Can be done with 1/200 s http://www.flickr.com/photos/csummers/1027755241/meta/
From: zulu on 26 Jul 2010 12:08
when LOL! Better Info Outing Trolls is FUN! Truman has to use 2 of his
personalities to act like he 2 different people right after each other
he need to learn not to sign off with LOL when he pretending to be
Outing Trolls is FUN!. make you look more sick then you really are.
cancer in human form. so sad
From: DanP on 26 Jul 2010 15:44
On Jul 25, 10:23 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote:
> WRONG! Fool. That helicopter shot WAS taken with a DSLR.
What? You expect me to take your word for it?
This was taken with a DSLR http://www.flickr.com/photos/professoraa/2728062620/
Not perfect but far better than your example.
> >P&S cameras cannot do it better,
> They use a leaf-shutter, there will be NO distortion.
Can you find any P&S shots of the Apache?
There is NO distortion because there is NO shot.
From: DanP on 26 Jul 2010 15:58
On Jul 26, 8:26 pm, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote:
> Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
> 1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV(a)400ISO. Given that the best natural
> lighting is 16EV(a)100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
> natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
Ehmm, with CHDK the aperture has to be f/8 for 1/40000 s.
Pretty much useless for photography but good for trolling.
There is a reason why no manufacturer makes such ridiculous fast
But there are flashes that go up to 1/20000 but not for toy cameras.