[PICS] frustration of hummingbirds

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 2:37 AM:
On Aug 29, 6:18 am, Noons wrote:
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?

You might want to read this.
http://www.rpphoto.com/howto/hummer/humguide1.asp

Can you stop idiotic quotes of out of
context sites?

But let's indulge the stupidity anyway.
From *your* quoted site, this:

"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Did you get that?

"PLENTY" of stopping ability.

Once more, to see if it gets
through your brain:

"That's plenty of stopping ability"

OK. Got it? So, now:
how come Bret's shots have a bird with
a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
With exif info saying the flash fired?

What, *another* "pbase exif bug"?

Does it even reach your brain that an
electronic flash firing at close distance
shows PRECISELY and EXACTLY the "plenty of
stopping ability" mentioned above? And
therefore it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for
the wings to be blurred to the extent he
fabricates in his images?


So, once again: exactly what is your
point? *IF* you have one, other than
out of context insinuations?

On Aug 29, 6:18 am, Noons wrote:
"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?

I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the
beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not
his strong suite. I will make it simple for him

1) Propellers are turning in revolutions per minute (RPM) and
hummingbirds wings are in beats per second (Hz). There is
a factor of 60 between the two units. Typical numbers
are 2000 RPM for aircraft engines, helicopter blades
are 300 RPM and humming
birds 60 beats per second.

2) Hummingbirds have two wings.

3) Three or four blades will change the phase component
and harmonic content of the noise but not the frequency.

4) Airplanes are photographed at a distance, humming bird
can't be seen in a distance. Propellers move a few pixels/grains
on aircraft photos. Humming birds wings move in a significant
percentage of body size.


Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and
noons replaced it with adrenaline.

w..

Scott W wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:08 am, Noons wrote:
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 28/08/2008 10:45 AM:

So tell me something: how do you get blurred wings
with two flashes? Do you slow down lightspeed as
well? Last time I looked, the exposure time of a flash
burst will freeze solid any moving wings.
Not unless you have a VERY high-speed flash unit.
Hummingbird wings beat so fast you'd need about 1/15,000 of a second
to freeze it totally.
Just to prove what sort of a liar you ahttp://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MarkLevin.shtml

If you take a flash to a spinning airplane propeller,
you'll freeze the action right there. Even 1/1000 will do it.
Hummingbirds beat their wings much, much slower than
a spinning propeller, at around 60Hz.
That's why they are called "humming": the noise
from their wings is a low pitch "hum".

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

Regardless of the number, if (eg) a humming bird beats at (say) 60 Hz
(the range is quite large over species, actually) and the thickness of
the wingtip is 1mm and the stroke is 50mm at the wingtips, then you
would need 1/(50 x 60) = 1/3000s to get a slightly blurred image of the
frozen wings.

Adjust equations to fit...

I prefer hummingbird shots with mixed flash and ambient, the flash to
freeze the wings and pop the feathers and put a gleam in the eye and the
ambient to leave some movement in the wings. Rear sync, natch.

At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of
1/10,000s.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan LeHun wrote:
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.

It's not a question of exceptions but limiting tip speeds such that the
low pressure side (front) laminar flow does not reach/exceed the speed
of sound during takeoff.

For most light aircraft that carry people the high is about 2700 RPM
(45Hz) (though higher in smaller homebuilts and ultralights) down to
about 1200 RPM for the largest turboprops (~20 Hz).

I expect the V-22 and B-609 are even lower, but I don't know the numbers.

Having said all that, these are rates of full revolution. Catching a
blade that is, say, 5 degrees wide over a 360 degree arc requires a
shutter speed at least 2 X 72X faster than the RPS. And that will be
blurred a bit. (72=360/5).

To the arguments regarding number of blades, it is a non-issue (other
than sound and harmonics) as at a given rpm you if you freeze one blade
you've frozen them all...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:32 AM:


What qoutes? I simply posted link to a site that goes into some
detail on what you need to do to get the flash fast enough to freeze a
hummingbird's wings.

He stated that you need a duration as short as 1/5,00 to 1/20,000 sec.

and that proves exactly WHAT?
Can you actually post TWICE on topic ANYWHERE?

