Time to chuck the P&S's into the garbage

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
that Andrey Gratchev says he was.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-04-05 21:41:46 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
that Andrey Gratchev says he was.

I did say advocacy, not involvement.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:04:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 21:41:46 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
that Andrey Gratchev says he was.

I did say advocacy, not involvement.

Hmmm .... let's see now .... let's see if we can educate the MORON TROLLS a
bit. Shall we?

If I wasn't involved, then how come I know that the very first Wiki pages
were actually all authored at a completely different site, called
scratchpad.wikia.com The very first site that GrAnd started to help all
the developers share what they found and knew.

Nobody knows those pages even exist today, unless they stumble on them by
sheer astronomically-slim accident.

And if I wasn't involved, then how come out of all those original pages do
I know that the very first proposal of calling it CHDK instead of HDK
appears on this very page at that original site:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CHDK&oldid=243720

NOBODY except someone who has intimate knowledge of the complete project
from the very beginning would have been able to find that online again. I
doubt that anyone even involved in the project today even knows of that
site's existence. And you'll never find it by putting in keywords of GrAnd,
HDK, CHDK in a google search. Try it if you don't believe me.

You PATHETICALLY SAD LITTLE MORON OFF-TOPIC TROLLS

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:04:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 21:41:46 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500, Schneider
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
that Andrey Gratchev says he was.

I did say advocacy, not involvement.

Hmmm .... let's see now .... let's see if we can educate the MORON TROLLS a
bit. Shall we?

If I wasn't involved, then how come I know that the very first Wiki pages
were actually all authored at a completely different site, called
scratchpad.wikia.com The very first site that GrAnd started to help all
the developers share what they found and knew.

Nobody knows those pages even exist today, unless they stumble on them by
sheer astronomically-slim accident.

And if I wasn't involved, then how come out of all those original pages do
I know that the very first proposal of calling it CHDK instead of HDK
appears on this very page at that original site:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CHDK&oldid=243720

NOBODY except someone who has intimate knowledge of the complete project
from the very beginning would have been able to find that online again. I
doubt that anyone even involved in the project today even knows of that
site's existence. And you'll never find it by putting in keywords of GrAnd,
HDK, CHDK in a google search. Try it if you don't believe me.

You PATHETICALLY SAD LITTLE MORON OFF-TOPIC TROLLS

[Update]

Heh, you can't even get to that page if you use google by having it search
that site by itself, by appending site:scratchpad.wikia.com onto the search
string. It's not even in google's cached pages.

LOL!!!

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:36:39 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:


Thanks for the information and explanation of things; I understand
what you're doing, and why you don't give out certain information
better now.

Thanks for "getting it". As well as validating my earlier comment of

"Here's some reprints of previous posts in the distant past to try to
explain it to people far less intelligent than you."

:-)

Rich wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, Michael wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:
Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
road it may carry value as "antique").

I'd hang onto it. These things are already becoming collector's
items. What is missing from cities that we need are museums of
electronics.

I saw an identical model to my 5-year old Razr cell phone at the Museum
of Modern Art this week g. In a photography exhibit with some old
cameras etc.
http://www.sfmoma.org/exhibitions/408
-link doesn't show that part...

Some of the progression in the various fields is fascinating.

On 4/8/2011 9:36 AM, John A. wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:43:00 -0700, Paul
wrote:

Rich wrote:
On Apr 4, 11:35 pm, Michael wrote:
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011, RichA wrote:
Check out prices for used DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/133620667

Hey, I got my DSLR for free.

It really uses batteries fast. It's bulky, and then there are the add on
lenses. I'm not sure my cardreader can even read the cards, so old they
are. And I don't have a spare serial port on my computer to make use of
the serial interface on the camera (and later computers don't even have
serial ports).

It's a massive 1.6MP camera. Must have cost a fortune when bought new,
it has little value now other than history (and likely some time down the
road it may carry value as "antique").

I'd hang onto it. These things are already becoming collector's
items. What is missing from cities that we need are museums of
electronics.

I saw an identical model to my 5-year old Razr cell phone at the Museum
of Modern Art this weekg. In a photography exhibit with some old
cameras etc.
http://www.sfmoma.org/exhibitions/408
-link doesn't show that part...

Some of the progression in the various fields is fascinating.

I saw a watch like one I used to have in an exhibit at the Smithsonian
Air& Space Museum a couple weeks ago. It was near the entrance to a
section on the impact of digital technology on flight testing&
aircraft design methods. IIRC they also had a Little Professor toy
much like one I had when I was a kid.


Let's bring this back to photography. I found a camera for supy:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/37266852/vintage-kodak-camera-hot-pink-mickey

--
Peter

On 4/6/2011 2:39 AM, Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:04:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 21:41:46 -0700, tony said:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:15:54 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-04-05 20:10:11 -0700, tony said:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:06:19 -0500,
wrote:

None of the examples cite exact specs for each piece used, or brand
names, so I'm having to guess quite a bit; it's not what I'd call
really laid out plainly.

I try to never mention brand names. For starters, I don't want others to
know exactly what I use to get such phenomenal performance.

Oh, c'mon. Tell us the brand of the camera you used to take that
fuzzy, muddy, out-of-focus shot of the rare moth. Tonka? Mattel?
TootsieToy? Cracker Jack?

An informed guess, would be some variety of Canon given his advocacy of CHDK.

I'll believe that Mothboy was involved in the CHDK project the day
that Andrey Gratchev says he was.

I did say advocacy, not involvement.

Hmmm .... let's see now .... let's see if we can educate the MORON TROLLS a
bit. Shall we?

If I wasn't involved, then how come I know that the very first Wiki pages
were actually all authored at a completely different site, called
scratchpad.wikia.com The very first site that GrAnd started to help all
the developers share what they found and knew.

Nobody knows those pages even exist today, unless they stumble on them by
sheer astronomically-slim accident.

And if I wasn't involved, then how come out of all those original pages do
I know that the very first proposal of calling it CHDK instead of HDK
appears on this very page at that original site:

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CHDK&oldid=243720

NOBODY except someone who has intimate knowledge of the complete project
from the very beginning would have been able to find that online again. I
doubt that anyone even involved in the project today even knows of that
site's existence. And you'll never find it by putting in keywords of GrAnd,
HDK, CHDK in a google search. Try it if you don't believe me.

You PATHETICALLY SAD LITTLE MORON OFF-TOPIC TROLLS

[Update]

Heh, you can't even get to that page if you use google by having it search
that site by itself, by appending site:scratchpad.wikia.com onto the search
string. It's not even in google's cached pages.

LOL!!!

Would it be out of order to speculate on the value of a web page
inaccessible to all but those who know the actual address. But if the
content of such pages were as informative as this ng, one might be
welcome being spared being directed to such a site.