All Forum Comments
Comment by Anvh posted on auto bracketing at 18/02/2010 - 11:51
hefty1 wrote:
But I can see the whole photo - it's only around 800pix wide on my screen. There's just a huge blank space following it...[/quote]The photo is 3.933 x 1.588 pixels and is resized by the forum but some browsers or computers don't render/use the resize code well and that give the problem you've now for some members.Anvh wrote:
Because of the photo hefty1 wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="bforbes"]Is it just my laptop or is this thread wider than most?
It's not just you - same on my screen but I can't see an obvious reason why [quote:3496ace15f="bforbes"]Is it just my laptop or is this thread wider than most?
What browser do you use?
Opera renders the site perfectly, don't know about the rest.
Comment by Anvh posted on Lets talk about AF speed at 18/02/2010 - 11:42
hefty1 wrote:
Because of the photo bforbes wrote:
Is it just my laptop or is this thread wider than most?
It's not just you - same on my screen but I can't see an obvious reason why Is it just my laptop or is this thread wider than most?
Comment by Anvh posted on Lets talk about AF speed at 18/02/2010 - 11:35
iceblinker wrote:
Yes since the metal dedector only works with metals not for example plastic explosive.K10D wrote:
The technical papers say it is safe and that regular flyers get more radiation through high altitude flying, that may be the case, but why increase your exposure to any X ray source willingly?
Can it detect concealed weapons and bombs that a metal detector or pat-down might miss?The technical papers say it is safe and that regular flyers get more radiation through high altitude flying, that may be the case, but why increase your exposure to any X ray source willingly?
Comment by Anvh posted on X Ray body photography at 18/02/2010 - 11:29
johnriley wrote:
We need to object lest our lives be constantly pried into at every level, until no privacy and personal space remain.
That's the English spirit Quote:
If you have nothing to hide, why object?
I think this can be quite a dangerous argument, as it can be used to justify more and more intrusion into the lives of oridinary, law abiding citizens. Then we look back in horror at how much individual freedom has been lost over the years. Those who are educated into the new system are of course largely oblivious to what they have lost.If you have nothing to hide, why object?
We need to object lest our lives be constantly pried into at every level, until no privacy and personal space remain.
But really though the person watching the scan has only the scan and no other info, he doesn't even see the person in the scanner so it's a very objective way of doing it and only the guilty are breached in privicy. I at least find it better then the metal gates, i'm always the lucky one where it starts to beep and then you get searched and all, that's far more ackward in my opinion...
Comment by Anvh posted on X Ray body photography at 18/02/2010 - 11:28
More info link
The machine use extremely high frequency and unlike X-rays and UV rays, do not carry enough energy to break chemical bonds or ionize atoms and molecules.
You shouldn't scare us Dutch like that
Quote:
According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation.
The machine on Schiphol is a millimeter wave scanner not a backscatter X-ray According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation.
The machine use extremely high frequency and unlike X-rays and UV rays, do not carry enough energy to break chemical bonds or ionize atoms and molecules.
You shouldn't scare us Dutch like that
Comment by Anvh posted on X Ray body photography at 18/02/2010 - 05:11
impotentspider wrote:
I didn't thought the thumb was sore enough Quote:
...after a long, tedious cloning job. Suggested by the Impotentspider, who was, of course, right. It is much better
I'm amazed no one else mentioned that twig, it stuck out like a sore thumb...after a long, tedious cloning job. Suggested by the Impotentspider, who was, of course, right. It is much better
I do think it looks better but aren't convinced it was worth the effort but that's just mine view on it, luckily we aren't all the same
Comment by Anvh posted on Out to Grass at 18/02/2010 - 00:13
alfiemooon wrote:
However,a "pod" is fine when it comes to wildlife etc...but...when it comes to photographing the Arrows for example,what then?
Nic
Use a tri/mono,- pod, i've used one to pan race cars at night However,a "pod" is fine when it comes to wildlife etc...but...when it comes to photographing the Arrows for example,what then?
Nic
Comment by Anvh posted on Telephoto Lens or Crop at 17/02/2010 - 23:21
Pentaxophile wrote:
There's no debate over whether bigger sensors generally offer better IQ.
Some people don't find APS-C > FF enough of an improvement to warrant the extra expense, bulk of equipment etc. I doubt they'll be queuing to buy 645Ds, but that's for a totally different, and pretty exclusive, part of the market.
You're right with that but it really depends on how you compare things, sometimes FF is indeed better but other times the difference is hardly there and certainly with longer lenses the APS-C has some advantages.There's no debate over whether bigger sensors generally offer better IQ.
Some people don't find APS-C > FF enough of an improvement to warrant the extra expense, bulk of equipment etc. I doubt they'll be queuing to buy 645Ds, but that's for a totally different, and pretty exclusive, part of the market.
It all comes down to how you want to use a camera and for what, the world isn't so black and white as some think.
Comment by Anvh posted on Here at last: 645D at 17/02/2010 - 22:18
hefty1 wrote:
From what I've heard of a rumour a year or so ago they wanted to use the Kodak sensor and those are all cropped MF sensors.Haworth wrote:
"In this new product, comparing with 35mm full size it has about 1.7 times more pixels(?)
.....
(?) means there was a technical word the missus didn't fully inderstand herself.
I'd imagine it was surface area. If (as we're led to believe) the 645D uses a cropped sensor then it probably does have around 1.7x the surface area of 35mm."In this new product, comparing with 35mm full size it has about 1.7 times more pixels(?)
.....
(?) means there was a technical word the missus didn't fully inderstand herself.
It was the 20mp version I believe or a bit lower, don't know what they have, hopefully they are using a bigger one though 30mp would be a sweet spot I think.
PG wrote:
MF camera's are very different then APS-C, FF or 135 film, the MF camera has always being their for the artists under the photographers so don't expect super fast AF of even ISO1600 for that matter... well maybe ISO1600 but ISO3200 would be pushing it though.Mike-P wrote:
Is Pentax that big any more?
Considering FF is still a very small part of Canon and Nikons sales and the people buying them are mainly pro photographers for weddings and such I really cannot see Hoya putting the money into full frame.
That's what I meant. Pentax isn't a large company and can't really afford to produce anything too esoteric. Everything they produce needs to be a financial success or they could be in trouble. Like you say, the FF market isn't big and neither is the MF market. In fact, with the introduction of high resolution FF cameras like the Sony A900 and Nikon D3X I would have thought that the demand for MF cameras is on the decline. Why pay £10k for a camera that doesn't do much better than a £1.5k camera?Is Pentax that big any more?
Considering FF is still a very small part of Canon and Nikons sales and the people buying them are mainly pro photographers for weddings and such I really cannot see Hoya putting the money into full frame.
Comment by Anvh posted on Here at last: 645D at 17/02/2010 - 21:58
Around the O,7EV maybe or can you use wider without much problems?