A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 09, 07:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Re AL Ity
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

[typo correction]

I've been noticing a quite interesting pattern over the last three decades.
It seems that the most innovative features always appear on P&S camera's
first, film & digital. Only years later do d/SLR owners finally wake-up and
decide they not only want but NEED those features too.

Examples:

Auto-focus first appeared on P&S film cameras. / dSLR owner's now can't
live without it.

Live-View LCD display. / dSLR owner's can't live without it once they
discover its many benefits. Even better if their LCD display is
articulated, opening up many more photography options that they didn't
previously know exist.

Silent Operation / Well, they'll never get this. But they keep trying to
get their cameras quieter. There's just so much you can do to isolate the
noise from that slow slapping mirror and archaic focal-plane shutter that
doesn't move faster than 1/250 of a second over their sensor. They pride
themselves on buying the quietest dSLRs they can find, never realizing that
all P&S cameras are totally silent if you mute the unneeded sound-effects
using a menu option.

Live Histograms / Many wish they could find a way to get this if it's not
already in their dSLR's much-wanted Live View feed.

Shutter-Speed Preview that exists in nearly all P&S cameras' EVF/LCD
displays. / They don't even know what this is, they're forever calling it
viewfinder-lag in their ignorant error, but many want it once they
understand what it's for and how to use it.

Built-in flash on P&S film and digital cameras came first. / They love the
convenience if their dSLR now has one. Even choosing dSLR models based on
their built-in flash output.

Video modes first appeared in P&S digital cameras. / The most expensive pro
models of dSLRs must now have it.

Smaller and lighter cameras. / They keep trying!

Long zoom lenses with wide aperture. / They wish for this all the time so
they don't have to change lenses so often, while always busy missing shots
and getting dust on the sensor, not finding out that all their images are
ruined until they get home. They'll never get the large apertures at long
zoom lengths that can be designed for P&S cameras. Envy doesn't even begin
to describe how this makes them feel and act.

These are just of the few of many features that first appeared on P&S
camera models that dSLR owners either hope to have one day or MUST have
now. P&S cameras will always be at the forefront of innovation and adapting
to more myriad shooting styles and possibilities. It's been this way for
decades.

You'd think that with them wanting so many features for the last several
decades that are already on P&S cameras, film and digital, they'd try
harder in finding those P&S cameras today that rival the images from their
dSLRs. Many P&S cameras do just that, for a long time now.

Oh well. As has been said time and time again, dSLR owners are none too
bright. I guess that's what makes them dSLR owners.



  #2  
Old July 31st 09, 12:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
dwight[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag


"Re AL Ity" wrote in message
...
[typo correction]


[post correction]


dwight


  #3  
Old July 31st 09, 12:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
MC[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

"Re AL Ity" wrote in message
...
[typo correction]

I've been noticing a quite interesting pattern over the last three
decades.
It seems that the most innovative features always appear on P&S camera's
first, film & digital. Only years later do d/SLR owners finally wake-up
and
decide they not only want but NEED those features too.

Examples:

Auto-focus first appeared on P&S film cameras. / dSLR owner's now can't
live without it.


Don't need but it's handy.


Live-View LCD display. / dSLR owner's can't live without it once they
discover its many benefits. Even better if their LCD display is
articulated, opening up many more photography options that they didn't
previously know exist.


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.

Silent Operation / Well, they'll never get this. But they keep trying to
get their cameras quieter. There's just so much you can do to isolate the
noise from that slow slapping mirror and archaic focal-plane shutter that
doesn't move faster than 1/250 of a second over their sensor. They pride
themselves on buying the quietest dSLRs they can find, never realizing
that
all P&S cameras are totally silent if you mute the unneeded sound-effects
using a menu option.


Again, not a necessity. In fact there is a certain satisfaction of hearing
the shutter and mirror after pressing the button and I prefer it to a
"silent" camera (or one with "toy like" sound effects).

Live Histograms / Many wish they could find a way to get this if it's not
already in their dSLR's much-wanted Live View feed.


Nope. Never found the need. A skilled photographer shouldn't need this
facility.

Shutter-Speed Preview that exists in nearly all P&S cameras' EVF/LCD
displays. / They don't even know what this is, they're forever calling it
viewfinder-lag in their ignorant error, but many want it once they
understand what it's for and how to use it.


Why? I have all the info I need in the "real" viewfinder, instantly and
with no lag.

Built-in flash on P&S film and digital cameras came first. / They love the
convenience if their dSLR now has one. Even choosing dSLR models based on
their built-in flash output.


Nope. Built in flash is just a toy. Serious photographers use a flash gun.

