Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?

Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


Pros do use HUGE quasi-conventional fixed lighting rigs that
sorta flash on briefly - to keep the model from cooking.

where "briefly" is 1/500s or 1/2,000s, not "briefly" as in
1/40,000s!

Yup. "sorta flash on briefly"
What's yer problem dude?

Mixing up 1/500s and 1/40,000s is a problem, don't you agree?


Yup. And it's YOUR problem. Your straw man.
YOUR "1/500s or 1/2,000s."
"sorta flash on briefly", as in 1/2 to 2 seconds.
....As in to let quasi-conventional incandescent fixed
lighting rigs reach maximum (usable) brightness.
NOT for freeze-action, dummy.
In other words, it's flood lighting. But sorta brief.

My mistake to assume your loud shrieking meant
you knew some basics of photography.
I keep forgetting you kids raised under
Rush Limbaugh's training think that if anything you
can dream up sounds good, then it must describe
reality! In your world, the quality of the
soundsgoodism and feelsgoodism, -- and toss in some
gleeful, bombastic presentation, -- is how (your
generation's) the quality of evidence is measured!

No wonder you kids have difficulty discerning the
theoretically possible from the practical!
No wonder you kids are so damned frightened!
No wonder Saddam made you **** yerselves!
....Cuz the the theoretically possible is so damned
soundsgood! But it's also damned near infinite!
No wonder you kids are so damned frightened
you support warrentless wiretaps and tourture!!
(My gen calls that cowardly.)

such as:
============repost


On 27 May 2008,
which would be required in the event you had to swerve to avoid
hitting a child, dog or cat that suddenly decided to cross your path.

You must be another one of those fraidycat Republicans
so happy to spend half yer income tax protectecting you
from a death 300 time less likely than death by car.
(Terrorism)

You must be another one of those Nervous Nellie Republicans
so happy to spend half yer income tax for a military
more powerful than all the militaries in the world
combined. ...yet you STLL remain frightened!
(...and whine about too-high taxes!)


WMD! BOO!

EEEK! BOMBS, BUNKERS, WIRETAPS & TORTURE!!!

laff....

"They who give up liberty for safety,
deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin

....cuz they be punks & wimps. They do deserve
****ing on, tho. Our Founding Fathers would agree.



=============end repost

Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;



Crash!:
The topic was shutter speeds.

Wolfgang:
Does it *really* matter if the shutter was the electric current
in the flashes and the camera box the dark room?

Crash!:
Photo wise? Natural light is IMO, superior.
However, again; the topic was shutter speeds.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
However, again, does it really matter if the shutter is the
electric current in the flashes or the electric current on
the sensor?

Flash Vs shutter? You bet. Many differences, you know that.
But to our topic, Canon Powershots, do you think it's
coincedence that every example you've given as a good
highspeed example, was done with a strobe? Who's
side are you on, anyway?

Crash!:
To freeze a hummingbird's wings
in a closeup, were's talking around 1/10,000 or faster.
So if it could be lit, and it could, CHDK could make
a cool pic, but isn't strobe easier, faster,....and
off the shelf?

Only if you have a couple(!) of strobes coupled to the
camera. Or specially made strobes.

A couple(!) of strobes coupled to the camera
is done to improve photo quality, make it
more realistic.

Ah, really.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/a.../jm0703-1.html
implies something else.

Oh really? Where?
The good hummingbird photo was done with one flash!
That hummingbird's caption: "A flash may need to be dialed
down to a lower power ratio in order to obtain a sufficiently
fast flash duration. "

But more important, that site also provides evedence that your
silly fast shutter speed, not flash idea is indeed silly.
But it's hardly *JUST* that site, it's simple basic rules of
photography. Simply put: no free lunch. For every advantage,
there's a disadvantage, and particularly so when it comes
to exposure.

The first sentence of that site says: "The burst of light from an
electronic flash is extremely brief, lasting from what is a
relatively slow 1/400th or 1/800th of a second to as fast as
1/50,000th of a second." (Elsewhere you challenged that
speed range.)

===========Quote your site:
Let me illustrate how this would apply in a real situation.
To stop the wing movements of a flying hummingbird I’d want to
use a fast flash. I might also wish to use an aperture of f22 to
obtain maximum depth of field. With my 550EX, the GN drops to
about 50 at 1/8th power and 17 at 1/128th power. To use an
aperture of f22 I would need to place my flash approximately 2.3
feet from the subject if I used a power ratio setting of 1/8th. I
derived this by following the formula GN/f-stop = distance, or
50/22 = approximately 2.3 feet. That’s doable.
For a faster flash duration, perhaps as fast as 1/30,000th
sec. at a 1/128 power ratio, I’d now need to be about 9 inches
from the subject (GN/22 = distance, or 17/22 = .7 feet.
I’d suspect that’s a bit too close for a hummer to tolerate
or for you to work around when making a composition."
===========end quote

f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32,

F-22 says he's prolly using a 35mm. Digicam compacts (our
subject, remember?) don't have that depth of field problem,
nor F-22. So get real and open it up five stops to f-4.
Now assume your max brightness, poor quality (for hummers)
full sun and ISO 200. What's yer shutter speed?
1/3,000. Crappy light that you claim isn't fast enough.

