Difficult technical question on ISO & light

You really are an antique dealer then...LOL

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.darkroom Gymmy Bob wrote:
: Take the PCB out of your camera and see what it does then.

My cameras work find without any PCBs. No electronics of any kind.


: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.darkroom Gregory W Blank wrote:
: : In article ,
: : "Gymmy Bob" wrote:
: :
: : My pictures have no grain and I don't have to pollute the
environment
: with
: : chemicals to print them.
:
: : Beep wrong answer!!! Digital photography is way way more costly
: : to the environment than film will ever be. Most chemicals for film
: : processing are biologically sound or can readily be made so with
proper
: : care. Producers of Printed circuit boards are some of
: : the worst enviromental offenders in existance & coupled with the lbs
of
: lead in that
: : key board your sharing your "knowledge" with :-) , you haven't a leg
to
: stand on.
:
: The chemicals involved in making the semiconductors make the ferric
: chloride used for
: the PC boards look enviro friendly.
: --
:
:
:
:
: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
: -------------------
:



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

My Pentax miniature does it right in the camera...MORON!

Hard to admit the defeat.....antique boy...isn't it?

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Gymmy Bob wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure
it is
accomplished in various ways.

That would be a neat trick...

Mount camera on tripod.

Take one picture.

Take another.

Take all pictures.

Load them all into software.

Make an image of all of them averaged together.

Stupid moron. That is not a multiple exposure, and not
an ability to _accumulate_ light IN A SINGLE EXPOSURE.

Don't you THINK I know this? Don't you think I have
used the BEST digital equipment and software available?
I HAVE. Try Sinar, a $50,000 digital system and software.
Not your little prosumer P&S.

Digital CANNOT do multiple exposures. It MIMICKS what
film can do with software, but cannot do what film
actually does.

Idiot.


Make an image that has the darkest pixel for an offset.

Make an image that has the brightest pixel for an offset.

Make an image that is the luminance from one image and the hue from
another.

Multiply the images together.

Lower the contrast of one image, average the rest, and raise that to the
power of the decontrasted image divided by the mid-grey value.


This is not a multiple exposure. It a software ***COMPOSITE***

You don't have a clue...

ROFLMFAO...what an idiot. I hope it makes a difference to you because it
doesn't to anybody else.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
"Gymmy Bob" wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
is
accomplished in various ways.

Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).


The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.

you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
terms like "STUPID"?

Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
another "cummulative" digital exposure.

A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.

You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
(or in this case physics.)

Do I really have to "recock the shutter" on my digital?

I don't have to wind my camera up for the last 10 years.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

In message ,
"Gymmy Bob" wrote:

Most digital cameras have a multiple exposure capability. I am sure it
is
accomplished in various ways.

Digital is the most friendly medium to multiple exposure. Not only can
you get an additive light effect, but you can apply any math you can
think of to multiple images; impossible to do with a single frame of
film exposed in multiple shutter-openings (or leaf-openings).


The _biggest_ bunch of B.S. I ever heard.

you simply cannot do a multiple exposure with digital.
Not physically possible. IS there any wonder I use
terms like "STUPID"?

Go ahead. make an exposure, recock the shutter, and make
another "cummulative" digital exposure.

A neat trick, since with digital no exposure is actually
extant on any silicon sensor. it does not and *CANNOT*
retain an exposure. The electrons are dumped as a voltage
as soon as the photodetector wells are filled.

You argue as a troll argues, in oppsition to the facts
(or in this case physics.)

People. Please stop feeding this troll. He is a ****ing idiot and is
disrupting many NGs

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

Your computer is only materials, steel and plastic but no real
computer
exists.

I don't understand this statement....Aren't, "materials, steel and
plastic"
real?


He's _trolling_

You are trolling, troll. Electrons are just as real as reduced metallic
silver.

I didn't crosspost this thread. Did you?

Electrons are real. But electrons are converted to data.
Data represents an image. it's not a real image. No
optical image, no photograph.

It's not that abstract...

What difference does it make how it is done? The fact is I can do multiple
exposures in my camera which dickwad troll says I can't.

He is just trolling and rolls his argument to keep the troll going.

"Harvey" wrote in message
...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Dave Martindale wrote:

Tom Phillips writes:


[...]

And CCDs are quite capable of multiple exposures, as long as you leave
the charge in the CCD between exposures. Why do you think they are not
capable of this?

They *aren't* capable of doing this *as yet* - the charge leaks away quite
quickly on all [photographic] CCD sensors on the market - its one of the
many current limitations of CCD manufacture - pack too many sensors in,
the
capacitors become small and the charge leaks away before you get time to
read it out.

Things are changing though - CCD image area sizes are getting larger -
that
allows the charge capacitors to be bigger and hold the charge longer,
making
true multiple exposure a possibility.

...

Did you mean "you're"?

"Udie Lafing" wrote in message
...

Your a twit, and ever so close to being kill filed"MORON".
--
LOL!!!

Frank Pittel wrote:
In rec.photo.darkroom William Graham wrote:

: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: In rec.photo.darkroom John wrote:
: : On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:42:16 GMT, "William Graham"
: : wrote:
:
: : I have spent 1000s on a 80386 computer too and it sickens me to see
: it
: : rotting after all that monery I spent.
: :
: : I started out with a 386 too....But I upgraded it over the years....I
: am
: : using an ancestor of that same machine even today, although I believe
: : everything that was in that original machine has been replaced by now,
: so
: : there is no part of it left......
:
: : My 486 bit the dust when I did the wonderful static zap to the
: : motherboard. Just got the whole thing working and one little tiny
: : spark and it never booted again. *** sigh ***
:
: : So now I'm running AMD64 3K w/1024 MB PC2700 !! Shortly the
: : 64bit versions of Linux are going to make another lunge ahead and I
: : just might finally migrate (I know Jean-David I know !) to SUSE Linux.
: : I've been trying the Fedora Core 3 Test 3 for AMD64 it really does run
: : better than XP Pro on my system.
:
:
: I'm still trying to get all my PCs migrated to Fedora Core 2. I've got one
: machine
: left and I'm afraid to even try. :-) I've got a lot running on it
: including my mail
: server. I first loaded Caldera on it when Caldera was first released and
: I've been
: adding software by downloading the source and compiling it. This includes
: the kernel.
:
: I just know that most of it isn't going to work when I scrub the drives
: and install
: Fedora. To make matters worse it's my main fileserver and as a result it
: does my
: backups. I can't be without this machine. I'm thinking of buying another
: pc and
: migrating all the services over to it and when I get everything off of it
: then I
: can reload the OS.
:
: If you ever read me tell someone that they shouldn't load all their
: network services
: onto a single machine it's because I've learned the hard way. :-)
:

: Reloading operating systems is always a loser.....The last time I did it, I
: lost all of my "sent email files". this was over 8000 emails that
: represented all of my thoughts and aspirations for the last ten
: years.......Now I know where they are, and how to back them up, but I didn't
: know then, and now it's too late......

It can be a challenge to reload an OS. :-) There are times when it preferable to
start over. Proper layout of the OS and partitioning of the disks can make it
easier.

The idea is to have as much of the OS and OS only on isolated partitions. This way
in theory you can scrub those partitions and reload the new OS on those partitions
in such a way that you don't "upset" user data and other non-OS related software.
Unfortunatly that can be hard to do and unfortunatly it's hard to know how much of
the software is OS dependent.