Video modes first appeared in P&S digital cameras. / The most expensive
pro
models of dSLRs must now have it.


Must have? Don't think so. Waste of time and effort. If you need video you
buy the correct tools for the job.

Smaller and lighter cameras. / They keep trying!


The camera has to feel right. A bit of weight can aid steady shooting.

Long zoom lenses with wide aperture. / They wish for this all the time so
they don't have to change lenses so often, while always busy missing shots
and getting dust on the sensor, not finding out that all their images are
ruined until they get home. They'll never get the large apertures at long
zoom lengths that can be designed for P&S cameras. Envy doesn't even begin
to describe how this makes them feel and act.


Again, we are talking quality. Some of the best quality glass is only
available for use on SLR systems.

MC


  #4  
Old July 31st 09, 05:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

MC wrote:

Auto-focus first appeared on P&S film cameras. / dSLR owner's now can't
live without it.


Don't need but it's handy.


It's important to understand that when auto-focus was introduced, it
was an effort to expand the camera market (non-"fixed-focus") from
professionals and enthusiasts to the general public who had gotten used
to the convenience of the "fixed-focus" Instamatic cameras. The camera
makers than had the idea that they could also expand the market for SLRs
by adding auto-focus to those as well. It worked well and everyone
seemed to have one of those Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, or Minolta
film SLRs.

Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.


It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.

Again, not a necessity. In fact there is a certain satisfaction of hearing
the shutter and mirror after pressing the button and I prefer it to a
"silent" camera (or one with "toy like" sound effects).


Well if you're taking photographs in church, or at a performance, the
silent operation is nice, but many SLRs have electronic shutters that
can do this as well, and you don't lose the advantages of a mechanical
shutter.

Live Histograms / Many wish they could find a way to get this if it's not
already in their dSLR's much-wanted Live View feed.


Nope. Never found the need. A skilled photographer shouldn't need this
facility.


It's more useful on a P&S because of the severe limitations of the
sensor. It's not much use on a D-SLR. Certainly you'd never give up the
optical viewfinder in order to get a live histogram. I have CHDK on my
Canon P&S cameras, and I use the histogram on occasion, but part of the
reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!

Shutter-Speed Preview that exists in nearly all P&S cameras' EVF/LCD
displays. / They don't even know what this is, they're forever calling it
viewfinder-lag in their ignorant error, but many want it once they
understand what it's for and how to use it.


Why? I have all the info I need in the "real" viewfinder, instantly and
with no lag.


The lag of electronic viewfinders is a big problem, mentioned by all the
professional reviewers. An EVF is certainly better than no VF at all,
but it's a poor substitute for an OVF. Unfortunately, the expense of
adding an OVF, that works properly with zoom lenses, to a point and
shoot is so high that most manufacturers have dropped it.

Nope. Built in flash is just a toy. Serious photographers use a flash gun.


Actually higher end P&S digital cameras copied SLRs and added a flash
shoe because the convenience flash on the P&S is hopelessly weak. Some
of the D-SLRs have a usable convenience flash.

Must have? Don't think so. Waste of time and effort. If you need video you
buy the correct tools for the job.


It's useful when you don't want to carry around a separate video
recorder. It was an effort by the D-SLR manufacturers to move
down-market to attract less technically sophisticated P&S users.

The camera has to feel right. A bit of weight can aid steady shooting.


The higher end ultra-zoom P&S cameras are larger than some of the
smaller D-SLRs, yet you still get far inferior image quality with the
P&S. However it is true that you can't get a pocket D-SLR but you can
get a pocket P&S.

Long zoom lenses with wide aperture. / They wish for this all the time so
they don't have to change lenses so often, while always busy missing shots
and getting dust on the sensor, not finding out that all their images are
ruined until they get home. They'll never get the large apertures at long
zoom lengths that can be designed for P&S cameras. Envy doesn't even begin
to describe how this makes them feel and act.


Again, we are talking quality. Some of the best quality glass is only
available for use on SLR systems.


The P&S makers love to talk about telephoto range because the tiny
sensor and the resulting crop factor means that they're getting what is
essentially a large, mandatory, digital zoom. But in fact you can just
as easily crop a photo from a D-SLR, taken with a much shorter focal
length lens, and end up with a superior result because the lenses and
sensor are so much better on the D-SLR.

For wide-angle, the high crop factor P&S really sucks. You can find a
couple of higher-end P&S models with 28mm at the wide end, but to go to
true wide-angle you need to use a kludge of lens adapters of mediocre
quality.

