Perspective (was Re: Has ultrawide angle become an overused cliche?)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 10 Aug 2010 19:52 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:57:23 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >news:2010080902311316807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > >> >> A valuable lesson learned with my own material. >> >> Hoisted on my own petard so to speak. ;-) >> > >According to my understanding it means you smelled your own farts. > >http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petard Note that the actual phrase is "hoist with one's own petard". "With", not "on". The exploding bomb hoists one. Shakespeare used the phrase in "Hamlet", but it's spelled "petar" in some versions of the work. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Peter on 10 Aug 2010 20:01 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:q4p36696nv8l3oisef0i1ld2feo29krg7f(a)4ax.com... > > Note that the actual phrase is "hoist with one's own petard". "With", > not "on". The exploding bomb hoists one. > Only if it explodes under you. If the explosion is above, foist it would flatten you. -- Peter
From: J. Clarke on 11 Aug 2010 07:41 On 8/10/2010 7:52 PM, tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:57:23 -0400, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010080902311316807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> >>> >>> A valuable lesson learned with my own material. >>> >>> Hoisted on my own petard so to speak. ;-) >>> >> >> According to my understanding it means you smelled your own farts. >> >> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/petard > > Note that the actual phrase is "hoist with one's own petard". "With", > not "on". The exploding bomb hoists one. > > Shakespeare used the phrase in "Hamlet", but it's spelled "petar" in > some versions of the work. Spelling in those days was individualistic--you spelled the word however looked right to you. The first attempt at an English dictionary was written when Shakespeare was in his 40s and nobody paid much attention to it.
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Aug 2010 13:09 "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message news:shiv-696F2E.14140310082010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi... > In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message >> news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example >> .com... >> > In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >> > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, >> >> > Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by perspective: >> >> > the >> >> > geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking at >> >> > an >> >> > image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer >> >> > a >> >> > glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). >> >> >> >> Obscura, I assume you mean. >> >> >> > >> > You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera >> > Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: >> > >> > http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm >> >> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to be >> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera >> obscura. (With a "b.") >> >> > >> > >> > And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the >> > first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time of >> > a >> > discussion. >> >> You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the time >> brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. > > Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word > "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. I'm not seeing anything that isn't there. Read what I said again: >> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to be >> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera >> obscura. (With a "b.") The root of the word is the Latin "obscurus," meaning dark. The illustration is of what is commonly called a camera obscura. "Camera" means chamber, or room. A darkened room was necessary for the use of that device. And I repeat: the text that you think is Latin appears to be Italian. Italian is not Latin.
From: Neil Harrington on 12 Aug 2010 13:12
"Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message news:shiv-07F7EB.19240610082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.example.com... > In article <2010081011344922503-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-08-10 11:14:04 -0700, Shiva Das <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> said: >> >> > In article <ArqdnYZXftq9yfzRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >> > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Shiva Das" <shiv(a)nataraja.invalid> wrote in message >> >> news:shiv-663310.19271109082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-NOT-delegated.exam >> >> ple >> >> .com... >> >>> In article <crednS_gOehk4P3RnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, >> >>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> And by perspective I mean what Albrecht Durer, Johannes Vermeer, >> >>>>> Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo Buonarote meant by perspective: >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> geometrical reconstruction of a stationary point of view looking at >> >>>>> an >> >>>>> image projected on a stationary picture plane (in the case of Durer >> >>>>> a >> >>>>> glass plate, in the case of Vermeer a Camera Oscura). >> >>>> >> >>>> Obscura, I assume you mean. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> You may assume what you wish. I meant exactly what I said: Camera >> >>> Oscura. Brush up on it here -- I hope you read Latin: >> >>> >> >>> http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Spinoza/camera.htm >> >> >> >> I don't. I also don't read Italian, which is what that text appears to >> >> be >> >> in. But in any case, the illustration in that article is of a camera >> >> obscura. (With a "b.") >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> And since you have amply demonstrated that you do not understand the >> >>> first thing about perspective, I will bow out of this waste of time >> >>> of a >> >>> discussion. >> >> >> >> You are probably wise to do so. You might want to instead spend the >> >> time >> >> brushing up on the difference between Latin and Italian. >> > >> > Now you are seeing the letter "B" where it isn't. The page has the word >> > "Oscura" six times and the word "Obscura" zero times. >> > >> > 'Nuff said. >> >> You are taking "oscura" from an old latin document, and it may well >> have been the correct term when that document was drafted. However >> check; < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura > and I think you >> will find your usage is the "obscure" and less commonly used one. > > Oh I agree completely that it is the archaic Latin version, [ . . . ] Italian is not "archaic Latin." |