Full Moon Handheld

On Oct 28, 4:34 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:


An Earth south pole view would reveal more of the dark side because the
phase angle would be higher, about 5 to 6 degrees. Think about it:
at first quarter moon, the phase angle is 90 degrees and you see
a half disk. At 180 degrees phase, you see a total solar eclipse and
there is no sunlight crescent, and conversely at 0 degrees phase
you see no shadows.

"phase angle" is the angle between the line sun-moon and the line moon-
earth, is that correct? Otherwise I don't get it...

He's So Funny! wrote:

A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA TAKEN
THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg

NOW LET'S COMPARE IT TO A $15,000 DSLR IMAGE OF THE MOON. SHALL WE? (judging by
the lower-right, it appears they were taken within hours of each other, do note
the exact same amount of detail in that region)

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...83f-8s-800.jpg

Find the double crater Messier A and B in the P&S image. You can't.
Not only does it not resolve the double crater, you can't even see a hint
of it in the image. Nor can you see the double ray from the craters.
On the DSLR image Messier A and B are clearly resolved and separated
by 6 pixels, the double ray is cleanly resolved, and the image shows a
little detail within the craters (e.g. sunlit on one side). The P&S
image, while a nice image by itself, is lower in spatial detail
by about 10x, and much noisier.

My original post implied no contest, and you have just shown if you make
a contest, there there is no contest.
And you are off on the price of the camera (too high).

And you continue to show everyone what a lying foul-mouthed troll you are.
Get some help.

Roger

acl wrote:
On Oct 28, 4:34 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

An Earth south pole view would reveal more of the dark side because the
phase angle would be higher, about 5 to 6 degrees. Think about it:
at first quarter moon, the phase angle is 90 degrees and you see
a half disk. At 180 degrees phase, you see a total solar eclipse and
there is no sunlight crescent, and conversely at 0 degrees phase
you see no shadows.

"phase angle" is the angle between the line sun-moon and the line moon-
earth, is that correct? Otherwise I don't get it...


Yes.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
He's So Funny! wrote:

A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA
TAKEN
THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg

NOW LET'S COMPARE IT TO A $15,000 DSLR IMAGE OF THE MOON. SHALL WE?
(judging by
the lower-right, it appears they were taken within hours of each
other, do note
the exact same amount of detail in that region)

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...83f-8s-800.jpg


Find the double crater Messier A and B in the P&S image. You can't.
Not only does it not resolve the double crater, you can't even see a hint
of it in the image. Nor can you see the double ray from the craters.
On the DSLR image Messier A and B are clearly resolved and separated
by 6 pixels, the double ray is cleanly resolved, and the image shows a
little detail within the craters (e.g. sunlit on one side). The P&S
image, while a nice image by itself, is lower in spatial detail
by about 10x, and much noisier.

My original post implied no contest, and you have just shown if you make
a contest, there there is no contest.
And you are off on the price of the camera (too high).

Wait, you paid MORE than $15,000 for your DSLR? Where did you go,
Circuit City??

On Oct 28, 5:16 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:
acl wrote:
On Oct 28, 4:34 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

An Earth south pole view would reveal more of the dark side because the
phase angle would be higher, about 5 to 6 degrees. Think about it:
at first quarter moon, the phase angle is 90 degrees and you see
a half disk. At 180 degrees phase, you see a total solar eclipse and
there is no sunlight crescent, and conversely at 0 degrees phase
you see no shadows.

"phase angle" is the angle between the line sun-moon and the line moon-
earth, is that correct? Otherwise I don't get it...

Yes.

Very cool, thanks!

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:12:13 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" wrote:

He's So Funny! wrote:

A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA TAKEN
THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!

http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg

NOW LET'S COMPARE IT TO A $15,000 DSLR IMAGE OF THE MOON. SHALL WE? (judging by
the lower-right, it appears they were taken within hours of each other, do note
the exact same amount of detail in that region)

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...83f-8s-800.jpg

Find the double crater Messier A and B in the P&S image. You can't.
Not only does it not resolve the double crater, you can't even see a hint
of it in the image. Nor can you see the double ray from the craters.
On the DSLR image Messier A and B are clearly resolved and separated
by 6 pixels, the double ray is cleanly resolved, and the image shows a
little detail within the craters (e.g. sunlit on one side). The P&S
image, while a nice image by itself, is lower in spatial detail
by about 10x, and much noisier.