What we're seeing now, with the huge increase in sales of digital SLRs
and the lagging sales of P&S digital cameras, is a repeat of what
happened back in the late 1970's to the 1990's. As the general public
realizes the huge advantages of the D-SLRs, the volumes go up and the
prices fall. There's even a greater incentive to move from a digital P&S
to a digital SLR than their was to move from a film P&S to a film SLR.
Back in the film days, everyone had access to the same sensors--you
bought them on rolls and chose the one that best suited your needs at
the time. AF on the film P&S was much faster than what's now on the
digital P&S cameras. So you have the two biggest issues with digital P&S
cameras, the poor low-light/high-ISO performance (due to the small
sensor and the resultant small pixels) and long AF time (due to the
contrast detect auto-focus, and the small sensor and the resultant small
pixels) driving D-SLR sales in a way that film P&S cameras could never
drive the sales of film D-SLRs.
  #5  
Old July 31st 09, 09:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
CHDK Wiki Author
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

MC wrote:


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.


It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.


Proving that you've never held any camera. Phase may be faster but more
prone to back and front focusing problems at the worst times. Contrast
detection is always more accurate. I choose accuracy over speed, any day.
Do you want an erratic car with sloppy steering that can go 200mph or one
that can easily stay on the road at 150mph? Accuracy wins, always.

reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!


After this huge lie of yours, there's no sense replying to the rest. I
personally wrote about 90% of the CHDK Wiki. All you managed to do was try
to invent what you though CHDK was supposed to do, because you've never
used CHDK, and then you ****ed-up all the information that was already
there. We eventually had to ban your IP from having any access to editing
the CHDK Wiki. It took many weeks to try to correct all your wild
imaginings where you injected your nonsense on the CHDK Wiki. Not too
different than what happens in all the newsgroups. Everyone always has to
wipe up the piles of bull**** that you leave behind after you've been
through some place. You're like some massive role-play-life troll with
bull**** diarrhea everywhere you go on the net.

Keep your nose out of places where you don't know what you are talking
about. You can start by never posting in any newsgroup that has the string
..photo. in it.

  #6  
Old July 31st 09, 09:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
l v
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

MC wrote:


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.

It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.


Proving that you've never held any camera. Phase may be faster but more
prone to back and front focusing problems at the worst times. Contrast
detection is always more accurate. I choose accuracy over speed, any day.
Do you want an erratic car with sloppy steering that can go 200mph or one
that can easily stay on the road at 150mph? Accuracy wins, always.

reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!


After this huge lie of yours, there's no sense replying to the rest. I
personally wrote about 90% of the CHDK Wiki. All you managed to do was try
to invent what you though CHDK was supposed to do, because you've never
used CHDK, and then you ****ed-up all the information that was already
there. We eventually had to ban your IP from having any access to editing
the CHDK Wiki. It took many weeks to try to correct all your wild
imaginings where you injected your nonsense on the CHDK Wiki. Not too
different than what happens in all the newsgroups. Everyone always has to
wipe up the piles of bull**** that you leave behind after you've been
through some place. You're like some massive role-play-life troll with
bull**** diarrhea everywhere you go on the net.


Not that I really want to hear what you have to say, but tell me why I
would want to run a hacked and unsupported firmware on my camera?

I tried CHDK once. Removed it after about 15 minutes as it was very
buggy and made my camera, IMO, unusable, more importantly unstable.


--
Len
  #7  
Old July 31st 09, 10:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
CHDK Wiki Author
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:58:37 -0500, l v wrote:

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

MC wrote:


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.
It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.


Proving that you've never held any camera. Phase may be faster but more
prone to back and front focusing problems at the worst times. Contrast
detection is always more accurate. I choose accuracy over speed, any day.
Do you want an erratic car with sloppy steering that can go 200mph or one
that can easily stay on the road at 150mph? Accuracy wins, always.

reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!


After this huge lie of yours, there's no sense replying to the rest. I
personally wrote about 90% of the CHDK Wiki. All you managed to do was try
to invent what you though CHDK was supposed to do, because you've never
used CHDK, and then you ****ed-up all the information that was already
there. We eventually had to ban your IP from having any access to editing
the CHDK Wiki. It took many weeks to try to correct all your wild
imaginings where you injected your nonsense on the CHDK Wiki. Not too
different than what happens in all the newsgroups. Everyone always has to
wipe up the piles of bull**** that you leave behind after you've been
through some place. You're like some massive role-play-life troll with
bull**** diarrhea everywhere you go on the net.


Not that I really want to hear what you have to say, but tell me why I
would want to run a hacked and unsupported firmware on my camera?


This proves that you've never used CHDK. You didn't even read the main FAQ
on the CHDK Wiki. It's not a "hacked firmware". It doesn't touch the
original firmware. It's an overlay, an intermediate program to access the
camera's firmware which is re-loaded from the memory card every time you
turn on the camera. If not auto-booted or manually loaded from your memory
card each time then it doesn't exist to the camera.