To reach your fantasy 1/50,000 shutter speed ballpark you'll
need four more stops of longer-duration light, or a light
16 times brighter than the sun, in addition to the sun,
as I've pointed out elewhere.

Now if you don't understand the most basic rules
of photography Wolfgang, - LIGHT - then this is
not a problem for you. Perhaps I'm just spewing
Limbaugh-style soundsgoodisms, eh!? After all,
his main teaching is: everything is only a matter
of opinion! ...and degree of soundsgoodism matters!
Science and physical laws don't matter! HARUMPH!

But it gets worse. You said you want nice pics, right?
One hummer site says diffuse light is needed to reduce
specular reflections to make them "drip" with color.
So for open shade, you'd need another four stops of
light...reduce shutter speed, or open apeture.
What are your settings (or new light source) now?

Your "solution?" A nuke. Or a big, slow flash bulb.
Yet you whine that slave strobes might be too much trouble!
Where's your intellectual honesty?

A single cam strobe would indeed
be easier, faster,....and off the shelf.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

Logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks

the Straw Man Fallacy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Straw Man Fallacy is to misrepresent someone
else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented
position, then to conclude that the enemy's
position has been demolished.
-- It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.
Typically the weak straw man is loudly and proudly
burned then dragged through town with much fanfare
and bombast, just as it was designed.

Often the duped propaganda victim believes that the
Straw Men really are the enemy's position and will
unknowing ape the fallacy much to the amusement
and encouragement of his like-minded buddies,
only to be humiliated when he takes that argument
public.

A rule of thumb for detecting Straw Men is to ask oneself;
"Could a good and rational man actually believe in that?"
"In different circumstance, could I believe that?"
If not, *assume Straw Man,* - then find time to test with
incisive research from more reliable sources.

That is because most often,
for the targeted propaganda victim to actually
believe what the Straw Man fallacy proposes,
the targeted enemy must be seen as subhuman
(sub-self, as defined above). In reality,
total idiots and evil demons are not common.

However keep in mind:
The First Rule of Warfa
Before we can kill them, we must dehumanize them.

....so at times, subhumans may SEEM to be common.

** About rhetorical tricks:
** "One is generally either aware
** of them or duped by them."




Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:37, Superzooms Still Win wrote:


On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:46:36 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


Crash! wrote:



On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:04:43 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


.............snip


So how ya gunna light yer Point and shoot's
1/40,000s shutter speed, there Kimosabe?

As I already said, a couple posts back:
- Powerful flashbulbs
- Powerful electronic flashes
- Nukes

Can it be done? Sure. But not in the world
of Point and shoot. That's the point.

It can be done, it has been done, even in the world of P&S.
That's why you don't understand.

Can it be done in a sensible way?
Probably not.

Glad I could be of help.

You need to stop confusing the possible with
the practical.

Good job!

Not very creative, investigative, intelligent, nor experienced in
photography; are you. I guess if it doesn't involve photographing yourself
beating-off (your posted main reason for wanting to use CHDK's remote
triggering methods) then there's no other use for a camera. Right? There
are hundreds if not thousands of photos on the net that prove you wrong
about using such high shutter speeds. One link to some of them already
posted.

Hogwash. We've all asked you for just that, but when
given a cursory look, they ain't. But I do re-extend my
invitation! -- Put up or shut up.

Another showing how these high shutter-speeds were used at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory to photograph magnetic reconnection in
helium plasma. Did you miss that one too? A situation in which high-speed
flash photography cannot be used or it would make the very thing you were
trying to photograph invisible. There are many such similar photography
situations where flash cannot be used to freeze the subject. You need only
see the high-speed sample photos at the CHDK Wiki of frozen-in-time sparks
and flames from BIC lighters. Flash again is useless for that kind of
subject.

Yup, a few good examples exist, those seem to be most of them.
....pictures of quick light sources!
But do feel free to post any others you may find!

There are an infinite number of such subjects where only
high-speed shutters can be used, not flash.

Tighten those blinders that you wear to ensure your great bliss of
self-induced ignorance yet some more. I don't believe they are leaving a
deep enough scar around your pointy-head yet.

I guess there was no good use for a transistor too when it was first
designed because people with limited thinking ability didn't even know what
they could be used for. What a worthless electronic device. It had no
practical purposes, just a laboratory curiosity, nothing more. Right?

