Moonset Over Zion

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:58:05 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:

On Jul 26, 8:26*pm, Ofnuts wrote:

Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?

Ehmm, with CHDK the aperture has to be f/8 for 1/40000 s.
Pretty much useless for photography but good for trolling.

There is a reason why no manufacturer makes such ridiculous fast
shutters.
But there are flashes that go up to 1/20000 but not for toy cameras.

DanP

Correct, not for toy cameras like DSLRs. The flash for some CHDK P&S
cameras can fire with pulse durations as short as 1/224,000 of a second
with perfect full-frame shutter sync at 1/40,000 of a second, as already
measured and confirmed. We're not talking about your crippling slow and
lame DSLR flash units and agonizingly slow image distorting focal-plane
shutters designed last century.

Got any more of your ignorance and stupidity that you wish to advertise to
the whole world?

LOL!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:

On Jul 27, 1:18*am, LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:

On Jul 25, 10:23*pm, LOL! wrote:

WRONG! Fool. That helicopter shot WAS taken with a DSLR.

What? You expect me to take your word for it?

This was taken with a DSLRhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/professoraa/2728062620/
Not perfect but far better than your example.

Oh yes, that's *SO* much better! Deformed AND BLURRED now!

Not deformed. See a stationary one
http://www.tzlee.com/gallery/main.ph...serialNumber=1

DanP

Wow, what an advantge, minorly deformed AND BLURRED.

LOL!

Keep trying you stupid **** of a pretend-photographer TROLL.

LOL!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:13:19 -0700 (PDT), DanP wrote:

On Jul 27, 9:04*am, LOL! wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:30:31 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:



On Jul 27, 1:18*am, LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:40 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:

On Jul 25, 10:23*pm, LOL! wrote:

WRONG! Fool. That helicopter shot WAS taken with a DSLR.

What? You expect me to take your word for it?

This was taken with a DSLRhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/professoraa/2728062620/
Not perfect but far better than your example.

Oh yes, that's *SO* much better! Deformed AND BLURRED now!

Not deformed. See a stationary one
http://www.tzlee.com/gallery/main.ph...loadItem&g2_it...

DanP

Wow, what an advantge, minorly deformed AND BLURRED.

Not even minorly. Tips are exctly like you see them, bent, that is
their design. See the stationary photo again.

Look at the tail-rotor you ****ingly useless role-playing DSLR-TROLL.

LOL!

On 27/07/2010 05:29, LOL! wrote:

Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
Because we aren't talking about shooting fried animals, are we?

I suggest you use Google to find all the interesting ways that those
shutter speeds are being used today.

I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.


Thanks for proving to the world just how lame you are by your highly
ignorant reply

LOL!


--
Bertrand, FUMILAPP (****ing useless moron, lame ignorant, and pretend
photographer)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:35:17 -0700 (PDT), DanP wrote:

On Jul 27, 10:23*am, LOL! wrote:

Look at the tail-rotor you ****ingly useless role-playing DSLR-TROLL.

LOL!

It is like that.
http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/Csa/ah-64a.htm
Doh

DanP

Not only are you a ****ingly useless DSLR-TROLL, but you're ****ingly BLIND
too.

LOL!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:56:38 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 27/07/2010 05:29, LOL! wrote:

Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
Because we aren't talking about shooting fried animals, are we?

I suggest you use Google to find all the interesting ways that those
shutter speeds are being used today.

I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.


And one shot using those shutter speeds outside of the range of ANY DSLR
ever made was already posted, you useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL.

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...


I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.



You do know why hummingbirds hum.
They don't know the words.

--
Peter

On 27/07/2010 13:00, LOL! wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:56:38 +0200,
wrote:

On 27/07/2010 05:29, LOL! wrote:

Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
Because we aren't talking about shooting fried animals, are we?

I suggest you use Google to find all the interesting ways that those
shutter speeds are being used today.

I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.


And one shot using those shutter speeds outside of the range of ANY DSLR
ever made was already posted, you useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL.

Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
the natural light for it. So you have a Formula One car, but you can
only use it on dirt tracks...

--
Bertrand, FUMLIPPAUFOADT (****ing useless moron, lame ignorant, pretend
photographer, useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL )

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:48:01 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 27/07/2010 13:00, LOL! wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:56:38 +0200,
wrote:

On 27/07/2010 05:29, LOL! wrote:

Just wondering... f/4, 1/40000s is about 19.3EV at 100ISO (and f/2.7,
1/12500s is 19.5), and still 17.3EV@400ISO. Given that the best natural
lighting is 16EV@100ISO (midday sunlight on sand or snow) what kind of
natural, non-flash lighting is used to take pictures at f/4, 1/40000s?
Because we aren't talking about shooting fried animals, are we?

I suggest you use Google to find all the interesting ways that those
shutter speeds are being used today.

I suggest you learn to read.... I asked about natural light... we are
talking abour shooting hummingbirds here.


And one shot using those shutter speeds outside of the range of ANY DSLR
ever made was already posted, you useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL.

Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
the natural light for it.

Right. I guess that's why this one taken in available light ONLY at
1/12,500 second shutter speed is outside of the range of natural light for
it.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg

Holy **** are you ever a **** of an ignorant troll.

On 27/07/2010 14:15, LOL! wrote:

Yes, but also outside the range of the CHDK camera,because it won't have
the natural light for it.

Right. I guess that's why this one taken in available light ONLY at
1/12,500 second shutter speed is outside of the range of natural light for
it.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/4822194301_20db930412_b.jpg

Holy **** are you ever a **** of an ignorant troll.

Nothing in that shot indicates it has been taken at such a speed. The
bird isn't even flying. Of course, given the slow AF of a P&S, shooting
a perched bird is a lot easier. And assuming it has really been taken at
that speed, is that the best picture quality you can get? It's appalling...

--
Bertrand, FUMLIPPUFOADTCOAIT (****ing useless moron, lame ignorant,
pretend photographer, useless **** of a DSLR-TROLL, **** of an ignorant
troll)