All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on Avavtar makeover at 01/05/2010 - 23:35
John, how can something that is physically in front of the sensor be ignored, that's the part where you lose me?
Comment by Anvh posted on Black and White Digital at 01/05/2010 - 23:07
greynolds999 wrote:
My point was that if you remove all the filters then all the pixels would only be looking at tone/birghtness.
I think I'm out of my depth, all I can say is that a black and white TV gives a better picture than watching a black and white film on a colout TV.
You are correct with that one. My point was that if you remove all the filters then all the pixels would only be looking at tone/birghtness.
I think I'm out of my depth, all I can say is that a black and white TV gives a better picture than watching a black and white film on a colout TV.
I know you can get sensors without a colour filter.
With astrophotography for example some use such sensors and use red, green and blue filters to make a coloured photo from them so they are out there, you just need to find a good match.
Comment by Anvh posted on Black and White Digital at 01/05/2010 - 23:00
here Kris for next time, simply request an hand-inspection link
Comment by Anvh posted on CVS processing at 01/05/2010 - 22:44
Gwyn wrote:
That sounds very good Anvh wrote:
BTW the larger format lenses are also displayed so does the mean the 645D is coming this way?
July is the rumour and €7000 is the price.BTW the larger format lenses are also displayed so does the mean the 645D is coming this way?
Comment by Anvh posted on Revamped Pentax UK web site at 01/05/2010 - 22:31
Gezondheid to you to Gary.
There is only very fine line where the image is truly sharp, the rest just appears to be sharp so a sharper lenses should produce a larger DOF but I wander if there is a practical difference.
There is only very fine line where the image is truly sharp, the rest just appears to be sharp so a sharper lenses should produce a larger DOF but I wander if there is a practical difference.
Gwyn wrote:
We try our best Anvh wrote:
@Gary you forget about the circle of confusion
This whole thread is turning into a circle of confusion @Gary you forget about the circle of confusion
Comment by Anvh posted on Farewell to Pentax at 01/05/2010 - 22:29
BTW the larger format lenses are also displayed so does the mean the 645D is coming this way?
Comment by Anvh posted on Revamped Pentax UK web site at 01/05/2010 - 22:19
Just read that a man got arrest for grabbing a girls breasts to stop them from shaking in the metro.
Really what is this world coming too if you can't help someone any more
Really what is this world coming too if you can't help someone any more
Comment by Anvh posted on Another pointless thread at 01/05/2010 - 22:14
That's a deal Gary
Do you maybe have some data on how lens sharpness effects DOF, I'm wandering about that but that's maybe for another topic to discuss that?
Do you maybe have some data on how lens sharpness effects DOF, I'm wandering about that but that's maybe for another topic to discuss that?
Comment by Anvh posted on Farewell to Pentax at 01/05/2010 - 22:02
johnriley wrote:
The number of photographers with a 600mm f4 lens has never been more than a handful, almost all professionals. They were (are?) made to special order and had a very special price tag!
Thank you John, it was probably the high price that stopped most of getting one though The number of photographers with a 600mm f4 lens has never been more than a handful, almost all professionals. They were (are?) made to special order and had a very special price tag!
@Gary you forget about the circle of confusion
I was only talking about angle of view here and never said anything other wise, with zoom I meant AOV btw but zoom sounded less complicated.
Now FOV what you talk about is a different matter, I can get the same field of view with a APS-C Sensor and a 135 Sensor while using the same lens if we forget about the difference of how do you call it... well APS-C is 3:4 but 135 is 2:3 so I can't get the same field of view in all direction but lets take horizontal as a measurement.
So 135 sensor size with 50mm lens at a focus distance of 5 meters gives me a horizontal field of view of 3,60 meters wide.
If I would use the same lens on an APS-C sensor with a 1.5 crop I would need to focus at a distance of 7,50 meters and I would get the precise same horizontal field of view
Comment by Anvh posted on Farewell to Pentax at 01/05/2010 - 21:36
Cool.
What's a Mowog?
What the devil is a MOWOG?
Firstly what an earth am I talking about?
'MoWoG' was moulded in to many castings used in MG, Austin and Morris engines over many years. And speculation, not to say argument, is rife amongst MG aficionados as to what it means.
Some say 'MoWoG' is the name of a god that has to be appeased with many offerings of fluids and expensive new parts, otherwise 'he' (or more probably 'she') will cause breakdowns at most inopportune moments.
Others say it was a joke by a foreman in the casting shop many years ago, knowing that it would plague owners for years to come.
The truth is a little more prosaic - it probably represents the merger of MG and Wolseley into Morris Motors and the use of common parts from that point. Most agree that the 'Mo' stands for 'Morris' and the 'Wo' for 'Wolseley'. But that still leaves plenty of room for argument as to what the 'G' stands for.
Clausager, in his essential bible on the MGB - Original MGB - mentions in passing that it stands for 'MG'. A spokesman for BMIHT in the first issue of their magazine answered the specific question by categorically stating that it stood for 'Group'. However he then went on to say 'But why would anyone want to know?' which in my opinion casts immediate doubt on his credentials, and even his right to be part of BMIHT!
For my part, I am now firmly in the 'MG' camp. Not because of a loyal desire for it to be so, but through a study of the evidence. The source of the greater part of this evidence is David Knowles incredibly detailed book - MG The Untold Story. David relates how Wolseley and MG were owned personally by Lord Nuffield until he was convinced to merge it with Morris Motors in 1935. He also states that, once part of Morris Motors and all design was being carried out at Cowley, the chassis and engine number prefixes and suffixes for Wolseley variants were 'W' and for MG were 'G'. It doesn't take much of a leap of faith to assume that 'M' was already being used by Morris (hence the 'G' for MG since there wasn't much choice for anything else). I would also say it would be extremely unlikely for someone to go to the bother of devising a 'logo' to mark the merger of Wolseley and Morris but to ignore MG which was merged at the same time. Finally, there never was a 'Morris Wolseley Group' as an organisation, just 'Morris Motors Ltd'.