It's YOUR staw man, little man, - run with it!
YUP, nobody knew what amplifiers nor the limitations
of vacuum tubes were back then!


****, are you ever a hopeless idiot of a troll.

Go back to what you do best, beating off. Leave photography to those that
know far more than your limited perception of the small world around you in
your mommy's basement.

The Straw Man Fallacy is to misrepresent someone
else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented
position, then to conclude that the enemy's
position has been demolished.
-- It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with
the actual arguments that have been made.
Typically the weak straw man is loudly and proudly
burned then dragged through town with much fanfare
and bombast, just as it was designed.

Fallacies are only used when real ammo is
not available. Why would one use cap guns
if one has real bullets?

Play again anytime.

But frankly, you are starting to bore me,
little sock puppet. A sign of that is
when I toss sig files as above, rather
than actually bother with you.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:26, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


Crash! wrote:

Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse,
etc?;
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

BTW, it's a lead in LINE, not a lead in NOVELLA.

Crash! wrote:

Can it be done? Sure. But not in the world
of Point and shoot. That's the point.

It can be done, it has been done, even in the world of P&S.
That's why you don't understand.

Can it be done in a sensible way?
Probably not.

Glad I could be of help.

By spreading wrong information? Be my guest, tell us gravitation
doesn't exist.

You need to stop confusing the possible with
the practical.

Good job!

You need to stop patting your own shoulder, you'll get a sprain.
-Wolfgang

I was patting YOUR shoulder.
I didn't educate you, you did that.
And unlike many people, you did the
rational thing when confronted with facts.


The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53, Crash! wrote:



Tell me?
Which one is you, -- and which one is your sock puppet?

Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Outing Trolls is FUN!
Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Superzooms Still Win

Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Mark L



A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception
within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet
was a false identity through which a member of an Internet
community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to
be a different person, like a ... [Key is]...the pretense that
the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the
puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_(internet)



Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Outing Trolls is FUN!
Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Superzooms Still Win

Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Mark L


On Wed, 15 Sep, Mark L wrote:


On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:54:27 -0700, Crash! wrote:


Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

Inane drivel from a person without a clue--snipped.

Tell me?
Which one is you, and which one is your sock puppet?

Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Outing Trolls is FUN!
Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Superzooms Still Win

"A sock puppet is a puppet made from a sock (or similar
garment). When the manipulator fits a hand into the closed end of
the sock, the puppet can be seemingly made to "talk". "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet

"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of
deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a
sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an
Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself,
pretending to be a different person, like a ... [Key is]...the
pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated
with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their
benefit.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_(internet)

"A pseudonym used by someone to distance themselves
from their actions
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sock_puppet



"A pseudonym used by someone to distance themselves psychotic net-stalking
trolls."

Guess which one you are?


-- Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Outing Trolls is FUN!
-- Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Superzooms Still Win

Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088 - Mark L

I don't know why you bother trying to hide.
Your personality disorders shine brighter
than a name ever could.
When I was stoopid, I usted used to try
and figure whackos out...their logic and stuff.
LAFF!! Can you believe THAT!?
the logic of a whacko! ...get it!???

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:23:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Crash! wrote:

Crash!
You mangle quotations because you cannot prove a point otherwise.

Oh really! Yet it is YOU who run from your
own words! Censor them out, to avoid the obvious,
the obvious that I agree with! Again, your words:
===========repost
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 22:29, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

Crash! wrote:

An analogy to your argument is; Scientists have been
doing for 100 years in the laboratory what still can't
be duplicated on the assembly line. ...such as
extracting gold from seawater.

There is absolutely no problem with extracting gold from seawater
on the assembly line. It is, however, more expensive than digging
for gold, so only idiots would pay for an assembly line, Most
wealthy people and corporations are not idiots, hence: no assembly
line being build to loose money on.
===========end repost


Bad style. I will not discuss with you if you keep doing that.

Doing what pal? Killing you with the logic of
your own words!? ...that you now REMOVE?
Take a deep breath guy. You win some, you lose some.
If you argue with moi, yer gunna lose.
I'm not bragging. That's a fact. Get over it.
It's not that I'm smarter, it's that my world view
better represents reality.
If you can't stand being wrong, you have
three choices: get educated, think, or plonk
me and go hide! Most choose the later, in mind
or actuality.

The Limbaugh choice: make up a soundsgood armchair
postulate then sugar coat it with feelsgoodism and
deliver it with loud, gleeful bombast -- aint gunna
cut it around here.

I repaired your damage --- this once.

You mean you'll remove your own words!??

Do it again and you'll be plonked.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Crash! wrote:

An analogy to your argument is; Scientists have been
doing for 100 years in the laboratory what still can't
be duplicated on the assembly line. ...such as
extracting gold from seawater.

