converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

On 12/7/2013 10:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:


snip
I have been actively following F1 and all its history, technical
advances, and rule changes through the ages.
I have a pretty good grasp of what can and cannot be done, by driver and
in the pits.
...and I agree there is much more to it, but this is a photo group after
all, So just to keep things OT here is one of the technical oddities of
the 70's, A snapshot of Tyrrell P34 (which is a work of art).
https://db.tt/3xCvHQeO


OK, OK
Don't konw if you are talking about the car, or the image. But I think
both are.

--
PeterN

On 2013-12-09 03:53:39 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/7/2013 10:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:


snip
I have been actively following F1 and all its history, technical
advances, and rule changes through the ages.
I have a pretty good grasp of what can and cannot be done, by driver and
in the pits.
...and I agree there is much more to it, but this is a photo group after
all, So just to keep things OT here is one of the technical oddities of
the 70's, A snapshot of Tyrrell P34 (which is a work of art).
https://db.tt/3xCvHQeO


OK, OK
Don't konw if you are talking about the car, or the image. But I think
both are.

I was hoping that at least one would qualify. ;-)
Thanks.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The better driver.

Eric Stevens:
Identical - except for the above abilities.

Sandman:
Your hypothectical questions are irrelevant. Of two drivers, the
better one will most likely win a race.

If you remove all other factors, this is exactly what happens. Top
Gear has a F1 power board where F1 race drivers drive the exact
same car. This way, you can see who the better driver is. Any
supposed mechanical skills are worth nothing in this contest. They
know very little about the car, and about the track. They get some
practice laps, but that's it.

You have missed the point again. We are not dealing with two
identical cars except at the beginning of the process. We have two
identical drivers except that one knows how to set his car to suit
his driving style and the other has to drive the car as it is given
him.

Again - your hypothetical questions do not interest me. There exists no
"identical drivers" in the world, so your question has no relation to
reality in any way.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Oh stop it duck, you know perfectly well that such a thing
requires a "zillion" architect-programmed scripts. It can't be
done otherwise

Eric Stevens:
If you go back to my original comment you will find you are now
way off the beam.

Sandman:
Yeah, I'm making fun of your hyperbolic comment about the
buildings in your link required "zillions" of scripts written by
architects, something you've yet to provide *any* support for.

That the zillions of scripts were produced by architects is an
implication you have been trying to put in my mouth for some time.
I'm sorry, I never said that. That's why you won't get me to support
it.

I know, you didn't say that - but you did use it as "support" for your
claims that an arhitect needed to learn programming, since the buildings
you linked to required "zillions" of scripts. You are either not claiming
that those scripts were written by architects, in which case your examples
and links were totally irrelevant to the topic, or you are implying they
were, and have yet to support it.

In fact, you have yet to support that even ONE script was used for the
design work of the buildings in your links.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The better driver.

Savageduck:
...and better team, which is more than the driver.

Sandman:
Absolutely. I just thought Eric wanted to focus on the driver
only.

Eric Stevens:
Correct. You can assume that all things were identical except
for the fact that one has a top of the line understanding of why
the car does what it does and is able to apply it.

Sandman:
No, the one who is the better driver.

Plus, understanding "why the car does it does" is not something
known only to a mechanic, Eric.

Don't tell me that. Tell your mate nospam.

You're the one arguing to opposing position, Eric.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
So you would take your car to the Tire R Us shop to have your
transmission repaired because you see no distinction between a
guy who changes tires and a real mechanic?

nospam:
completely unrelated to the described scenario.

It's totally related.

This is called "muddying the water", where a troll buddy comes to the aid
of one of his friends who can't seem to fend off reality and facts. The
buddy then comes in and makes totally unrelated claims and conclusions that
has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Eric's claim is that every successful race car drivers have "engineering
skills", which is a false claim. Eric has ttied to argue that a race car
driver that better understand how the car works is more successful - which
may seem true from a shallow point of view, but in the end, the better
*driver* will win the race, not the one that has a better understanding
about the boiling point of break fluid.

Tony then enters the discussion trying to argue about the distinction
between a mechanic and other members of the pit crew. This is *totally
unrelated* to anything that had been said up to that point.

This is the point at which Tony whines about how we don't get to decide
what the topic is. And he's right, he is free to talk about pink elephants
all he whishes - but we're just telling him what the topic WAS before he
started to talk about his elephants.

The driver, who you point out is not a mechanic, doesn't ask the guy who
changes the tires or puts fuel in the vehicle, to adjust the throttle
linkage. He asks a mechanic from the garage to come out. He may tell
the mechanic exactly what is to be done, though. Then, the mechanic goes
back to the garage area. There's limited space in the pit area.

Mr Obvious strikes again!

Have you ever seen a pit crew in action? Having grown up in
Indianapolis, and personally observed the pit crews in action at
many races, I can tell you the mechanics are not out in the pits
during the race.

Great point! If... someone had claimed that they were...

nospam:
no, the point is that the driver doesn't need to know the details
of how to fix/tune the car. if the pit crew can't do it, they get
someone who can. as you say, it's a team.