I tried CHDK once. Removed it after about 15 minutes as it was very
buggy and made my camera, IMO, unusable, more importantly unstable.


Again, proving that you've never used CHDK. It's one of the most stable
hacks that has ever existed in its nearly three years of existence. The
only time there are some instability issues is during the porting process
of a new camera model or a different firmware version when users have to
test it to make sure all the correct camera's firmware memory locations
have been found for that particular model and firmware version. Once those
memory locations are found there are no other issues to contend with. CHDK
is used by many thousands of people, lab research personnel, professionals,
Canon employees included, it has never harmed even one camera. A Canon rep
even gave approval of its use when someone asked Canon about warranty
issues. Either you've never used it or you're so inept that you couldn't
even figure out how to use its simplest features. CHDK is meant for
advanced photographers who have need of all it can do. It's definitely not
intended for the typical snapshooter nor typical DSLR owner. Both, one in
the same.

No sense in trying to convince a complete liar of something that they don't
want to be convinced of nor learn about. Or in the other case, someone so
stupid that they couldn't even learn how to use it. I'd only be wasting my
valuable time trying to do that. Besides, you don't even want to hear what
I have to say. So why should I bother.

But I will take my time to expose you for what you truly are.

Go back to what you do best, just like SMS, enjoying being an ignorant
troll who doesn't even know how to use a camera.



  #8  
Old August 1st 09, 12:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
l v
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:58:37 -0500, l v wrote:

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

MC wrote:


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.
It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.
Proving that you've never held any camera. Phase may be faster but more
prone to back and front focusing problems at the worst times. Contrast
detection is always more accurate. I choose accuracy over speed, any day.
Do you want an erratic car with sloppy steering that can go 200mph or one
that can easily stay on the road at 150mph? Accuracy wins, always.

reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!

After this huge lie of yours, there's no sense replying to the rest. I
personally wrote about 90% of the CHDK Wiki. All you managed to do was try
to invent what you though CHDK was supposed to do, because you've never
used CHDK, and then you ****ed-up all the information that was already
there. We eventually had to ban your IP from having any access to editing
the CHDK Wiki. It took many weeks to try to correct all your wild
imaginings where you injected your nonsense on the CHDK Wiki. Not too
different than what happens in all the newsgroups. Everyone always has to
wipe up the piles of bull**** that you leave behind after you've been
through some place. You're like some massive role-play-life troll with
bull**** diarrhea everywhere you go on the net.

Not that I really want to hear what you have to say, but tell me why I
would want to run a hacked and unsupported firmware on my camera?


This proves that you've never used CHDK. You didn't even read the main FAQ
on the CHDK Wiki. It's not a "hacked firmware". It doesn't touch the
original firmware. It's an overlay, an intermediate program to access the
camera's firmware which is re-loaded from the memory card every time you
turn on the camera. If not auto-booted or manually loaded from your memory
card each time then it doesn't exist to the camera.

I tried CHDK once. Removed it after about 15 minutes as it was very
buggy and made my camera, IMO, unusable, more importantly unstable.


Again, proving that you've never used CHDK. It's one of the most stable
hacks that has ever existed in its nearly three years of existence. The
only time there are some instability issues is during the porting process
of a new camera model or a different firmware version when users have to
test it to make sure all the correct camera's firmware memory locations
have been found for that particular model and firmware version. Once those
memory locations are found there are no other issues to contend with. CHDK
is used by many thousands of people, lab research personnel, professionals,
Canon employees included, it has never harmed even one camera. A Canon rep
even gave approval of its use when someone asked Canon about warranty
issues. Either you've never used it or you're so inept that you couldn't
even figure out how to use its simplest features. CHDK is meant for
advanced photographers who have need of all it can do. It's definitely not
intended for the typical snapshooter nor typical DSLR owner. Both, one in
the same.

No sense in trying to convince a complete liar of something that they don't
want to be convinced of nor learn about. Or in the other case, someone so
stupid that they couldn't even learn how to use it. I'd only be wasting my
valuable time trying to do that. Besides, you don't even want to hear what
I have to say. So why should I bother.

But I will take my time to expose you for what you truly are.

Go back to what you do best, just like SMS, enjoying being an ignorant
troll who doesn't even know how to use a camera.




A complete liar? What are you? 3 years old. Who talks like that? sheesh.

