All Forum Comments
Comment by Mannesty posted on OT. New computer - need to access old computer at 08/04/2008 - 11:17
Quote:
Well, many thanks for the suggestions.
I have tried both UVNC and RealVNC. Both say they can't connect, but give no reason why, and neither has any documentation to speak of.
I have no firewall on either computer, and pinging works properly. (There's a hardware firewall on the ADSL router).
Perhaps it's just late. I'll try again tomorrow.
G
George,Well, many thanks for the suggestions.
I have tried both UVNC and RealVNC. Both say they can't connect, but give no reason why, and neither has any documentation to speak of.
I have no firewall on either computer, and pinging works properly. (There's a hardware firewall on the ADSL router).
Perhaps it's just late. I'll try again tomorrow.
G
UVNC has 2 components, a viewer and a server, both of which need to be installed on both machines.
On the remote (server) machine you'll need to set a password.
If the PC's are running Windows XP service pack 2 you will probably have the firewall set up. On any machines that will be remote (server) PC's, you need to create a port 'exception' to allow traffic on port 5900 through the firewall.
Click Start > Control Panel > Windows Firewall > Exceptions tab > Add Port . . . Name = UVNC, Port = 5900, TCP Protocol should already be selected . . . Click OK to finish. Try again to connect.
PS: If you downloaded the latest version (1.04) I have no experience of it. I use the older version (1.02), which is still available for download, as I have no Vista machines to worry about.
Comment by Mannesty posted on OT. New computer - need to access old computer at 08/04/2008 - 08:43
http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=0&pid=517
or
http://www.uvnc.com/
or both.
The KVM switch is not free, but it's not expensive. UltraVNC has a FTP like file copying capability too. I prefer it to RealVNC.
or
http://www.uvnc.com/
or both.
The KVM switch is not free, but it's not expensive. UltraVNC has a FTP like file copying capability too. I prefer it to RealVNC.
Comment by Mannesty posted on OT. New computer - need to access old computer at 07/04/2008 - 22:35
Tyr,
Your entry contravenes the express instruction of "no 180 degree rotated photos". The debris on the pond is a bit of a giveaway, it appears to be in the air.
Cheers,
Your entry contravenes the express instruction of "no 180 degree rotated photos". The debris on the pond is a bit of a giveaway, it appears to be in the air.
Cheers,
Comment by Mannesty posted on Weekly Competition #40: "Upside down" at 10/04/2008 - 14:44
Upside down . . . and out of the Network Q Rally GB 2001 for this unlucky (careless) French competitor. Driver and co-driver escaped shaken and unhurt. There was much scratching of heads when it came to retrieve it.
Shot with a pre Pentax DSLR Fujifilm MX2700.
Shot with a pre Pentax DSLR Fujifilm MX2700.
Comment by Mannesty posted on Weekly Competition # 40 "Upside Down" at 10/04/2008 - 16:16
Quote:
Meeting up would be fine, I can't do Tuesday nights either (band practice), but any other night, or over at Hanningfield reservoir (I work for Essex Wildlife Trust) at the weekend would be fine.
Let me know when suits.
Dan
Glad to know they are still getting some good use Dan.JohnMcD wrote:
Dear Dan, thanks for the tip I'll try that tonight it sounds like a cool idea.
I can't take credit for it, I got my set from Mannesty and he'd already figured it out and done it. Dear Dan, thanks for the tip I'll try that tonight it sounds like a cool idea.
Meeting up would be fine, I can't do Tuesday nights either (band practice), but any other night, or over at Hanningfield reservoir (I work for Essex Wildlife Trust) at the weekend would be fine.
Let me know when suits.
Dan
Cheers,
Comment by Mannesty posted on For Sale Set of 3 Extension Tubes SOLD at 08/04/2008 - 17:25
I wasn't doubting your claim, but hard scientific evidence is always better than a personal impression.
I have the DA* 50-135mm lens too, and have no complaints about it's focussing abilities. So far, I've mostly used mine in a concert environment where the light is less than ideal. The lens performed very well.