Once again, you labor under the delusion that you can control
threads and control what the "point" is.

See what I mean?

The point WAS what nospam said, you then came and forced your direction on
the thread.

But, as usual, you will reply with just another argument that
doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Ironic.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
That it may require complex graphics which are impractical in a
text-only news group is one.

Sandman:
Isn't that a pretty peculiar claim to make in a photography group
that share pictures between each other on a daily basis. I'm sure
even you could come up with a way to make a "complex graphic"
accessible to the person that is asking you to support your claim.

Too much bloody trouble.

Then *don't make claims you can't support*

I gave you four written examples of the real-world use of the word
'protocol' and you ignored them.

My god you're dumb. How many times do I have to tell you that in order for
you to substantiate YOUR claim you have to provide quotes of ME using the
words INCORRECTLY. That is the *ONLY* way for you to substantiate your
claim. Until you do - it remains unsupported and you remain a LIAR.

Why should I expect you to pay any attention to anything else I tell you?

I will pay attention to you the moment you support your claims.

Eric Stevens:
That what has been defined as support is set to an unreasonably
high standard is another.

Sandman:
Support is support, it doesn't have a "standard".

You keep demanding support in your specified form e.g. certificates.

Yes - you are free to provide support in the way you deem accurate as well.
Since the claim is that they have "engineering skills", you would only know
this if you have access to their credentials, so just share with us what
you have already seen.

Eric Stevens:
A failure to agree over terminology is yet another.

Sandman:
No, that's not a reason why one is not ABLE to provide support,
it's a source for support to be argued about. You have to actually
provide the support to begin with before this is even a problem

I produced support for Tony's particular use of 'protocol' but you
would not accept the neccessary usage of the word.

"Tony's partiucular use of 'protocol'" was not support for your claim that
*I* don't understand the word protocol.

You have to provide an actual *QUOTE* from *ME* where I am using the word
*INCORRECTLY* in order to support your claim. Qouting Tony will not support
a claim that *I* don't understand the word "protocol".

Eric Stevens:
None of these or similar causes requires that somebody is lying.

Sandman:
But when a person makes a claim and that claim is questioned, if
the person fails to support it time after time while also not
retracting his claim, the only logical conslusion is that the
person knows he can not support it and thus knows it is an untrue
claim and since he won't retract it it is a lie.

It might be the only logical conclusion in your eyes but that
doesn't make it so.

Indeed it does.

snip stuff Eric is too afraid to face


--
Sandman[.net]

On 9 Dec 2013 06:35:46 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Oh stop it duck, you know perfectly well that such a thing
requires a "zillion" architect-programmed scripts. It can't be
done otherwise

Eric Stevens:
If you go back to my original comment you will find you are now
way off the beam.

Sandman:
Yeah, I'm making fun of your hyperbolic comment about the
buildings in your link required "zillions" of scripts written by
architects, something you've yet to provide *any* support for.

That the zillions of scripts were produced by architects is an
implication you have been trying to put in my mouth for some time.
I'm sorry, I never said that. That's why you won't get me to support
it.

I know, you didn't say that - but you did use it as "support" for your
claims that an arhitect needed to learn programming, since the buildings
you linked to required "zillions" of scripts.

I never claimed architects needed to learrn programming. Go back and
find what I actually said. Then we might be able to have an
intelligent conversation.

You are either not claiming
that those scripts were written by architects, in which case your examples
and links were totally irrelevant to the topic, or you are implying they
were, and have yet to support it.

Or you have completely (willfuly?) misunderstood what this is all
about.

In fact, you have yet to support that even ONE script was used for the
design work of the buildings in your links.

I thought you claimed to know something about computing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9 Dec 2013 06:36:28 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The better driver.

Savageduck:
...and better team, which is more than the driver.

Sandman:
Absolutely. I just thought Eric wanted to focus on the driver
only.

Eric Stevens:
Correct. You can assume that all things were identical except
for the fact that one has a top of the line understanding of why
the car does what it does and is able to apply it.

Sandman:
No, the one who is the better driver.

Plus, understanding "why the car does it does" is not something
known only to a mechanic, Eric.

Don't tell me that. Tell your mate nospam.

You're the one arguing to opposing position, Eric.

Is that supposed to be English?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9 Dec 2013 06:28:06 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
The better driver.

Eric Stevens:
Identical - except for the above abilities.

Sandman:
Your hypothectical questions are irrelevant. Of two drivers, the
better one will most likely win a race.

If you remove all other factors, this is exactly what happens. Top
Gear has a F1 power board where F1 race drivers drive the exact
same car. This way, you can see who the better driver is. Any
supposed mechanical skills are worth nothing in this contest. They
know very little about the car, and about the track. They get some
practice laps, but that's it.

You have missed the point again. We are not dealing with two
identical cars except at the beginning of the process. We have two
identical drivers except that one knows how to set his car to suit
his driving style and the other has to drive the car as it is given
him.

Again - your hypothetical questions do not interest me. There exists no
"identical drivers" in the world, so your question has no relation to
reality in any way.

Then stop trying to push your way into this discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens