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: tony cooper on 16 Dec 2009 10:07 On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: >Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and >entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who >contribute nothing to society. We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Teachers are paid less because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the price up. I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a job that pays millions if that's what's being offered. The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price. As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of entertainment. The public wants to be entertained. It would be a dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. Maybe sports isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand principle. > >> >> He can still presumably play and pick up another $5M per year or so >> (living expenses). > >Wouldn't pay his living expenses. He's living LARGE. > >> >> And, as it all blows over, you can be sure that the sponsors or new >> companies will be back. Esp. those that market to segments of the >> population that aren't too wound up over this little slice of life. > >It will blow over, but nobody will ever look at him the same. And it will >affect his game. Also, we won't be so quick to accept his constant whining >on the course when he blows a shot, either. > >> >> In the thundering herd of his clients running away, I'll bet one will go >> the opposite direction and say, "we're sticking with our friend." > >Jury's out on that one. When Tom Brady fathered a kid outside marriage, the >sponsors ran. Still haven't come back. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on 16 Dec 2009 10:33 In message <61shi5l8nv95cvha8hgelptp4ciq4c4mk7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: > >>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and >>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who >>contribute nothing to society. > >We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is >excessive, it's pure supply and demand. Teachers are paid less >because there is more of a supply of people who are qualified to teach >and meet the requirements of the employer. Jocks are paid more >because there is a small supply of talented athletes (in the view of >the professional teams) and competition for their service drives the >price up. > >I can't blame the athlete. No one in their right mind would refuse a >job that pays millions if that's what's being offered. > >The salaries are funded by advertising dollars that companies are >willing to pay the networks as sponsors, and the networks pay the >teams who, in turn, pay the players. You eventually pay for it >because the advertising costs are embedded in the product price. > >As far as contributions to society, they contribute in the field of >entertainment. The public wants to be entertained. It would be a >dull life if we didn't have diversions like sports. Maybe sports >isn't everyone's thing, but other entertainers in other fields are >getting huge amounts of money based on this same supply/demand >principle. Sadly I have to agree with you..... People (the masses not all individuals) tend to hold dreams and short term gratification over education and knowledge. The want to be "famous" , rich and have the consumer goodies. They aspire to be pop-stars, film stars and footballers. (But not Musicians, Actors and athletes :-( -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris Malcolm on 16 Dec 2009 11:25 In rec.photo.digital Troy Piggins <usenet-0912(a)piggo.com> wrote: > * JimKramer wrote : >> "Calvin Sambrook" <csambrook(a)bigfoot.com> wrote in message >> news:hg8h3h$tk4$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 60 lines snipped |=---] >>> >>> [1] OK, there are techniques which sharpen images based on knowledge of >>> the likely cause of the confusion (ie. the lens characteristics) but >>> that's cheating. >> >> CoC is for determining acceptable DoF for a print not for the sensor. You're >> going at backwards again. We're not measuring the overall effectiveness of >> the lens or sensor; thus infinite resolution for the sensor, and a perfect >> set of lenses. >> >> 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. Let's suppose you're focussing on a dandelion flower sticking up in the middle of a lawn. Let's suppose in a 300mm lens the flower pretty much fills the frame. If it was a 10MP camera the 300mm lens would produce a 10MP image. A 30mm lens on the same camera in the same spot would show the flower 10 times smaller in linear dimensions, 100 times smaller in terms of image pixels. So if you then crop down the 30mm image to have the same field of view as the 300mm lens you'll have a 0.1MP image to compare with a 10MP image. The 300mm image will show lots of high resolution detail that you simply won't be able to see on the cropped 30mm image. So how can you compare sharp focus and depth of field? -- Chris Malcolm
From: Troy Piggins on 16 Dec 2009 13:24 * Dudley Hanks wrote : > > "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:C74BE958.3A0F9%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 13 lines snipped |=---] >>>> tell if it's set on 50mm or 48 or 52. >>> >>> Chicken. Set it somewhere around there and be done with it. :) >> And duct tape it there! >> > I've got a 50mm prime (which yields about 80mm on my 1.6 cropped sensor), or > I can fix one of my zooms at about 35mm to get the actual 46.8 degrees. > Which is preferred? Or, can I submit from both? > > This could be a good challenge... You'd have to crop the 50mm lens shot down a little I guess. It's up to you, but if it were me I'd find shooting with the 35mm zoom setting easier - at least that way what you see in the viewfinder is what you'll be submitting. -- Troy Piggins
From: Troy Piggins on 16 Dec 2009 13:29
* Chris Malcolm wrote : > In rec.photo.digital Troy Piggins <usenet-0912(a)piggo.com> wrote: > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 17 lines snipped |=---] >>> 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. > > Let's suppose you're focussing on a dandelion flower sticking up in > the middle of a lawn. Let's suppose in a 300mm lens the flower pretty > much fills the frame. If it was a 10MP camera the 300mm lens would > produce a 10MP image. A 30mm lens on the same camera in the same spot > would show the flower 10 times smaller in linear dimensions, 100 times > smaller in terms of image pixels. > > So if you then crop down the 30mm image to have the same field of view > as the 300mm lens you'll have a 0.1MP image to compare with a 10MP > image. The 300mm image will show lots of high resolution detail that > you simply won't be able to see on the cropped 30mm image. So how can > you compare sharp focus and depth of field? Interesting take on it. Your extreme example throws in resolution as another variable. It's nit-picking to an extent, for our discussion we'd have to be assuming that the resolution of the 30mm shot cropped for whatever the display medium is would be acceptable. We're talking about people cropping a wide-angle shot down to submit for the shootin, so the resulting crop would be assumed to be acceptably sharp at around 800px wide say. -- Troy Piggins |