You don't read so well. I *have* used CHDK, despite what you believe.
I wanted to see what it was about. I fell into believing the propaganda
written about CHDK. Now knowing you wrote most of the wiki information
However you are too dense to believe you could ever be wrong. Proving
you have never used your brain before. I'm not going to waste my
valuable time reading your brain farts. I know you must be hurting with
the economy and all, but find a way to get back on the meds you were
taking. wow. You need some help. You should consul with your minister
or rabbi or whatever. You're going to blow a gasket if you don't come
back to reality.

Not a hack? Since you wrote the majority of the CHDK wiki, Let's see
what the wiki has to say ......

Since you did not provide what CHDI wiki you wrote, I obtained the
following from http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK.

It says:
quote
CHDK is a firmware ADDON CHDK does not replace the original firmware,
and does not make any permanent changes to the camera. Instead, it is
loaded from the SD card, either at startup or using the built in menu.
/quote

Ok. I give you that. You are right that it does not replace the
original firmware.


Continuing to read on .....

quote
HDK stands for Canon Hack Development Kit;
/quote

hmmm. Let's read that again.
HDK stands for Canon *Hack* Development Kit. By the very definition
of the acronym, it's a hack.

Regardless of if it replaces the vendors firmware or sits on top of it,
the camera is still running a hacked set of code not supplied by the
camera vendor.


Continuing to read on .....
quote
CHDK is experimental and comes with no warranty
/quote

Yeah. Again why would I want to do this to my camera? I don't do it to
my computer, car, cell phone, etc. I can't believe you advocate using
CHDK so loosely. You make it sound to be the best think since sliced
bread with potential risks at all.

As for the remaining drivel you spewed in your response to me, is not
worth the time.

Until you learn what you are talking about, shove off!

--
Len
  #9  
Old August 1st 09, 02:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
CHDK Wiki Author
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:04:07 -0500, l v wrote:

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:58:37 -0500, l v wrote:

KILL-POST CHDK Wiki Author wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:25:34 -0700, SMS wrote:

MC wrote:


Don't need and don't use so that's blown that theory out of the water.
It's a nice option if the D-SLR also shoots video, or if the LCD is a
tilt/swivel LCD. But the downside is that when you use the LCD you
switch to contrast detect AF instead of the much faster phase detection
auto-focus.
Proving that you've never held any camera. Phase may be faster but more
prone to back and front focusing problems at the worst times. Contrast
detection is always more accurate. I choose accuracy over speed, any day.
Do you want an erratic car with sloppy steering that can go 200mph or one
that can easily stay on the road at 150mph? Accuracy wins, always.

reason I use CHDK is because I did so much work on the documentation
that I feel that I have a stake in its success!

After this huge lie of yours, there's no sense replying to the rest. I
personally wrote about 90% of the CHDK Wiki. All you managed to do was try
to invent what you though CHDK was supposed to do, because you've never
used CHDK, and then you ****ed-up all the information that was already
there. We eventually had to ban your IP from having any access to editing
the CHDK Wiki. It took many weeks to try to correct all your wild
imaginings where you injected your nonsense on the CHDK Wiki. Not too
different than what happens in all the newsgroups. Everyone always has to
wipe up the piles of bull**** that you leave behind after you've been
through some place. You're like some massive role-play-life troll with
bull**** diarrhea everywhere you go on the net.

Not that I really want to hear what you have to say, but tell me why I
would want to run a hacked and unsupported firmware on my camera?


This proves that you've never used CHDK. You didn't even read the main FAQ
on the CHDK Wiki. It's not a "hacked firmware". It doesn't touch the
original firmware. It's an overlay, an intermediate program to access the
camera's firmware which is re-loaded from the memory card every time you
turn on the camera. If not auto-booted or manually loaded from your memory
card each time then it doesn't exist to the camera.

I tried CHDK once. Removed it after about 15 minutes as it was very
buggy and made my camera, IMO, unusable, more importantly unstable.


Again, proving that you've never used CHDK. It's one of the most stable
hacks that has ever existed in its nearly three years of existence. The
only time there are some instability issues is during the porting process
of a new camera model or a different firmware version when users have to
test it to make sure all the correct camera's firmware memory locations
have been found for that particular model and firmware version. Once those
memory locations are found there are no other issues to contend with. CHDK
is used by many thousands of people, lab research personnel, professionals,
Canon employees included, it has never harmed even one camera. A Canon rep
even gave approval of its use when someone asked Canon about warranty
issues. Either you've never used it or you're so inept that you couldn't
even figure out how to use its simplest features. CHDK is meant for
advanced photographers who have need of all it can do. It's definitely not
intended for the typical snapshooter nor typical DSLR owner. Both, one in
the same.

