New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: [SI] New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
Next: Lens with Depth of Field indicator. (For full frame [36x24mm] digital camera.)
From: whisky-dave on 18 Dec 2009 11:43 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:l95ni5hoe6cmrl3r1p8dtctgi52q7m03am(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:13:43 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >>Regarding recent news, I also question the validity of naming Woods as >>"Athlete of the Decade" when there are far more deserving true athletes >>such as Michael Phelps. >>Phelps' 8 Gold medal achievement at Beijing alone should have put him >>at the top of that list, and once you add on the rest of his Olympic >>gold in 2004, and his 37 World records (currently holder of 19 World >>records) should have made him the athlete of the decade. >> >>Hell! Lance Armstrong is more deserving of that label than Woods. >> >>I guess swimming doesn't command the respect of sports writers blinded >>by golf earning power. > > How many people took up swimming or bicycle racing because of the > publicity generated by the accomplishments of Phelps or Armstrong? I didn't :-) But then again people do take up such things when the sport is 'advertised' It's happening in London because we have the Olympics in 2012. > Tiger made golf a more popular sport and many people - especially > African Americans - have taken up golf because of Tiger. I've never follwoed golf or any sport really but I don;t understand just what this Tiger bloke had that many other golfers haven't. Apart from a silly name for a human being that is. > Tiger qualifies as AOTY both for his physical accomplishments in his > sport and for the influence he had in his sport. > > The thing that bothers me is that we can't separate the athletic > aspects from the personal aspects. I don;t realyl think or golfers as atheletic, although they do have to walk quiet a way othersise they'd be no more atheletic than darts players. >Tiger's personal life is sordid > and reprehensible, but his athletic accomplishments shouldn't be > denied. yep he's good at golf I guess. > > The award isn't for "Athlete With Good Moral Values Of The Year". > That one should go to Tim Tebow. I'm assuming that advertisers have used Tigers (previous) image to sell their products and aren't to happen that it';s been destroyed, but I wonder if this will stop people buying those products, those products haven't changed because of his behaviour.
From: John McWilliams on 18 Dec 2009 12:41 Savageduck wrote: > On 2009-12-18 08:25:12 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> > said: > >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:44:38 -0800, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> I still have a lot of trouble considering golf an athletic endevour, >>> regardless of Tiger's undeniable achievements. >> >> Oh, no. The old saw about golf not being an athletic event because it >> doesn't require physical endurance. Being a good golfer requires the >> same type of coordination skills that is present in most recognized >> sports. While the golfer is not required to have the necessary >> stamina to run from stroke to stroke, he has be in total control of >> all of his body movements. Also, as in all major sports, he has to >> develop the mental aspects of knowing what to do when. > > I know, I know! It is just my prejudice. I fully appreciate the > coordination and skill required. As a sports enthusiast and a once good golfer, and passable tennis player, I'd say it's the mental abilities that separate the superb from the very good athlete, but in a limited number of endeavors, such as tennis, golf, q-backing, sailing, bowling (cricket, and maybe the boring kind, too). Not meant to be exhaustive list. But I exclude athletes that need just speed or strength (track and field, rowing, cross country) as ones needing superlative mental abilities. Lots of sports/positions fall in between. -- john mcwilliams
From: Bill Graham on 18 Dec 2009 16:46 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:l95ni5hoe6cmrl3r1p8dtctgi52q7m03am(a)4ax.com... > The thing that bothers me is that we can't separate the athletic > aspects from the personal aspects. Tiger's personal life is sordid > and reprehensible, but his athletic accomplishments shouldn't be > denied. Actually, In my opinion, Tiger Woods is a perfectly normal Human Being. It is society's screwed up morality that is at fault.....The Human being (both male and female) is not a monogamous creature, (as Kinsey told us many years ago.) But we Americans still haven't gotten the message. From my own personal experience I can tell you that Kinsey was right......
From: Ray Fischer on 18 Dec 2009 21:18 Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:l95ni5hoe6cmrl3r1p8dtctgi52q7m03am(a)4ax.com... >> The thing that bothers me is that we can't separate the athletic >> aspects from the personal aspects. Tiger's personal life is sordid >> and reprehensible, but his athletic accomplishments shouldn't be >> denied. > >Actually, In my opinion, Tiger Woods is a perfectly normal Human Being. It >is society's screwed up morality that is at fault.....The Human being (both >male and female) is not a monogamous creature, (as Kinsey told us many years Graham worships the rich. WHAT a surprise. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Wilba on 19 Dec 2009 20:53
Troy Piggins wrote: > JimKramer wrote: >> >> We are trying to make it clear that for a given position, focus point and >> f >> stop that the image formed does not change other than the over all FoV; >> i.e. >> you can crop a wide angle image to the same FoV as a longer focal length >> lens image and it will be identical to the image taken with the longer >> focal >> length lens. You are having a difficult time grasping the math and are >> making it overly complicated, so again go out and take some pictures to >> prove it to yourself. Any variations from this are caused by real world >> defects in the lens or the image capture device. > > Sorry Jim. Standing in the same spot, focusing on the same > object, using the same aperture and same camera, with 2 different > focal length lenses will yield 2 different depths of field. The > shot taken with the shorter focal length lens will have more > stuff in focus than the longer focal length lens shot. What you say is true, but it doesn't describe the comparison in question. Once you crop the shot taken with the shorter focal length lens to give the same view as the shot taken with the longer focal length lens, the DOF will be identical in _those_ images. |