I have the DA* 50-135mm lens too, and have no complaints about it's focussing abilities. So far, I've mostly used mine in a concert environment where the light is less than ideal. The lens performed very well.
Comment by Mannesty posted on 50-135 2.8 SDM at 08/04/2008 - 15:11
Quote:
Does SDM focus faster than non-SDM? No it doesn't! It may give that impression but SDM doesn't work faster. How come I'm so sure? Because I tested! When I got the DA*50-135/2.8 I hadn't upgraded the firmware on my K10D yet, so I tried it with traditional AF comparing it to some other screw drive AF lenses. Then I upgraded my K10D for SDM and the AF speed remained pretty much the same!
So, even if there may be differences in speed between some SDM lenses and some non-SDM lenses, the difference is not because of the SDM.
Cannot do the same test on the K20D because that supports SDM from the start and will never use screw drive on the DA*s...
SDM does seem faster because it slides into focus and does so very quietly. Screw drive focus is more abrupt and noisy.
hth,
Wim
Could you post some times please?Does SDM focus faster than non-SDM? No it doesn't! It may give that impression but SDM doesn't work faster. How come I'm so sure? Because I tested! When I got the DA*50-135/2.8 I hadn't upgraded the firmware on my K10D yet, so I tried it with traditional AF comparing it to some other screw drive AF lenses. Then I upgraded my K10D for SDM and the AF speed remained pretty much the same!
So, even if there may be differences in speed between some SDM lenses and some non-SDM lenses, the difference is not because of the SDM.
Cannot do the same test on the K20D because that supports SDM from the start and will never use screw drive on the DA*s...
SDM does seem faster because it slides into focus and does so very quietly. Screw drive focus is more abrupt and noisy.
hth,
Wim
A comparison between the time, in milliseconds, for a focus travel from infinity to a given point.
Then the time from minimum focus distance to that same point.
A measurement each for SDM and Non-SDM focussing should be enough.
Light measurements would help.
Finally, may we know what equipment you used to make these measurements?
Comment by Mannesty posted on 50-135 2.8 SDM at 08/04/2008 - 14:37
Quote:
So we are probably stuck with 35mm equivalent for a while yet. Having used 35mm since 1984 that is fine by me...
It's actually got nothing to do with 35mm. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, no matter what size the image sensor is, be it 645, 6x7, 35mm or APS-C, or any other.So we are probably stuck with 35mm equivalent for a while yet. Having used 35mm since 1984 that is fine by me...
The confusion, if you can call it that, is simply that most people who have used a camera in the 30 or so years before digital, used a 35mm camera, and got used to the field of view of a particular focal length.
When you put an old lens on a K10D and are prompted to tell the camera what the focal length of the lens is, you put the actual focal length of the lens, 300mm or whatever, and completely disregard the crop factor.
It's not actually anything I think about when I use a lens. If the one I have on the camera doesn't deal with the composition I'm after, I choose another one that does.
Comment by Mannesty posted on Designed for Digital or not at 05/04/2008 - 14:34
Quote:
Are you connecting to the laptop in order to download images, or to do tethered shooting?
If the former, most people find it more convenient to slip the card into a card reader. Many laptops now have them built-in.
G
. . . and if your laptop doesn't have a card reader, it'll be a lot cheaper to buy one rather than an AC adapter.Are you connecting to the laptop in order to download images, or to do tethered shooting?
If the former, most people find it more convenient to slip the card into a card reader. Many laptops now have them built-in.
G
Comment by Mannesty posted on Pentax K10D AC adapter or third-party one at 04/04/2008 - 16:33
Are you using Windows XP Home, or Professional?
Personally, I would download UVNC version 1.02 and install all components on both machines. I can, with reasonable confidence, say that it should work immediately after installation, and after you've set a 'server' password.
Version 1.04 is an unknown entity as far as I'm concerned. I do know that the earlier version does not work with Vista (no surprise there).