No sense in trying to convince a complete liar of something that they don't
want to be convinced of nor learn about. Or in the other case, someone so
stupid that they couldn't even learn how to use it. I'd only be wasting my
valuable time trying to do that. Besides, you don't even want to hear what
I have to say. So why should I bother.

But I will take my time to expose you for what you truly are.

Go back to what you do best, just like SMS, enjoying being an ignorant
troll who doesn't even know how to use a camera.




A complete liar? What are you? 3 years old. Who talks like that? sheesh.


No, it is said by anyone who found someone else to be a liar and does so to
alert all others that a complete liar has been discovered. Learned adults
use the phrase often when they want to expose someone who does nothing but
perpetuate lies, fabrications, and misinformation--you know, people like
you.


You don't read so well. I *have* used CHDK, despite what you believe.
I wanted to see what it was about. I fell into believing the propaganda
written about CHDK. Now knowing you wrote most of the wiki information
However you are too dense to believe you could ever be wrong. Proving
you have never used your brain before. I'm not going to waste my
valuable time reading your brain farts. I know you must be hurting with
the economy and all, but find a way to get back on the meds you were
taking. wow. You need some help. You should consul with your minister
or rabbi or whatever. You're going to blow a gasket if you don't come
back to reality.


From this diatribe of yours I'm guessing you to be, oh ... about 16 years
old?


Not a hack? Since you wrote the majority of the CHDK wiki, Let's see
what the wiki has to say ......

Since you did not provide what CHDI wiki you wrote, I obtained the
following from http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK.

It says:
quote
CHDK is a firmware ADDON CHDK does not replace the original firmware,
and does not make any permanent changes to the camera. Instead, it is
loaded from the SD card, either at startup or using the built in menu.
/quote

Ok. I give you that. You are right that it does not replace the
original firmware.


Hey! He learned something! I was sure you were just like all the other
pretend-photographer trolls around here that never do. It is however
obvious that you never learned the above from ever having used CHDK in the
past. If you had ever used CHDK in the past you'd have wondered why it
disappeared from the camera if it wasn't on the SD card you were using at
the time. Knowing it is not "hacked-firmware" is obvious to the most novice
of initiates after the first time they have used it.


Continuing to read on .....

quote
HDK stands for Canon Hack Development Kit;
/quote

hmmm. Let's read that again.
HDK stands for Canon *Hack* Development Kit. By the very definition
of the acronym, it's a hack.


CHDK actually stands for "Canon Hacker's Development Kit", but whoever
changed it since I first authored the CHDK home-page and FAQ didn't get it
quite right. I saw no need to go back and edit it. I still don't, a waste
of my time. That person's typo actually came in handy just now to make you
look like an even bigger fool. I even originally coined the term CHDK.
GrAnd (the original author of CHDK) was forever calling it just HDK, until
I let him know that there are thousands of hacker's development kits in the
world. Searching for HDK on the net would have been difficult to weed out
the one for Canon cameras. He let the new "CHDK" stand after I proposed the
minor change to the name.

BTW: "hack" doesn't mean hacked-firmware. But then you're too stupid to
know this.


Regardless of if it replaces the vendors firmware or sits on top of it,
the camera is still running a hacked set of code not supplied by the
camera vendor.


Then do without all the vast benefits it adds to any camera supported by
it. Won't matter to me in the least. In fact, if people like you (and troll
SMS, you're one of SMS's many socks, right?) stayed away from CHDK
completely it will only make the world of CHDK and the world of photography
a much better place. Many other happy and educated CHDK users wouldn't then
spend countless hours of their lives trying to educate people like you on
how to load and run it, much less teaching you how to use all its advanced
features that boggle your mind. Just as I'm wasting my time now in having
to correct your blatant misinformation and lies.



Continuing to read on .....
quote
CHDK is experimental and comes with no warranty
/quote

Yeah. Again why would I want to do this to my camera? I don't do it to
my computer, car, cell phone, etc. I can't believe you advocate using
CHDK so loosely. You make it sound to be the best think since sliced
bread with potential risks at all.


Enjoy allowing your psychotic paranoia to rule your life, others have
better things to do.

"No warranty" doesn't mean it's going to automatically harm your camera.
Not even one of the thousands and thousands of cameras it has been ran on
in three years of CHDKs existence has been harmed by CHDK.

NOT ONE.

GrAnd used to post how many times CHDK got downloaded each month from his
original site a couple years ago, but I've since lost track of that, it's
not that important. Last count about two years ago was something like
20,000 a month when a new feature was added. None of us really care how
many use it today. Those who do use it know why it's so worth it. You, and
I, would be surprised how many download CHDK today, many dozens of
thousands more in the last year no doubt.


As for the remaining drivel you spewed in your response to me, is not
worth the time.

