Sensor Film (for cleaning sensor)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:49:11 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:


The post-peel static issue could be tested easily on any piece of glass.

That wouldn't work, you effin' moron. Because even a one-atom thick layer
of AR coating would change the results. As would even the glass composition
itself if there were no AR layer at all. Soda-glass is on a completely
different place on the triboelectric scale than flint-glass, as is Pyrex
glass or any other glass you care to name. Yes, you can rub two pieces of
glass together to induce a static charge in them both, if they are two
different varieties of glass. You can even pull two piece of the same glass
away from each other and induce a charge in them both if one of them is
backed by a dissimilarly charged substance (i.e. air vs. anything). A
Wimshurst electrostatic generator even works on this principle. The initial
charge started just due to the random variances in electric charges in the
air itself around the Wimshurst machine's plates. So even if both pieces of
glass are surrounded by the same air, pulling them away from each other can
induce a charge. The Wimshurst machine is just a very effective
amplifier/multiplier of this effect.

You can only test this principle on the sensor on which it is used and if
all are using the very same collodion composition in the exact same
environment as everyone else. Since no two sensor designs will have the
exact same AR coating, AR coating layer thicknesses, nor compositions then
your results would be null and void when compared to anyone else's sensors.
For an example of how a one-molecule thick layer can affect things, on some
of 3M's tapes a molecule thick layer is applied to the outside surface to
bleed off a static charge (after the fact). If that is rubbed off then the
tape can be used to induce and hold a charge indefinitely.

Go back to trolling on topics for which you also don't have a clue, but
where your ignorance is much more easily noticed by all others. That way I
don't have to waste my time in correcting you so often. You'll reveal
yourself to be the ignorant fool that you are to everyone and then there's
no need for correction.

Yes I'm sure it's all impossible and hopeless and nothing works.
Very helpful.

On 2010-04-11 14:07:10 -0700, Bruce said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:44:38 -0500, C.P. Robbins
wrote:

Le Snip



My photography work-flow is free and clear of all these image and
opportunity destroying problems. I only buy cameras without all these
encumbrances.


Please explain?

Do you expect "the troll who shall remain nameless" (I know of at least
60+ nyms he uses, or has used) to actually explain anything?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010041108450023810-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-11 05:46:24 -0700, "David Ruether" said:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

http://www.sensor-film.com/cleaning.html
Paint on a rubber stuff then peel off, clean.
Sounds like a good idea, I need to use at least a dozen swabs to get it clean for f/22 macro type shots, plus the bellows pumps
dust like crazy. --
Paul Furman

This one (Dust-Aid) looked really easy to use --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFAGwI_afY0.
Has anyone tried it?
--DR

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...sp?newsID=3008

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Thanks!
--DR

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 00:02:35 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:29:34 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-11 14:07:10 -0700, Bruce said:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 09:44:38 -0500, C.P. Robbins
wrote:

Le Snip



My photography work-flow is free and clear of all these image and
opportunity destroying problems. I only buy cameras without all these
encumbrances.


Please explain?

Do you expect "the troll who shall remain nameless" (I know of at least
60+ nyms he uses, or has used) to actually explain anything?


I apologise. I thought the first part of his reply was interesting
and quite helpful so I didn't suspect it was the troll. Perhaps it
shows that, if he could stop his repetitive ranting, he might actually
have something useful to say.

What you fail to realize is that those who call others a troll are they
themselves the penultimate troll.


There are a plethora of camera designs that are bereft of this unending
sensor cleaning problem.

Leave it to the real trolls to explain likewise.

C.P. Robbins wrote:


There are a plethora of camera designs that are bereft of this unending
sensor cleaning problem.

Leave it to the real trolls to explain likewise.


I laugh about this topic every time it comes up. I've been using
digi-cams for many years and have never had to bother with cleaning a
sensor on any I own, but have seen the effects of sensor dust when I
have tried out other people's. But if you mention these models that
don't have this issue, the crowd here goes nuts about what a POS they are.

Stephanie

On 2010-04-11 21:09:48 -0700, " said:

C.P. Robbins wrote:


There are a plethora of camera designs that are bereft of this unending
sensor cleaning problem.

Leave it to the real trolls to explain likewise.


I laugh about this topic every time it comes up. I've been using
digi-cams for many years and have never had to bother with cleaning a
sensor on any I own, but have seen the effects of sensor dust when I
have tried out other people's. But if you mention these models that
don't have this issue, the crowd here goes nuts about what a POS they
are.

Stephanie

Not quite. We know there are cameras which do not have the dust
vulnerability issue.

Who we have an issue with, is the individual you responded to. If you
are not aware of it, he is a persistent troll, who uses multiple
identities when posting to the photo Newsgroups.
He certainly is one who tries to drive us nuts.
The filters I have set up have mostly eliminated him from my Usenet
World, with the exception of when the odd individual, for whatever
reason, responds to him.
This is one of those times.

Most of us use several different types of cameras, DSLRs, P&S's, and
even film, or custom built rigs.
How does that qualify for your POS label?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:41:22 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-11 21:09:48 -0700, " said:

C.P. Robbins wrote:


There are a plethora of camera designs that are bereft of this unending
sensor cleaning problem.

Leave it to the real trolls to explain likewise.


I laugh about this topic every time it comes up. I've been using
digi-cams for many years and have never had to bother with cleaning a
sensor on any I own, but have seen the effects of sensor dust when I
have tried out other people's. But if you mention these models that
don't have this issue, the crowd here goes nuts about what a POS they
are.

Stephanie

Not quite. We know there are cameras which do not have the dust
vulnerability issue.

Who we have an issue with, is the individual you responded to. If you
are not aware of it, he is a persistent troll, who uses multiple
identities when posting to the photo Newsgroups.
He certainly is one who tries to drive us nuts.
The filters I have set up have mostly eliminated him from my Usenet
World, with the exception of when the odd individual, for whatever
reason, responds to him.
This is one of those times.

Most of us use several different types of cameras, DSLRs, P&S's, and
even film, or custom built rigs.
How does that qualify for your POS label?

So that's how you justify your sensor-crud issues?

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

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
http://www.sensor-film.com/cleaning.html
Paint on a rubber stuff then peel off, clean.
Sounds like a good idea, I need to use at least a dozen swabs to get it
clean for f/22 macro type shots, plus the bellows pumps dust like crazy.

Neat idea.

Before buying this I'd suggest anyone watch the video.

I'm not sure what the gap is between the shutter and the filter. So I'm
concerned that if the shutter is closed while the product is on the
filter glass that it could get into the blades of the shutter (by
contact or splashing from vibration ... it looks viscous so splashing
may not be an issue, but the gap may not be sufficient).

Yeah, that's what the second dab on the paper is for, so the pull tab
doesn't get thwacked by the mirror if the battery fails. Keeping the
mirror locked for 3 hours to dry sounds kind of crazy though.

Not just crazy. If you camera holds the mirror up by electromagnetism
the battery might not be able to do that for three hours.

--
Chris Malcolm

Paul Furman wrote:
http://www.sensor-film.com/cleaning.html
Paint on a rubber stuff then peel off, clean.
Sounds like a good idea, I need to use at least a dozen swabs to get it
clean for f/22 macro type shots, plus the bellows pumps dust like crazy.

You're several days too late for April Fools'.

--
Ray Fischer