[PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 11:11 am, "jimkramer"
wrote:

The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
well. -Jim

So I should ignore the idiot? Gotcha.
Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant
lies stand.



The only one paying him any attention is you. Again, the logical course of
action...
-Jim

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:00 AM:


You are an idiot.

You took the words off my mouth.
Thanks for admitting it.



If a hummer beats his wings at 50 beats per second then the wings will
make one full cycle of motion in 1/50 of a second.

And that somehow is 1/15000 of a second?

At a shutter speed
of 1/200 of a second the wings will go through 1/4 of their total
cycle of motion.

And that proves they move at 1/15000second how?

In other words they'll move a couple of inches in
the time that the shutter is open. So tell us again how 1/200 is
going to freeze the motion?

By firing a flash at it that has a 1/1000th of a second
exposure duration, dickhead?

Better yet, provide us ANY examples of
that happening without the use of high-speed flash.

of WHAT happening, dickhead?

jimkramer wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:11 AM:



The difference between someone that is just ignorant and someone that is
just an idiot; you can teach the ignorance away, not so with the idiotcy.
You have clearly identified the problem; the only logical course of action
should also be painfully apparent, lest we begin to categorize you as
well. -Jim



"Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
to freeze it totally. "

the words of YOUR idiot. not mine.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 29/08/2008 1:31 AM:


Having said that, it is sometimes tough to let some of his blatant
lies stand.


"Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
to freeze it totally. "

nothing like letting your lies stand on their own.

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:


You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
Exactly what was your point?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:13 AM:

We have learned at least two things so far in this thread.

You don't have a clue what the short exposure of
a flash does to a wing beat and you are a complete liar.
Yes, we know that.

Eric Miller explains it much better on his website:
http://www.dyesscreek.com/miscellane...s/howto_1.html

yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, this is gonna be fun!

Eric writes:
second. So a 1/1000 second shutter speed will catch a wing movement of
about 1/2 inch or so, i.e., a complete blur. Of course, the 1/2 inch
distance is not always true because the wings don't actually move at a
constant speed.


I wish he'd make up his mind: is it a "complete blur"
or is it 1/2 inch distance blur or is it a full stroke
blur like in your shots? One wonders...


Instead, they move through one beat, stop (or slow
down greatly) and then move in the opposite direction, but you get the
idea.

Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
on the body.


In order to see detail in the wings you would need a faster
shutter speed than you will find on most any good SLR. Catching the
wing near either end of a beat will help a lot too."


Fantastic! Thanks for proving my point.
So, when you use a short flash burst, you get wings
that look blurred? Like: in YOUR obviously FAKE
shots?



Damn, try to keep up. EXAMPLES OF FREEZING A HUMMERS WINGS WITHOUT
USING HIGH-SPEED FLASH, dickhead.

Cripes, Bret: are you making a special effort
to show yourself as a complete idiot?

Get this very simply, dickhead:
you CANNOT have a flash-frozen body of a bird
and at the same time blurred wings, like you do
in your fakes!

Got it, you blithering moron? What you just
provided in this stupidly moronic post of yours
is complete proof of what *I* said since the start.

Of course: being the complete idiotic arse you really
are, instead of READING my original post you charged along
in some confused understanding of yours.

By "high-speed flash" I am of course talking about a flash duration
much shorter than the usual 1/1000 second.

Yes, like what you get when a flash cuts out:
as short as 1/15000. Plenty short to "freeze"
ANY bird's wings.

So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?

Got it now, diddums?

Hey, knock yourself out: it's only your reputation
completely in tatters yet again, you stupid moron!

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 1:23 AM:

No confusion there, except by you. The wings are moving up to 1/2
inch duing the exposure. That creates a blur. What is so difficult
to understand?

A full stroke blur like in your FAKE shots?
Yeah that is indeed difficult to understand.
But only if one wants to keep the illusion of
credibility: which you exhausted ages ago...

Yeah, I get the idea your shots have fake wings:
they show a full stroke of blur with a flash burst
on the body.

Not a full stroke. Probably only 1/2 or so.

A very clear full stroke, dickhead.


Oh really? Seems like you are the only one here who doesn't get it.

what, that your shots are complete FAKES?


So, HOW COME YOUR SHOTS WITH SUCH A FLASH SHOW
A COMPLETE, FULL STROKE BLURRED WING BEAT AND
A "FLASH-FROZEN" BODY AT THE SAME TIME?

It's a type of magic.

It's called a FAKE, moron.

In article ,
says...
You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?

No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
Exactly what was your point?


I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their
wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz"

Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz
max, although there are, of course, exceptions.


--
Alan LeHun

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:13 AM:
On Aug 29, 4:51 am, Noons wrote:
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:29 AM:

You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?
No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
Exactly what was your point?

You said

"Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
a spinning propeller"

Well at 60 Hz, this would be 3600 RPM.

Sheesh, took you a loooong time for that one...

Except propellers have usually 3, and
quite often 4 blades. Birds have one wing
blade to beat with. That would be 180Hz or
even 240 against 60. Rather different, not?
Once again: your point?

Alan LeHun wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:16 AM:
In article ,
says...
You believe a spinning propeller is going much faster then 3600 RPM?
No. And that is much faster than the wings of
ANY bird, including stuffed ones.
Exactly what was your point?


I think he was querying your assertion that "Hummingbirds beat their
wings much, much slower than a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz"

Generally, it's the other way around. Propellers are usually around 30Hz
max, although there are, of course, exceptions.

Of course. Now: read my reply to him instead
of interjecting with nonsense.