Until you learn what you are talking about, shove off!


Nice to see that you visited the CHDK Wiki even once in your lifetime. But
what you pulled from it doesn't discount one thing that I said here, does
it. That's why I know what I'm talking about. I started, and wrote, most of
the original info on the FAQ and the rest of the Wiki too. Well, at least
the "User's Info" sections, not the info there for programmers and porters,
the real CHDK Gurus. I wrote most of the FAQ because I got so tired of
idiots like you asking the same lame questions over and over again in
forums. I also authored the original home-page (changed a bit now from the
original because there was so much more to add); the GrAnd, AllBest, and
MoreBest manual pages (which others just copied and put into the PDF
manual, often wrongly reinterpreting some things in their PDF versions);
the uBASIC tutorial page; the scripts pages, as well as authored many of
the most popular scripts for CHDK; started and designed most of the content
and available grids of the Grids page; the high-speed photography page; the
lightning photography info; to many other pages that I don't even remember
now. Little has changed on those pages since I first authored all of them.
(Except for the time that Troll-SMS tried to destroy them all with his odd
pretend-photographer's imaginings and they all had to be repaired.)

Including even writing the opener to the "THANKS" page. Which you should
read. It contains the comments from just a few of the many CHDK users who
have actually used and continue to use CHDK (unlike you) and what they
think of it. There's almost two-hundred different people (not socks, like
you) on this page that prove you to be nothing but a troll and a fool.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:THANKS

Anyone can do a Google search for CHDK and find hundreds if not thousands
of blogs and even popular magazine websites espousing the virtues of using
CHDK. A quick Google for just CHDK returns 210,000 hits. A search on Flickr
for CHDK returns 13,118 hits. Many magazines also published tree-ware
articles on the existence and benefits of CHDK. You wouldn't believe how
many DSLR owners wish for and beg the programmers for the ability to run
CHDK on DSLRs. They're still trying to get some of CHDK's more minor
functions into their DSLRs. Most of the better features of CHDK are
impossible to add due to the DSLR's archaically slow focal-plane shutter
and limited OVF systems. We're basically leaving DSLRs in the dust (on
their sensors).

I also spent two years helping the main CHDK programmers design and
fine-tune many additions to CHDK. Many of the concepts in CHDK were my own
ideas that the programmers thought worth adding.MX3's amazing
motion-detection coding was added because he saw me trying to do it first
(awkwardly) using simple uBASIC scripts of mine. They partially worked but
were far too slow. His coded version is now fast enough to catch
lightning-strikes with 45ms response times. Luckily he also accepted my
input for needing customizable motion-detection grids and other features he
added to that feature. I also discovered (by experimenting with existing
CHDK features) that these cameras could go to 1/40,000 second shutter
speeds with full flash-sync. Something that even the programmers refused to
believe until I proved it to them with photographic evidence of my own.
They then added that into the main code. In two flavors, by 1/3-EV steps or
a more scientific method using fractional-numeric input. Handy for those
doing scientific studies, but far too confusing to the layman photographer.
They wanted to remove the fractional-numeric method but I insisted they
leave it in when explaining how many people could benefit from the more
precise shutter-speed selection method in science studies and labs. Which
it is used for today. One person from a highly-acclaimed plasma
research-lab even posted a photo of an experiment he was doing with plasma
fusion, no other cameras could do what he needed.

Many of the coders are more into programming than photography, they needed
a real (and creative) professional photographer's input to make it what it
is today. I got sick to death of camera manufacturers handing out tiny
little advances in a piece-meal format over the years. Adding some meager
new features, taking good ones away from the previous years, just to make
sales each year on the advice of their accountant bean-counters (who are
the ones really designing your cameras for you). I wanted a camera with all
of the features seen to date, and more, including ones they hadn't even
thought of adding. My photography skills and vast variety of subject matter
demand all that CHDK can do today. The two years of my time and help to the
CHDK project was well worth it to finally get a camera that I can be proud
of owning after all these years of moving over to digital cameras. I am
forever indebted to the CHDK programmers that made my dreams come true. Not
to say that I'm the only one that came up with ideas for the great features
in CHDK. FAR from it. But I did have a huge impact in what CHDK has now
become.


This was a pretty poor attempt of yours at trying to "save face" with my
having proved that you're nothing but a liar and a troll who's never even
been near CHDK before. But even more sadly it didn't work, did it. Try
Hara-Kiri next time to try to save-face. That might work. If you don't
miss, as you did here.

Find a new topic to troll about. One where someone can't make your
fabrications, lies, and complete inexperience so transparent to all.