Walter Banks wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:13 AM:


I had forgotten about noons (I filtered him out at the
beginning of the summer) seems clear that physics is not
his strong suite. I will make it simple for him

Apparently, you have forgotten about reality.
That's what happens to the twits running around
yelling lah-lah-lah with a killfile around their ears

rest of totally out of context and unreal
"statements of fact" snipped, to improve the noise.



Sorry Scott, I ran out of coffee a couple hours ago and
noons replaced it with adrenaline.

"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Still waiting for your "explanation" to that,
arsehole.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 4:20 AM:

OK. Got it? So, now:
how come Bret's shots have a bird with
a flash-ed body and blurred wings?
With exif info saying the flash fired?

Because I didn't use High-speed sync at 1/32 or 1/64 power.
Dumbass.

You had the flash on auto, of course.
We know that, it's how you take most of your
shots anyway, relying on photoslop to fix the errors.
What do you think auto does to modulate the power, dickhead?
It CUTS the time, you moron!
That's why you get freeze action, which you then blur
the **** off in your fake shots.


I could use that setting on my Speedlights, but I'd need to have the
flash very close to the bird because of the greatly reduced light
output.

You use auto flash which does exactly the same, moron.
But only an ignorant dickhead like you would pretend
it doesn't.

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 5:30 AM:


I prefer hummingbird shots with mixed flash and ambient, the flash to
freeze the wings and pop the feathers and put a gleam in the eye and the
ambient to leave some movement in the wings. Rear sync, natch.

Thank you! At last, a single post with a smidgeon
of photo information. Instead of the usual idiotic
off-topic bull**** about theory of flight of the
bumblebee on steroids. Or whatever...

That's what folks do who don't use multiple flash
setups. It's hard as nuts to get a well placed
wing, as Jim showed in the originals. On top of that,
hummies will often beat the wings out of synch to control
the hovering. Pot luck shot at best.

This is where a dslr comes in handy: take a shot, check,
delete if no good, rinse and repeat. Perfect tool for the
job.

Of course to then go and deface a good shot
with photoslop-blurred wings is the tip of the
fake expert. But those are spotted a mile away.
Except by the idiot trolls and scammers.

At lower power, say 1/16, a large attachment flash is on the order of
1/10,000s.

And that's why they recommend multiple flashes.
String a couple and you got twice the power
at same fast speed.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 30/08/2008 12:24 PM:


I'm still waiting for your explanation for how a flash duration of
1/1000 can freeze a hummer's wings when every other source quoted says
that you have to have a much shorter flash duration to freeze them.

Never said that. Once again: you're quoting the voices
in your head, dingbat.



That was pretty funny and we all had a good laugh at that one.

the voices in your head? Yes, they laugh a lot. At you.

My stomach actually hurt from the laughing pains after that one.

Stomach is all you have in place of a brain, moron.


When I said that you'd need a flash with about a 1/15000 duration you
tried to mock me as being an idiot. More than once.

And you don't. Which has been proven time and time again.
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

Just one more time to get it through your
sick, frozen brain:
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

How come the wings in your flash shots are
COMPLETELY blurred, moron? Explanation, please?
Instead of more moronic out of context snips?


Scott posted a link that said the same thing:
"To freeze all motion in a hummingbird's wings, you need a duration as
short as 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 of a second (50-200 microseconds)."

Actually, it's this:
"The result is about 1/6,000 s at 1/16 power,
and 1/10,000 s at 1/32 power.
That's plenty of stopping ability"

"plenty" means PLENTY, dickhead.
Not the blurred wings in your flash shots.

But let's not allow truth interfere
with the voices in your head.


Gee, sounds like what I said!

Gee, it does not sound like ANYTHING
you said!

And now all you can say is, " and that proves exactly WHAT? "

Exactly and precisely. It's got nothing to do with
the simple fact you still have not explained
why your shots contradict the simple truth
you keep quoting.


What it proves is that you are a complete LIAR,
a buffoon midget with no brains whatsoever
and demonstrates your complete lack of any basic
principles, which shows in the FAKES you constantly
regurgitate.

"jimkramer" wrote in message
...

"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
should have been obvious from the beginning.
-Jim