My original post implied no contest, and you have just shown if you make
a contest, there there is no contest.
And you are off on the price of the camera (too high).

BULL****! The ONLY reason you posted these was that a $400 P&S camera CLEARLY
beat your MkII and L-glass earlier this month with hand-held images of the moon.
You couldn't STAND the fact that you couldn't even reach the resolution of a
hand-held P&S camera even after slamming your DSLR on a sturdy tripod and
locking that image jarring mirror out of the way. Otherwise you would have had
NO reason to try to reproduce a hand-held image of the moon. YOU are a ****ING
LIAR and we ALL KNOW IT!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

As far as the resolution and spatial detail goes. Let's not forget that the S3's
image was taken THROUGH the smoke and heat-waves of dense county-wide fires. But
of course, that wouldn't have anything to do with it in your mind. Your lousy
piece of **** DSLR is better, right? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH, by the way. Didn't
you know? I regularly seek out super-novae in distant galaxies using my own
telescopes. I know all about "seeing" conditions. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor poor distraught and childish little Roger, boo-****ing-hoo ... he doesn't
know what to do now after seeing that TWO P&S cameras from two different
companies costing less than $400 each can beat or nearly equal his crap DSLR and
L-glass.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you have to pick out pixel level details to try to prove that $13,000 worth
of camera and optics is better than a $350 camera ... you're just sadder than
sad! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep trying to prove to yourself that that crap DSLR was worth the cost! I'm
sure you'll find a way!

SOME day!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sure doesn't show up in any artistic merit of yours, it's value must lie in
its resolution ..... or SOMEthing! Keep trying to find it!

LOL!!!!!!

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:20:56 +0000, He's So Funny! wrote:


THANKS -- FOR PROVING YET AGAIN -- NOBODY BUT THE IGNORANT AND STUPID
BUY DSLRS!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So you have dozens....


--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l

He's So Funny! wrote:
Otherwise you would have had
NO reason to try to reproduce a hand-held image of the moon. YOU are a ****ING
LIAR and we ALL KNOW IT!

Wrong. 1) it is a challenge. 2) it allows me to quantify the
resolution I can achieve because I sometimes do wildlife action
hand held. Quantification helps improve my technique.
I determined in this test that I can achieve 2-arc-second
hull-width-half-maximum on the point spread function.
Next I might try Jupiter and Saturn (tougher challenges and lower
light).

As far as the resolution and spatial detail goes. Let's not forget that the S3's
image was taken THROUGH the smoke and heat-waves of dense county-wide fires.

Try again. Maybe someday you'll actually learn the
difference.

Poor poor distraught and childish little Roger, boo-****ing-hoo ... he doesn't
know what to do now after seeing that TWO P&S cameras from two different
companies costing less than $400 each can beat or nearly equal his crap DSLR and
L-glass.

Factors of 10 in resolution, and not in your favor. Your the one
crying and so jealous your foul mouth spews hate and lies.

Try this with your P&S:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-v1.6-700.html
It is performance like this that illustrates why higher end
cameras perform so much better than a P&S, and simple physics
tells us why.

Until you learn that different tools have different purposes and
no one tool can do everything, you are simply showing your ignorance and hate
here.

Roger

Cynicor wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
And you are off on the price of the camera (too high).

Wait, you paid MORE than $15,000 for your DSLR? Where did you go,
Circuit City??

If $15,000 is *too high* ......

The 1D Mark II was $4500, the 500 f/4 L IS was $5400,
and the 2x TC was about $200 for a total of ~$10,100.

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
And you are off on the price of the camera (too high).

Wait, you paid MORE than $15,000 for your DSLR? Where did you go,
Circuit City??

If $15,000 is *too high* ......

The 1D Mark II was $4500, the 500 f/4 L IS was $5400,
and the 2x TC was about $200 for a total of ~$10,100.

I know, I'm just funnin' ya.