Have a fun life being nothing but a miserable little pretend-photographer
troll. Others of us do important things for the world of photography, like
creating things like CHDK for everyone. Well, except for those poor DSLR
owners, they can't be helped. Their choice, their problem.

  #10  
Old August 1st 09, 03:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default P&S Trolls Mental Lag

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
ReAL Itchy wrote:

I've been noticing a quite interesting pattern over the last three decades.


Your mental age isn't even one decade ... so you probably made
it all up.

It seems that the most innovative features always appear on P&S camera's
first, film & digital.


Obviously, the most innovative features always appear first in
Germany and, today, are first mass produced by Japan.

Only years later do d/SLR owners finally wake-up and
decide they not only want but NEED those features too.


Sure.

Examples:


carefully selected and you get them still wrong ... sheesh!

Auto-focus first appeared on P&S film cameras.


Nope, it first appeared in Leica patents.
The first P&S to actually use AF used ... a phase detection AF.
Slow, not too clever, but an early phase detecion AF. Just like
SLRs and DSLRs use today.

/ dSLR owner's now can't live without it.


Electricity first appeared in amber, trolls now can't live
without it.

Live-View LCD display.


Idiot troll doesn't know what the D in LCD stands for. But then,
LCDs were invented completely independent of P&S cameras, too.

Extensive use of such cameras has only proven to me that a real
optical viewfinder is way more flexible.

Silent Operation


Invented by the very first exposures ever done. Nothing to do
with P&S.

Live Histograms


Invented in digital image manipulation software like Photoshop.
Nothing to do with P&S.

Shutter-Speed Preview


Marketese for 'display lag'.

Built-in flash


Only idiots and trolls see that as anything but image-destroying
convenience. It's as innovative as throwing rocks.

Video modes


were invented for television. TV camera systems with the
capabilities of storage, replay and even slow motion were available
before WWII.

Smaller and lighter cameras.


Were invented with the third or fourth camera invented ...
and always compromise the image quality after some point.

Long zoom lenses with wide aperture.


.... are not found in P&S cameras. They cannot even boast a real
200mm lens --- an easy job for DSLRs --- the best P&S cameras
can do is less than 100mm ... but trolls love to cheat with crop
"factors" or 'viewing angles'.

These are just of the few of many features that first appeared on P&S


Sure. Like
.... parallax free images. First found on SLR cameras, P&S only
gained a inferior version with electronic sensors.
.... fast and reliable AF. P&S AF lag is legendary.
.... viewfinders without *mandatory* 'Shutter-speed preview'.
.... low noise even at high ISO settings.
.... creative chances with small DOF (medium and large format
cameras are even better).
.... changeable lenses. The wins are obvious to all.
.... directly affecting all important parameters with wheels for
fast and accurate changes.
.... many decades of knowledge about finding the best user
interfaces.

But P&S cameras do have a few innovative features:
- oil painting (just select a higher ISO setting).
- electronically corrected lenses (the lenses are so bad that
you must correct their many short comings at *any* price)
- being cheap enough to be thrown through the air on selftimer
- bad shot preventer: the camera will not switch on fast enough
for a bad, but important image of whatever you wanted to record.
- eye protector: in sunshine, you need the dark tunnel viewfinder
or the EVF, thus reducing the amount of sunshine and UV light
that will reach your eyes.
- testbed for the limits of anti-shake systems ... holding cameras
at long arms is a good way to test these systems to the max.
- good random source generators (tiny sensors with pixels way
smaller than the airy disks produce lots high-quality noise)
- inbuild phones and MP3 players and games (because the
camera qualities are nothing to write home about)
- huge, unnecessary megapixel numbers (to help those with too
small dicks)
- changing all parameters by going down three levels in a menu,
this is called 'user friendly' (because you could put smileys
into the menu, and because flipping through unneeded menues
can calm you down when you again loose a shot due to that).
- muscle training: draining batteries quickly with all the LCDs and
EVFs needed causes you to shlep more batteries, thus increasing
your health.

There must be many more 'good' sides I must have forgotten.

Oh well. As has been said time and time again, dSLR owners are none too
bright. I guess that's what makes them dSLR owners.


Yes, they are selling their images. That's not too bright, when
they could listen to your drivel and loose their sales thanks to
P&S features.

-Wolfgang
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag Re AL Ity Digital SLR Cameras 16 August 2nd 09 05:32 AM
dSLR Photographer's-Mental-Lag Re AL Ity Digital Photography 15 August 1st 09 10:46 PM
New Canon EOS dSLR photographer's resource site [email protected] Digital Photography 0 February 7th 06 06:55 PM
Want to learn how to killfile the mental midgets Matt Ion Digital Photography 2 July 29th 04 06:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.