There is absolutely no problem with extracting gold from seawater
on the assembly line.

Oh really!? What of these little details:

---- Egads! your words were here! RIGHT HERE!
where did YOUR words go????????
Can you spell "cognitive dissonance?"

Oh, really.
The details why it isn't done commercially don't matter, your claim
"can't be duplicated on the assembly line" is plain wrong.
End of story. -Wolfgang

Yet you yourself explained why it can't be done
on the assembly line. If it can't be funded,
then it can't be done, now can it? Duh.

as you explained:
"It is, however, more expensive than digging for gold, so
only idiots would pay for an assembly line, Most
wealthy people and corporations are not idiots, hence: no
assembly line being build to loose money on."

Yup. Yer not used to people agreeing with you!?
I couldn't have explained it better than you did!
Why the squealing? OH! I KNOW!!! Cuz I pointed out
that WORDS MEAN SOMETHING!!! Even yours!
"...only idiots would pay for an assembly line"
oops...something you didn't like. Why do you run
from the implications and logic of your own words?
....does it mess your world view perhaps? Prolly.
Again, can you spell "cognitive dissonance?"

I agree with you:
"...only idiots would pay for an assembly line,"

Perhaps you have some pixie dust to power that
assembly line? Sci-fi fantasies perhaps?
What's the false world view, outlook or philosophy that
you have self-identified with? (Doing that is not
usually a good idea.)

....Perhaps then you DON'T yet understand the difference
between the theoretically possible and the practical?

Often that difference is indeed money (funding) or
effort. Other times it's the odds.
A Cost-Benefit Analysis often does it.
Pixie dust and pretty world views do not.


- Political Economics:

- "Fascism should more properly be called
- corporatism, since it is the merger
- of state and corporate power."
-- - Benito Mussolini, father of fascism.

So? How might that "merger" happen today in America?
The fist steps of that merger would be:
1) deregulating corporations

and
2) give corporations "personhood" rights. -- Then
3) define money as being protected speech. Holy.
......... Of course, that's all done.

Voila! Fascism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...sonhood_debate

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:32:43 -0700, Crash! wrote:


But do feel free to post any others you may find!

Just to entertain a useless mommy's-basement troll that won't even bother
to educate itself? There's far more interesting and worthwhile things to do
in the world than that.

Like ....

Digging out a bit of lint from under a toenail.

Yes, this is a far more interesting endeavor ...

Oh look! The lint is even more intelligent than the masturbatory troll!
Cool.

"Crash!" wrote in message
om...



Doing what pal? Killing you with the logic of
your own words!? ...that you now REMOVE?
Take a deep breath guy. You win some, you lose some.
If you argue with moi, yer gunna lose.
I'm not bragging. That's a fact. Get over it.
It's not that I'm smarter, it's that my world view
better represents reality.
If you can't stand being wrong, you have
three choices: get educated, think, or plonk
me and go hide! Most choose the later, in mind
or actuality.



Some here, usually those who want only to express opinions without
meaningful discussion of the issues, act as if being plonked is some kind
of punishment.

Plonking is the intellectual equivalent of burying their heads in the sand.


--
Peter

On 9/17/2010 9:38 AM, Peter wrote:
"Crash!" wrote in message
om...



Doing what pal? Killing you with the logic of
your own words!? ...that you now REMOVE?
Take a deep breath guy. You win some, you lose some.
If you argue with moi, yer gunna lose.
I'm not bragging. That's a fact. Get over it.
It's not that I'm smarter, it's that my world view
better represents reality.
If you can't stand being wrong, you have
three choices: get educated, think, or plonk
me and go hide! Most choose the later, in mind
or actuality.



Some here, usually those who want only to express opinions without
meaningful discussion of the issues, act as if being plonked is some
kind of punishment.

Plonking is the intellectual equivalent of burying their heads in the sand.

Or the actual act of choosing not to waste time on the ravings of lunatics.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 9/17/2010 9:38 AM, Peter wrote:
"Crash!" wrote in message
om...



Doing what pal? Killing you with the logic of
your own words!? ...that you now REMOVE?
Take a deep breath guy. You win some, you lose some.
If you argue with moi, yer gunna lose.
I'm not bragging. That's a fact. Get over it.
It's not that I'm smarter, it's that my world view
better represents reality.
If you can't stand being wrong, you have
three choices: get educated, think, or plonk
me and go hide! Most choose the later, in mind
or actuality.



Some here, usually those who want only to express opinions without
meaningful discussion of the issues, act as if being plonked is some
kind of punishment.

Plonking is the intellectual equivalent of burying their heads in the
sand.

Or the actual act of choosing not to waste time on the ravings of
lunatics.


It requires a witch to tell which plonk is which.

--
Peter